Not sure if I've ever seen a 60fps movie. I have seen 48FPS ones though and it made me feel uncomfortable..woozy. Not sure why, only time I see the difference is side by side comparison so I guess I'm not really the person to agree or disagree with you on this one :P

I'm so used to it that I don't bother.
And perhaps most of these people are so used to it that when it changes they think it is wrong so they complain about it being unnatural or any other silly excuse for a movie that goes above 24fps.

I think we are confusing two different frame rates here.
Film consists of a series of still images that are stringed together in order to create an illusion of movement. Back in the day when filming became a thing, it was determined that for one second of moving image, you will need 24 consecutive images so that the end result will look realistic to the human eye. So 24 frames per second. If you reduce those frames per second, the movement will become choppy and jumpy. This is seen in animation as well, if you want fluid and beautiful movement, you have to draw 24 images with very gradual change to depict one second of moving footage. It used to be very painstaking work for Disney animators in the days before computers..
Then there's the other frame rate that we know best from gaming, where it's more about how fast the processor is able to run everything so that there's no slowdown in whatever is happening on screen. I'm very bad at explaining this, but there you go. I don't think those two are one and the same. In TV and film it's more about a choice when going for realism, it's not like there's a problem with processing power in the cameras like there is in gaming and processors many times. Maybe it comes into play somehow when streaming, I haven't tried it in 4K yet.
Anyways, I don't know what they precisely did with The Hobbit movies to alter the frame thingy from the normal 24, but it made it look more like home video or "making of" footage than the usual cinematic experience. It's weird. I didn't like it, but I kind of got used to it after a while. No clue how it made anything better, though.

I'm much more annoyed by the massive compression of streamed 4K content, my blu-ray 4K movies are just a completely different level in the visual department. Netflix and Amazon content looks washed out and unsaturated in comparison, it's especially annoying that you can't tinker with settings more to fit your own connection speed. Streaming 4K looks to be fitted for a more or less mediocre connection, but those with higher speeds are being shafted, there's a reason why some are willing to spend a few thousand bucks on a TV.

I've noticed it comparing 1080p from Netflix to standard 1080p blu-ray as well. Even compared to DVD there seems to be something off, though evidently the resolution is much higher.

They don't draw 24 pictures per second for animation. A picture usually lasts for 2 frames, with some faster movement usually last just 1 frame. That's just for cinema, for tv a picture could be on screen for 3 or 4 frames. only 2 full length hand drawn animated features have had 24 different pictures per second, akira and the thief and the cobbler.

Does Netflix deliver 24p content correctly? Perhaps it adds 3:2 pulldown to show it as 60fps?

I recently watched Westworld S2 on blu-ray, which I'm pretty sure is filmed at 24fps (35mm film) and it looked great on my old plasma and new 4K HDR tv. They both have 24p modes, as well as the ps3 I still use to watch blu-ray. 35mm 24fps is still the best way to film.

Clarity does not make frame jumps more noticeable, brightness does however. (Unless you have so many motion artifacts from compression it's like the whole screen is motion blurred at lower resolutions). 35mm was plenty clear in the cinema and had less stutter than the same movies on VHS... It must be the display not showing it correctly.

4K streaming runs at a lower bit rate than old blu-ray. It does have a more advanced compression algorithm, yet that's still throwing detail away. Netflix 4K HDR runs at 18 mbps (picture + sound) 1080p blu-ray between 18 and 38 mbps for picture alone and 5 mbps for lossless compressed sound. (There are multiple sound tracks, max blu-ray total throughput is 54 mbps) 4k blu-ray can support as high as 128 mbps total and also uses the more advanced compression algorithms.

Blu-ray still outperforms 4K streaming in most cases. Still scenes have better detail in 4K streaming, yet when stuff is moving, bandwidth is what matters. Blu-ray having the ability to ramp up to 38 mbps in action scenes leaves 4K streaming far behind.

Anyway there seem to be plenty problems with Netflix not showing 24p content correctly and delivering it as 60fps with pull down filter. I'll stick to blu-ray for quality.

Yeah, I buy blockbusters and classics on blu-ray and streaming is fine for most TV shows. But shows like American Gods would look so tasty uncompressed and with proper saturation, it has a visual style and presentation that would benefit so much from a crisper and more consistent image throughout, as well as a more natural flow of frames. The bitrates on streaming is so low, I also noted that, my aging LoTR Extended collection on regular blu-ray looks better than many modern 4K streams, especially in scenes with lots of violent or snap motion, as well as the diving and panning shots that Peter Jackson loves to use.

And that while Lotr was an early experiment with digital film processing (2K master format). Especially the first movie looks very soft on blu-ray. Compare that to Lawrence of Arabia (1962) on blu-ray which looks extremely crisp and detailed. The source for that movie was shot on 65mm with 8K digital intermediate for the 2012 blu-ray releae. 4K streaming is just a waste for 4K resolution. It's also a shame lotr was an early digital movie as it looks kinda bad now compared to 35mm movies with proper 4K digital intermediates, never mind the far superior 65mm conversions.

Why worry about the frame rate when you can't even see the frames properly. Fix the compression first :)