Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's better. And complaining doesn't automatically place one in the wrong side of history.
See 3D films. It keeps reappearing and with it the usual stream of complaints and people dismissing those complaints. However, audiences end up rejecting it after a while, for their own fuzzy reasons that may or may not be related to the complainers' arguments. This is already happening to the current 3D technology, I wonder why...
HFR fits this perfectly. It's new, but it isn't clear if it will hold with audiences. It's the audiences that decide if it's better.
As for CGI... That's a bad example. CGI is generally a good thing, but too much of it isn't.
I don't think it's better because it's new. I think it's better because it's a higher frame rate. It's not some new stylistic choice, it's just more information. It's better in the same way that a higher bandwidth Internet connection is better, or a phone with longer battery life.
I also don't think that 3D films is better in the same absolute sense, although I actually do think 3D is pretty good in theaters. The dizziness complaints about 3D are very valid because of physical implementation details, but I don't think the same about similar complaints about HFR.
See 3D films. It keeps reappearing and with it the usual stream of complaints and people dismissing those complaints. However, audiences end up rejecting it after a while, for their own fuzzy reasons that may or may not be related to the complainers' arguments. This is already happening to the current 3D technology, I wonder why...
HFR fits this perfectly. It's new, but it isn't clear if it will hold with audiences. It's the audiences that decide if it's better.
As for CGI... That's a bad example. CGI is generally a good thing, but too much of it isn't.