Doing work in this industry its like... WOOOOOWWWWW. Lots of confused people here.
OK so as we all know 24 fps is a relic from an older time when it was the standard hand crank not too expensive way to make a movie. However I'm surprised no one has mentioned in theaters you view a movie at 48fps. Each frame is put up twice to reduce the flicker effect (basically nullified) and it works. It is a format we are used to and a lot of us (I'd say especially myself) love.
Now before you go nuts realize that its not like film speeds aren't already screwed with in filming. Higher speeds and lower speeds are sometimes used. Watch Gladiator. Some of those fight scenes were shot at 22 or 23 FPS and played back at normal speed (24) and gave it a very choppy effect. It was actually one of the first things I ever asked about in a film class - why did that look how it did and why did soap operas look the way they do? Bruce Lee fight scenes were apparently sometimes shot at 25 and played back at 24 because he moved so fast (frickin awesome eh?!).
Now all that I just mentioned was always aimed at 24fps in the end (or 48 theater/60fps on your TV). 60 will give a different look. Less motion blur with film but less would be needed. Its just how the format works. Digital? Ehhhh... who knows. I can point out nearly any movie that was shot in digital because it still doesn't emulate film and the intricacies of the physical/chemical interactions of light on the film. The RED One camera is the closest and best as of yet, as are the Phantom HD Camera and the Panavision Genesis, yet a lot of films that haven't used the RED One only used digital for high speed sequences where problems with motion blur is an issue. (you can tell) So digital it really really depends on what you use and how you use it.
G33K, I know what you were trying to show but it was a bad example because the camera used shot crappy 24p. I mean... crappy. Even its 60p had some *blegh* to it. Plus we don't know what codec/transcoding methods were used which changes damn near everything if you aren't careful.
At the end of the day I'll tell you this. James Cameron wont use a crappy camera, lens, lighting, or anything to tell his story. Whether you liked the story or not he never skimps on the materials. And that is so much. Because so much happens between what is in front of the camera to what you see on whatever screen you're viewing. I mean you have choices in:
-what camera you use
-what film you use
-digital processing (if done on film)
-formats used in editing/CGI
-TV viewed on choices
-motion interpolation technology
And that's not nearly everything. If he shoots at 60fps it will be very very quality and top notch production value. So while I love 24fps looking films more than probably any of you here,
, I'll wait and see what it looks like in the end.
Sorry this is so long but I wanted to clear some stuff up and I've done at least 200 hours of research into this subject not including first hand experience. Any questions I'll answer.