It'll be Christmas at least before I can see the 48fps version, but I can already tell that it's not going to make as dramatic a difference for me as it would for you, since I think I watch these movies differently than most people. All the Peter Jackson Tolkein movies have an inherent corniness that I just accept implicitly — it's how Return of the King can paradoxically be one of my favorite movies of all time and have a scene with a bunch of hobbits frolicking on a bed in slow motion.

There's a promoted forum post on The Verge today that seems to make the same basic argument you're making, that the higher frame rate requires more subtle performances, make-up, and effects. I'm inclined to think that with something like The Hobbit, the goal isn't quite immersion but spectacle. I never felt like I was supposed to be suspending my disbelief.

Maybe the Lord of the Rings movies would've been better for this than The Hobbit, since the former is combining stilted epic fantasy with an action movie, while the latter is combining stilted epic fantasy with slapstick. I'd have to see what you mean by "a different type of movie" being better suited to the format; something more prosaic would have absolutely no appeal at all; that's basically just video. The whole appeal of seeing the movie again in 48fps is seeing places like Rivendell in greater clarity, and effects like Gollum interacting with a human. Maybe something that's already a "cleaner" and more artificial setting than Middle Earth? During the trailers I found myself wondering how the new Star Trek and the new sci fi movie with Tom Cruise would look like in the higher frame rate, since they'd be combining special effects spectacle with more sterile environments.