Film makers have a wide variety of creative tools available to them to help them tell a story, of which HFR is one. We're talking about art, not a technical quest to reproduce reality as closely as possible.
And they look like soap operas.
So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too.
And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection.
This is wrong, wrong and wrong.
Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality".
; )
Not quite. Shooting at 48fps requires a faster shutter speed than 24fps (1/48 vs 1/96) which gives you less motion blur.
And if the film maker wants blur sometimes, they can still add it, without compromising the entire film.
It reminds me of video games, in a way. GPU's are constantly being improved, and we get closer and closer to producing real-time photo-realistic graphics every day... and yet there is still plenty of room for games like Super Mario or Team Fortress 2, which don't want or need to look realistic to be fun.
So anything that 24fps can do, 48fps can do too.
I'm not sure what your point is. If a film maker frame doubled 24fps and projected it using a HFR system nobody would regard it as HFR.
And I don't buy the crazy idea that someone using 24fps during an entire movie would someone be the achievement of some visual art perfection.
This is wrong, wrong and wrong.
I didn't say that.
Also I have to laugh quite a bit at you describing a movie called "The hobbit" which shows dragon, trolls, elfes, magicians, etc. as "trying to reproduce reality".
I didn't say this either.