I simply can't comprehend how rough of an existence it is for these people. As for me, growing up on a Vic 20 and my imagination to entertain me, when technology improves, it does just that- improves. 3D, when done with the Cameron technology, is simply amazing (Avatar was as immersive an experience as one can have in a theater) and 48fps is 24fps better than before.

This is an improvement, and the luddites need to step out of the way and let some progress be made for once. The LOTR series is still the best three movies ever made- perfection at every level. There is nothing you could say to convince me Jackson's hands on the two Hobbit movies won't make them slide right up into the top five as easy as a scalding knife through butter. The man is a genius, and has proven he can make amazing films with amazing technology. Nothing will be different this time.

If people want it to be grainier, they can rub dirt on their glasses. The rest of us want to feel like we're *there*- like it's reality. That's what this will do.

Just another example of how people CLAIM to be all for innovation, but in practice reject anything that seems "different".

First we jump over to digital… then it was 3D… what next? Contemporary cinema has lost its way.

I would argue that 3D is still a problem for most movies other than those released in the early going after Avatar. Avatar was the one movie so far that made 3D seem feasible, and other moviegoers have struggled mightily to find an audience for it. Even Hugo, a critic's darling and supposedly a herald of 3D movie making by a master artisan, failed to make headway.

48FPS might be the future. In fact, at some point I wouldn't be surprised if the kids who start their moviegoing experience with 48FPS movies begin to see 24FPS like many of us see B&W TV. But there will be a period where many, if not most of us struggle to accept it.

To those growing up with 1080 HDTV and 85 fps graphics, cinema looks worse. It has to leap ahead again, and it will. In time, we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.

Nobody rents a VHS for the olde-world feel.

It makes movies feel more like theater than cinema. When I first got the TV, I really noticed the makeup and excessive hairspray on men a lot. Also, the props in sci-fi movies look like they were foam or plastic (since that is actually what they are). Iron Man, for example, looked very plasticy.

It only took a week or two to get used to it and now I mostly don't notice it anymore and actually prefer the crisper looking images. It's especially great for documentaries such as Planet Earth where everything is more life like. I know some people have difficulty getting used to it.

I recall being quite taken aback by it. It was TOO realistic looking. The film did 'star' a few people, and when they were in conversation, I don't know how to explain it' but everything seemed…slow motion. I THINK because the brain is having to process so much more information.

Although it LOOKED great, almost 3D, it was entirely too realistic and because of the 'time slowing' effect, I could not ever imagine seeing a real narrative movie in this format. I was indeed left with a very disconcerted feeling at age 13.

Needless to say, I can't recall another Disney attraction in the last 35 years that used the higher fps.

Tl;dr, I had a feeling once people saw this high frame rate, it would not go over very well.

And yes, I notice the difference between 24, 48 and 60+ fps.
I also always complained that any computer screen that operates under 60Hertz is complete crap and gives me headaches.

Why does Hollywood keep cramming this stuff down our throats? If I wanted something realistic, I'd walk outside.