As I said, not having seen 48fps, I cannot answer that question. *If* the reactions of others are taken at face value - and *if* 48fps makes me "no longer feel like I'm watching Gandalf walk around Middle Earth. [Instead] I feel like I'm watching Ian McKellan walk around in a Gandalf costume," then that seems to be the equivalent of watching a stage production (and, of course, stage productions themselves can be powerful and immersive). But because of the limitations of film, there has always been that distinction between cinema and the stage. So what happens when film reaches the point where it has no such limitations? Is that really a good thing?
Like I said, without having seen what 48fps actually looks like, I've no way of even answering the question - let alone determining whether or not the question itself is appropriate. But that seems to be the larger question we face: how "real" should cinema look?