You do understand that people psychologically equate higher frame rates with non narrative cinema, right? That is all that those who saw it are saying, that the motion cadence was not like the narrative cinematic cadence of 24fps and so it looked more like soap operas or reality TV. Several people even commented that they thought it looked great, but for things like nature documentaries.
This really isn't about you and I having a difference of opinion, the issue here is that you refuse to look at the obvious answer to why people were put off by the demo and instead look to excuses for it. I think this is mainly because of your emotional attachment to 48fps as it is the frame rate you have picked for your own film, but it doesn't really matter. People didn't like how it the 48fps looked not because the sequences were unfinished, they didn't like it for the same reason that filmmakers have wanted digital cinema cameras that shot at 24fps. People associate 24fps with narrative cinema, and 30fps+ with everything else. When you then try and do narrative cinema at 48fps, you are asking people to retrain their brains to accept something vastly different than they expect. Do you really think that come December there won't be a ton of people complaining about the way The Hobbit looks in 48fps/3D? If so, I'd love to make a gentlemen's wager about that.