I, on the other hand, having grown up with mostly playing games at 60 FPS (the PS2 ran the games I played at 60 FPS, back when console games prioritized gameplay over looking pretty in screenshots), and have moved on the 144 FPS on PC, find the 24 FPS used in cinemas to feel agonizingly choppy. Especially when there’s a big sweeping paniramic shot. It sometimes takes me out of the experience. I really liked the 48 FPS when watching the hobbit movies.

I've grown up with FPS games too so it's not like i'm not used to 60FPS... i'm just saying from a film watching perspective, it starts feeling game like. There's been a number of articles dedicated to this perception, the general preference (whether you are consciously aware of it or not) is for <60FPS in film, the reasoning is that it gives this sort of dreamy state of perception, much like an animation, it relies on your subconscious to fill in the gaps, it makes a film feel more like a story than a documentary. On the other hand I agree that in some scenes this doesn't work well, fast moving wide angle shots of landscapes look awful. It will be interesting if film makers care enough about this detail in the future to play with it, perhaps as a newly adjustable dimension to film making (variable frame rate). So long as you don't consciously perceive the low frame rate (i.e it's matched to the movement of the scene) I think 24fps is ok, and preferable when it somehow activates that visually creative part of your visual perception. This would even be compatible with existing tech if you simply chose a high frame rate which is a multiple of the various frame rates you want to choose for different scenes.