All this controversy has to be good for “The Hobbit”. Hopefully it will generate a lot of free marketing and raising awareness of the film.
Most of the general commentary on the topic is pretty moot. Very few people have seen the actual footage. Those that did, saw a 10 minute show reel with lots of cuts, not the best basis on which to form an opinion.
The film will actually be released in traditional 24fps, 2D film print edition too. So those that have a real issue with the aesthetics can see it that way anyway.
Film is not just a visual medium, the visuals should be in service of the narrative. We like to experience good stories, with strong visuals. The actual look and feel of a film is less important than the quality of the story telling and how it is served by those visuals. People put up with watching movies transmitted in 4:3 pan and scan 60hz interlaced NTSC on 20” TVs for decades and still enjoyed them.
You might not like the aesthetics of the 48fps, 3D 4K digital projection of “The Hobbit”, but if it is a well executed story then to dismiss it only due to the aesthetic is foolish.
Ishtar* and Heaven’s Gate* didn’t suddenly become good films because they were shot on film, with good production design and projected at 24fps. The story telling still sucked. “The Hobbit” won’t be a disaster in 48fps if the story telling is good. (*insert poor film of choice, I assume you get my point.)
You can even see it twice, once in 48fps 3D and then 24fps 2D and at least have a subjective opinion based on the full evidence before you pronounce the folly of 48fps digital cinema, if that is the way you see it.