This is awesome! The drake video on the landing page was confusing/pointless to me, and I agree with zackbloom's comment about hovering over the numbers on the side. Other than that, really great idea & execution.
It's quite a sight to see. I love it. Although it doesn't officially start until this evening, they've been testing it every night. Here's a short timelapse that I shot of the bridge during one of the tests: https://vimeo.com/60966438
There's also a discontinued Canon f/1.0 that some rental places still have. I shot some stuff with it, and it's pretty amazing to play around with. Even with that though, we had to expose for at least 4 seconds at ISO 1600 to get legit star exposures. I've always fantasized about being able to shoot handheld video of the Milky Way, I'm happy to see that the technology now exists!
Disclosure: I'm a cinematographer. Prior to seeing the film, I was excited because I had read interviews with PJ about how HFR makes 3D so much better and cleaner. Looking back now, I don't know why I was fooled into thinking that there is something wrong with 3D. The supposed benefit of HFR is that it reduces headaches for people who get them from 3D. I don't get these headaches so there was nothing wrong with 3D for me before. Is it worth shooting all 3D films in HFR for the percentage of people who get headaches from 3D?
Regarding what you said about the "old guard" effect: It would be interesting to see some polls of audiences who have seen both versions. Unlike you, my non-film friends didn't have polarized reactions, they just thought it seemed different. The question I'm getting to is: Will the public fall in love with HFR enough for an industry shift in the way films are shot, despite the fact that many of the people in the film industry feel that the look of HFR cheapens the story?
All that aside, it's pretty interesting that we've gotten to the point where when single big films like "Avatar" and "The Hobbit" come out, it spurs conversations about huge industry shifts.