One of the biggest benefits of HFR (48FPS) is specifically for 3D. 3D project is actually "triple flashed" at 144FPS (72FPS/eye). This accentuates the (camera and subject) motion issues w/ 24FPS, so HFR is a way of trying to get around that - and having just seen the Hobbit in 3D HFR today, it seems to do a pretty good job at it. Fast motion is crystal clear - it's really astounding.
That being said, I agree about the aesthetic adjustment. The intro scene in the Shire/Bag End in particular... just looks bad. Similarly the way the set/makeup/lighting looks. IMO, the most CG parts of the movie looked best because at least it didn't have that "live theatre" look. I think most films won't adopt HFR because it may just be too hard/expensive to make things look good.
Another part of it seems to be the DOF choice - it's just incredibly deep/clear which IMO is *not* realistic at all - when you look at something in real life, that's just not how your foveal/peripheral vision works, at least for me. Sure the clarity is nice for spectacle, but not so much for immersion.
And lastly, of course people (especially people that watch lots of films) have an expectation of what a film should look like and HFR totally breaks that.
Still, I'm sure that people had this sort of discussion w/ the switch from B&W to Color or w/ Talkies, soI guess time will tell.