I think that's why he said "in the future", when people might eventually realize that 60FPS is good.
Films at 24fps are precisely the same thing. Their lack of detail and realism is precisely what has made the medium so successful over the last 100 years.
I love watching 48/50/60 FPS for psychedelic things or music visualization (and games of course ! like most of gamers) but it should be used carefully and intentionnally by the content director / producer. Some scene/content would require high motion blur and some others scene/content high framerate...
It's a great example of a happy accident, or serendipity.
Ang Lee shot Billy Lynn at 120fps and Sony Pictures had every intention to distribute it in 120fps. In fact they created a version at 24fps for legacy sites, 60fps as well as a 120fps version. At the last minute the studio pulled the 2 HFR versions and released only the 24fps version (note: not pulled for technical reasons) I've seen 20 minutes of the 120fps version and personally did not like the look.
It remains to be seen if James Cameron can utilize HFR in a manner that the general public finds appealing. He has stated that the Avatar features will utilize high framerates in some way.
I can believe that some scenes might benefit from the visual effect of a lower framerate, but I can also imagine other scenes, such as complex action and long horizontal pans might benefit from higher framerates. Also I think the "too real" feeling might work quite well to convey grittier settings.
We saw the second one in 24fps 2d (we mostly avoid 3D because we rarely care enough about it to pay extra, but it was the only way to see the first one in 48fps) because we both hated the first one's presentation so much, so I don't know whether we'd have experienced it in that one.
I've never had the same impression from TV or home movies which is 50/60 fps.
I for one, don't like that kind of high frame rate motion -- it looks as fake as bad CGI graphics.
I saw all the Hobbit movies in 24fps, and—especially (at least, this is where it first really stuck firmly I in my mind as wrong) in the underground scenes in the first, but also in parts of the other two—had a similar impression.
I think it had to do with some other element of cinematography particular to that film series, though it's quite plausible that 48fps exacerbated it.
Maybe it would be possible to shoot at 60fps or even higher and then dynamically adjust the frame rate to keep the 24fps but smooth some scenes as required?
Film or video shot at high framerates will necessarily have to be shot at higher shutter speeds than films shot at a lower fps. This has an obvious visual impact on the image.
As you need to add VFX, basically all content is shot with as fast a shutter as possible, and you add the motion blur back in post. And, as you rightly mentioned, when you do that you can choose any shutter speed in post.
Dealing with motion blur when rotoscoping is a bitch, btw.
Making it look good is akin to polishing a turd.
I do believe someone will crack this nut (as Cameron did with 3D). But it's going to take the right project and very creative filmmaking techniques. Personally, I think the first one that works will be a sci-fi in a sterile setting, so the HFR will work with the narrative, not be a distraction.