"no i will be watching 24fps films for the remainder of my life, which may be 40 more years. if all new films went up 1fps per year i would still go out to the movies in 20 years and be like “wtf is this crap?”"
The Hobbit looked great at 48fps. Higher FPS failed only because reactionary people as yourself irrationally rejected it because "it looks weird!".
You need to understand that 24fps is a compromise chosen to save film. It is the bare minimum frame rate to have smooth motion under most but not all circumstances. It really hurts action films because anything moving too fast has excessive motion blur.
Permanently rejecting faster frame rates for movies is like rejecting printed text in favor of handwritten manuscripts. You are rejecting a technological advance for extremely arbitrary reasons. If 23 or 25 or 30fps had become the standard you would be insisting that it was just as special.
That’s correct - because then we’d have 100 years of movies embedded in our collective cultural shared experiences that are 25 or 30fps.
The point is the cultural significance, not the specific framerate. The chosen framerate is now significant because of the body of work that has been done in that format, and the inextricable experience of that framerate with that body of work.
It is anything but arbitrary! It’s a very real thing. The tyranny of the installed base is a well-documented phenomenon. In this case the installed base is the fond memories of a few billion people. Pretending that they are all irrational for not wanting higher framerates is plainly objectively incorrect, as a point of fact.
The Hobbit looked great at 48fps. Higher FPS failed only because reactionary people as yourself irrationally rejected it because "it looks weird!".
You need to understand that 24fps is a compromise chosen to save film. It is the bare minimum frame rate to have smooth motion under most but not all circumstances. It really hurts action films because anything moving too fast has excessive motion blur.