Like many innovations the issue is whether the perceived benefits are worth the cost
The movie industry has often pursued technology or viewing innovations to try to gain market share or raise prices. Some of them work, some of them don't but the people who ultimately choose are the audience. If the majority don't see the benefit or don't like the trade offs, they won't buy the product.
Colour put more bums on seats when the competition was greyscale and in a competitive industry studios moved to colour, though not always rapidly as it was more expensive. Same with sound.
Some other innovations have faired less well. Studios have been through at least 3 waves of trying 3D as a new differentiator. It sounds good: surely exploiting binocular vision has to make a better viewing experience? Each wave has failed.
The causes of this failure are worth exploring. One is that the studios tried to charge more for 3D viewings. Audiences clearly didn't think the experience was worth the extra money (especially where both 3D and 2D versions were available. Another is that 3D cannot be made a universally better experience. Even the best tech (polarised glasses) has to see image compromises (not least that the projected image is much dimmer) and many users don't like wearing the specs. Besides, there is a perceptual reason: the vast majority of 3D perception is not based on binocular vision so the "extra" image quality all other things being equal is small.
High frame rate movies suffer from some of the same issues. However much you think the result is a better image there are always compromises. HFR certainly costs more, so unless the audience perceives the differences to be positive and shows that in the bums on seats metric, there is no good reason for a studio to stick with the technology.
And there are good perceptual reasons why they might not think an HFR movie is better. One is that all movies are an illusion. A series of static images is perceived as a window into a real scene (or perhaps a real imaginary scene). But movies use all sorts of tricks to make the image look better. Tricks with lenses make far away things look near; makeup makes people look more attractive; lighting makes studio shot scenes look like outdoor scenes; action scenes look physically real; people look like they fall from tall buildings when the background is painted or greenscreened. But many of the "joins" in those illusions are aided and abetted by the resolution and framerate of the device they are recorded on. HFR content might arguably be more faithful to reality but compromise the illusion of reality by revealing the "joins".
And this is what many people report for some of the HFR movies that have been released. Make up and special effects look less realistic because the higher fidelity damages the illusion. 24 fps happens to hit a sort of optimal point between totally faithful reproduction and blurring of the special effects or movie tricks and not being so slow that even basic motion is jarring. HFR, by being more realistic, hurt the illusion. In principle, potentially, studios could put far more effort into the effects, the make up and all the other tricks to compensate for this. But that would add even more to the cost and that would need the audience to perceive a big benefit for it to affect the bums on seats and pay for the extra costs.
Ultimately if the audience doesn't see a big improvement, the technical benefit isn't worth it. I was happy to pay extra to see Oppenheimer on the largest iMAx screen in the UK as were many others. This justifies the extra cost of shooting and projection. So that tech is sometimes worth investing in. I have seen no HFR movie I would pay extra for or even choose over a 24fps version. I have seen precisely one movie where the 3D experience was better than the 2D version on the same screen (Gravity) and that was a very rare example. Given the market examples, I don't think I'm atypical.
In summary, if the audience doesn't perceive the benefit of a more costly tech, it will fail.
