Emanuel

Right. But realism is not absence of representation.
The problem here is people come to discuss things they don't have clue about : )
With the due respect, it's not because someone is a skilled film professional in one or another technical aspect of this craft, I will discuss film aesthetics from some other departments of this same craft with.
To each their own. And opinion doesn't convert a fact either.
There is who understands it and who doesn't and never will.
- EAG :- )

1) Peter Jackson is not a DP
2) even famous DPs have to respond to market forces (and heck, their ability to  accurately feel the pulse of the market forces is quite likely a contributing factor why they're a famous DoP)
Earlier you gave an example of a HFR 60fps film, which was actually a 24fps film
 
  
Not "no cost", but very minimal cost vs the overall production budget. 

Actually, the Orange and Teal look is copied from reality (but sometimes dramatically overdone).
Any time the sun is shining and the sky is blue then objects that are lit directly from the sun will appear one colour and objects in the shade will be lit solely from reflected light, which a significant amount will have come from the blue sky, so shadows are more blue than things lit by the sun, and in comparison, things lit by the sun are more orange (the opposite of the colour of the sky) than the shadows.
This is a subtle effect, but is observable.  I did the test myself.
Here's a RAW photo of my fence at sunset:

If we radically juice up the saturation, then we get this:

and if we shift the white-balance cooler, then we get this:

So, although reality doesn't look anything like how strong this colour grade is, the orange/teal look is part of reality, not a fictional thing that's made up.
Also, a great many movie colour grades don't have the orange and teal look.
Here are a bunch of movie stills from Blockbusters:

(you have to click and expand the image to view it large enough)
Many of them are almost one hue, with almost zero colour separation:


But, once again, since you missed the point I was trying to make...   with all the equipment and talent these movies have at their disposal, why on earth would they look like this if they were trying to make them look realistic?
You've got it all wrong - it's the other way around.
People who make movies want to make things a certain way, and shooting 24p is one of the (dozens / hundreds) of ways they accomplish this.
I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make?  Genuinely?
If it was simply that movies were in 24p but were trying to be as real as possible in every other way, then yes, you could make the argument that it was a legacy choice, but there is practically no aspect of movie-making that is trying to imitate reality.
I think you're exactly right. 
If these movies were 'realistic' then they would look like small reality shows.  
The evolution of film-making started by recording theatre productions.  There were no cuts, it was like you were sitting in the crowd watching a play.  They didn't think they could edit because real-life doesn't suddenly jump to a new location.  When they worked out that cutting was fine and the human mind didn't get disoriented if you did it, they still thought that the mind wouldn't understand if there were jumps in time, so they had continuity editing, which meant that if someone entered the room then you'd have the whole sequence of them opening the door, walking through it, closing it behind them, then walking across the room, and only then starting to speak to the person inside.  Turns out we're completely fine with cutting most of that out - in dreams we experience time jumps and the theory is that we're fine with time jumps because dreams do it.
The history of film-making is a journey from one-shot films that made you feel like you were at a theatre production, and have gradually evolved into Bayhem, Momento, Interstellar, etc.  
If anyone wanted realism then they've been walking in the wrong direction for an entire century now.
Either the entire history of cinema was done by people who are completely incompetent, or, they're aiming at something different than you are.

Pre sound there was no standard.  18FPS was kind-of the default.  Most hand cranked cameras did 9 frames per crank, so two cranks per second becomes the defectors about standard.  
16FPS is about the lower threshold where you start to not perceive continuous motion.
24 FPS only became the default with the introduction of sync sound in the late 30’s that required a slightly higher / faster playback.
The first thirty years of cinema HAD NO STANDARD frame rate.  They could have, and DID shoot a huge number of variations of frame rates.  Just like we do today (for slow mo or under cranking)
It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama.
 
 

Why do we almost never film only with a normal field of view? 
Why do we purposefully distort reality by choosing these range of other focal lengths to film with? 
Why do we light scenes in a manner that you're highly unlikely to come across randomly in real life in a natural manner? 
Why is 180VR massively unpopular vs conventional films when 180VR is so much "closer to realism"? 

I would imagine there would be a niche larger than you might think.
I think the revival of 35mm still film is a reasonable parallel - it is much easier to shoot digital and emulate it in post with one of the many excellent plugins available.  But people like shooting film because it's somehow "authentic".
Noam Kroll shoots a lot on film, as I am sure you're aware, shooting a number of short films on it, and shot this ad on super 8mm: https://noamkroll.com/shooting-super-8mm-red-gemini-for-banana-republic-in-joshua-tree/

I'd still like one 🙂

But if I would have only to buy one and carry with me? DJI Mini 4 Pro because flies too! LOL : )
On the ground to have with me all around? Osmo Pocket 3 or the new Ace Pro has also impressed me. Its 8K 24p looks like a winner there.
A camera unfortunately or not is the one we can use.
Going to a set? Ursa Mini Pro 12K, for some reason I've just purchased it :- )

Yes, exactly. Steady shots are great, the resolution is there.

Every movie that I really enjoy and watch over and over has elements that are purposely unrealistic, whether in the image, the staging, or characterization. I'm not talking about technical story unrealism, like elves or warp speeds.

^ Here, it's not the image quality, considering the time it was shot. However, the staging of the actors is unrealistic. The way they pose, the dialog--no one actually does that or speaks that way. One of my top 5 films, and perhaps my favorite opening scene ever.
 

^ Have you ever seen a toy shop organized like that, with those colors and lights? I picked Hugo because, seeing it in 3D, I was blown away by how they changed the interpupillary distance for different scenes to get different moods, using unrealism as part of the craft. And it's an easy segue into the highly creative movie it revolves around. Even in 1902, they could have made the moon more realistic!

 
Specifically on the topic of framerate, Spiderverse did a fantastic job using different frame rates to convey different moods. Some of it is explained here:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN5sqSEXxm4
^ This is another favorite movie (and it's recent--they could have shot digital or HFR if they'd wanted). Everything works because of unrealism, from the costumes, to the sets, to dialog, sound, delivery.
 
I would argue that purposely making films look or act realistic results in boring content.
 
I don't necessarily disagree. Good movies transport me to that world with perfect clarity, but the world may not be realistic. When I watch the Third Man, I'm there, in black and white, with the grain, and the film noir corny dialog, and Orson Welles' overacting. That's the world I'm in.

The whole idea of movie stars when I was growing up was that they were "larger than life".
I think, once you start looking, you'll find that practically nothing about cinema is even remotely realistic / real-looking.
Look at the visual design / colour grading for a start....






I mean, these projects all had the budget, had highly skilled people, and had every opportunity to make things look lifelike, but none of these things look remotely like reality.
Even the camera angles and compositions and focal lengths - none of these make me feel like I'm looking at reality or "I am there".
Bottom line: studios want to make money, creative people want to make "art", neither of these are better if things look like reality.  I'm in reality every moment of every day, why would I want movies to look the same way?  It's called "escapism" not "teleport me to somewhere else that also looks like real-life...  ism".

When will we have it?
I guess that will make more difficult to @Andrew Reid to ban anyone later on... LOL : ) Anyway, I tend to believe that would be such award to those who would attend it in any case whatsoever... ; ) Morever, to those who wouldn't be able to be physically there, it might be possible to attend via video conference or sorta web summit event but camera summit, hey Andrew?
We could always show a bit of appreciation to this community created by our webmaster, thank you all guys and a special word to the owner of the house who has succeeded to keep one of the most interesting world-class online corners worldwide, let alone the topic of camera industry where this place is unique! :- )

On a not less serious note, the only advantage I see to shoot on 50p/60p or even 100fps/120fps is either going after the slowmo chance route on a 24p/25p timeline later on or stereoscope applications without the need for capture devices with the genlock feature all included in the bill to pay for the tool straight to the BTL (Below the Line) costs usually fixed and with a full impact directly within your budget for acquisition.
But as someone already wrote here, if you want to respect the 360º look, don't forget you'll also either need for more light or a much more capable piece of technology, hence why I praise every single release to couple HFR feature on bright side of a good IQ balance and low light performance as has recently happened even from small sensor size introductions on light setup side of the world ; )
That.
Not silly attempts on reinventing the wheel ;- )
I don't give a damn if their names are Peter Jackson or the free diver James Cameron : ) With the due respect, those names are no more than a mention in a single page of the history of this medium.
In a word, hype.
In a line, film aesthetics is much more than mere hype just for trying a larger entry into this book...
- EAG :- )

It's way too pricey for someone but then again maybe some rental houses would be interested. Instead of keeping some old cameras alive they can get one of these with its warranty and availability of repair parts.  Might be good for those that want to shoot film and will rent it.
I'm intrigued by the extended gate frame size they have. That along with small grained film stock might approach Super16 in look.

This needs to be 16mm

Gotta love a demo video that starts with a world-famous model / actress...
All else being equal, products like this probably help to keep film alive.  There's a chance the rich might adopt things like this, and perhaps burn through film like they're rich (because they are).  For the rest of us, if you wanted to shoot on 8mm film then get yourself a second-hand real film camera and then benefit from the film consumption of the rich to give economies of scale.
Personally, I think that the iPhone / smartphones have finally gotten here.  The compression artefacts (and even the crushing over-processing) are made invisible by the time you add enough blur and grain to get a semi-decent match, and they've finally caught up in terms of dynamic range, so you can have contrasty mids with strong saturation but gentle and extended rolloffs.
Also, the more these images trend on social media, the more my OG BMPCC and BMMCC go up in value!

Filming for social media has been also one of the biggest factors in making 4:3 popular. 
 
Exactly, most of us are not filming nature documentaries where we want a 100% accurate reflection of the real world. (heck, not even nature documentaries want that!) 

CD vs Vinyl DR is an old debate and it isn’t as simple as that when it comes down to it. Lossless wars aside, many other variables come into play. Here is a study that comes up with a more nuanced approach to what you are stating:
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4
 
..in any case this is an analog vs digital debate that can be transposed to film but is far less subjective and entirely different than the fps topic started here..

And after a century plus of films being in 24p, then all of us have had our brains trained to think 24p = voila, cinema!
You'd not going to undo a lifetime of conditioning of the brain for everyone in the world. 
I'd say just move on, and fight a different battle that's more winnable. 
 

Is that you @zlfan? 
Because their entire workflow is set up for that, they're not going to ditch millions/billions of dollars worth of gear just so that they can embrace 24p. 
Don't try to fix what is not broken.
 

He does.
I applaud Markus for the work he does and the passion that he brings, trying to beat back the horde of Youtube-Bros who promote camera worship and the followers who segue this into the idea of camera specs above all else.
But there's a progression that occurs:
At first, people see great work and the cool tools and assume that the tools make the great work - TOOLS ARE EVERYTHING Then, people get some good tools and the work doesn't magically get better.  They are disillusioned - TOOLS DON'T MATTER Then they develop their skills, hone their craft, and gradually understand that both matter, and that the picture is a nuanced one.  TOOLS DON'T MATTER (BUT STILL DO) This is the same for specs - they are everything, they are nothing, then they matter a bit but aren't everything.
By the time you get to the third phase, you start to see a few things:
Some things matter a LOT, but only in some situations, and don't matter at all in others Some things matter a bit, in most situations Some things matter a lot to some people, but less to others, depending on their taste Film-making is an enormously subtle art.  Try replicating a particular look from a specific film/show/scene and you'll find that getting the major things right will get you part of the way, but to close the gap you will need to work on dozens of things, hundreds maybe.  
The purpose of any finished work is to communicate something to the audience.  For this, the aesthetic always matters.  Even if the content is purely to communicate information, if you shoot a college-looking-bro delivering the lines sitting on a couch drinking a brew filmed with a phone from someone lying on the floor, well, it's not going to seem like reliable or trustworthy information, unless it's about how many beers were had at the party last night (and even then...).  The same exact words delivered by someone in a suit sitting at a desk with a longer lens on a tripod and nice lighting will usually elicit a very different response (sometimes one of trust, and sometimes a reaction of mis-trust, but different all the same).  A person wearing glasses and a lab coat standing in front of science-ish stuff in a lab is also different.
Humans are emotional animals, and we feel first and think second.  There isn't any form of video content that isn't impacted by the aesthetic choices made in the production of the video.
Some might be so small that they don't seem relevant, but they'll still be there in the mix.

Nobody sane is shooting news with RED ONE MX 

The display format and venue also matter. Oppenheimer doesn't look dated in the IMAX theatre in 24p. Looks incredible, to old and new generations alike. So to say 24p is outdated is just a blanket statement really. And equally, to say 60p isn't cinematic is also a blanket statement. It can be.... All depends on a lot else, other than just frame rate.

30p is TV and YouTube
60p and 120hz are for gaming
24p is for cinema and film.
This is not an opinion.
The subjective part of it is what one's definition of 'cinematic' is.
Is the big dome at Vegas cinematic, probably is. Sitting in there, with panoramic vision, amazing,
But it is simulating reality.
Cinema is not restricted to just simulating reality, it can also simulate emotions and dreams. And for that you need 24p.

8K 24P in the rain:
Dark day, suggests 8K 24P when walking with the camera will not look very good at night without the special lowlight stabilization setting.