I'm interested in seeing it both ways.
Typically the movie look is complex, involving dozens of factors including film, filters, lenses, etc.
One of the bigger ones is that most films are filmed at 24 frames per second, about the slowest you can go that people won't notice flickering.
This means you can expose the film up to one twenty fourth of a second, so anything that moves during the exposure of a single frame is blurred by the motion. A director might choose to have a short exposure time, which reduces blur, but brings everything seemingly into better focus. This looks hyper real to people.
They might also choose to use he full exposure time available, giving the greatest natural motion blur possible, and making the film appear, to some, silky smooth in a way.
Tv has typically been 30 frames per second, so a movie which has a higher frame rate and less motion blur might remind one of tv.
Further, most sports today are shot at 60 frames per second, giving little motion blur, but a very strong feeling of "being there" as though in person at the event.
Some post processing is used to extend the exposure artificially for blur which would only be possible if shooting at lower than a 24fps rate.
So by moving to 48 frames per second, Jackson is getting less blur, and people will feel that it's less like a movie, and more like tv. What they should be feeling is that it's more like life. However people go to movies to escape life, and enjoy a different world, so it may backfire.
I'm curious if he's post processing to convert to 24fps to get back the typical movie blur or not.
But I'm one of those that enjoys the newer 3D movies when actually shot in 3D, I enjoy HD video, and I expect that while it will be different than a silky smooth movie, I suspect there's some value in this.
But we will see. It could simply be yet another thing to try and keep people in theaters, rather than at home.
