Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

I'm not sure how the 3D aspect plays into this, but I'm happy to hear about an increased native frame rate. It's about time!

Some people are asking if this will be playable at home (theaters with digital projectors will possibly be able to show the double rate with a firmware upgrade). As usual the guesses from the crowd are way off base. There's no way to get 48 fps native from a 1080p24 Blu-ray player. But... If one were to take a 3D player, and use the right eye for the extra frame, it'd be possible to watch the full 48 fps on a 3D TV without glasses (it wouldn't be 3D, obviously).

This is the first time I've been excited about 3D technology, just to get the double frame rate for 2D content.

I like it too, but I'm very sensitive to SHE and motion blur in general. My bet is that the majority of "film purists" will hate it though and go so far as to call it video.

The story was just picked up on Slashdot. Someone jokingly said, "but 24fps is warmer."

But yeah, tons of people saying that they like the strobing, and blur. Yeesh.

I saw a computer graphics video demo on a wrap-around screen at SGI up in Northern California in the late 90s that was rendered at 60fps. I think it was a flight simulator. I remember the uncanny smoothness of it all.

I kind of like the idea of 48 fps. I was always amazed at how 24 fps was "film" speed, when science class in middle-school taught me that 30 fps is smooth motion. As long it doesn't look like those "enhancements" that some of the 120Hz and faster TV's do that makes movies and TV look fake. I just want smooth and no jagged motion.

As with all things, interpolation is no substitute for actual data. 48fps will look different than "film", mostly because it'll look more realistic.

Ebert has been calling for directors to increase frame rate for years. Two examples I could find appear in his blog entries below:
link 1
link 2