Since movies, with the exception of the hi scan rate versions of a few recent titles like The Hobbitt, are filmed at 24fps, there's no real advantage in using 1080p. A 1080i signal contains all the information that would be in 1080p/24, and 1080p/60 does not add anything. IMHO the 1080p/24 used by DirecTv is mainly a marketing gimmick. If you watch the movie in 1080i, you probably can't tell the difference.
Still not getting this one entirely right eh? You continue to make this blanket statement leaving out one important thing, framerate handling. Just because their is no perceived resolution benefit to 1080i/60 vs 1080p 60, you can just glaze over 24fps and how many tv's handle it (which you constantly do).
Any display that properly handles 24hz (120hz LCD or a 72/96hz plasma) will offer a more film like image with pans and motion vs something in 1080p/60 or 1080i/60. This is where Directvs 1080p/24 is useful. You tasted one pc of candy in a variety pack, and deemed the whole pack bad.
Are some people oblivious to pulldown judder? Sure, but that doesnt mean everyone is. I'll talk 1080p/24 over 1080p/60 and 1080i/60 on my display any day.
Long story short, if you watch the same movie at 1080i/60, 1080p/60 and 1080p/24, I do agree you may not notice any resolution improvements, but, the motion handling has a chance to be much better on pans and action scenes.
For the record, Im only referring to video shot at 24fps. This is where you just cant make blanket statements like "1080p wont look any better than 1080i". Thats just not always true.
Since nothing is done in 1080i/24, AFAIK, it means that in many cases 1080p/24 can be superior to 1080i/60 and 1080p/60 depending on your equipment.
You keep attacking this strictly from resolution benefits, when there is more to video processing and playback between display devices. I can set my Oppo to display a Blu-ray at 1080i/60, 1080p/60 and 1080p/24. 1080p/24 obviously wins with my particular display, because of video processing of 24fps sources.