Depends on the movie. If it's an action flick, sure, getting right to the action is fun. If it's a movie which wants you to care about its world and characters, it's a good idea to actually properly present that world and characters first, that's what a lot of movies forget.

I suppose the problem here is that peoples expectations increase over time so it becomes harder and harder to do that and make it work well. Because while you "properly present that world and characters first" the result is an audience with closed eyelids and snoring sounds..... and so many movies have bored us to sleep trying to do that, perhaps it is just not worth the risk anymore?

If you only make movies to keep the audience entertained and to make money, maybe.

That's why I keep track of the directors trying to properly tell a story. Getting to know the characters is usually important for that.

And if you don't set up characters and the world properly, the action is boring. I have to care about the characters to care about the action. Otherwise it's just stuff exploding, people shooting or fighting or whatever, but none of it means anything. If I don't care about the characters, then however good the action looks, it's boring. It may be fun for five minutes, but it's no way to make a whole movie.

Use the right actors and they will make that happen on their own, someone like Vin Diesel, you don't need any introductions you know the movie will be damn good. If you use unknown actors then yes you have to put allot of effort into making the audience care about the characters and all so often it all goes horribly wrong.

That's interesting because they only make movies to make money.... yes there will be people involved in making the movie who have higher goals but the people with the pockets are only there to make money. Unless the person with the pockets is one of those actors come directors such as Mel Gibson, with a mission and then they end up making even more money in the end because they were 'not' making the movie with money as the primary goal which is one of those ironies of the movie world!

That does not work if you want to make a really good movie. If you want to make a passable, mindless action movie it may be enough, but if you want anything better than that, you have to do better.

There are allot of elements that need to come together to make a blockbuster action movie and there are many examples of these and other brilliant movies that managed to be brilliant despite not wasting everyone's time with character development - what they do is, they cleverly include the character development along with the action!

Well, Kip Thorne explicitly mentioned that with a rapidly rotating black hole (such as the one in the movie), a planet this close could still be in a stable orbit, without disintegrating into a ring (as opposed to a planet orbiting a non-rotating black hole). He also noted that the accretion disk was (for whatever reason) relatively weak and cold, hence low emissions.

What I don't understand, though, is how Cooper was not blueshifted-gamma-ray-ed into oblivion (by the light coming from behind) as he was nearing the event horizon.

I just saw this film last night for the first time and absolutely loved it! Reservations about some of the science and plot elements aside, it was one hell of a ride and had me glued to the seat the entire time. Well until one point
(.......SPOILER ALERT...........)
near the end right after the event horizon scene, when he was, uhm, banging on the bookcase. The damn person operating the projector fell asleep or something (it was the last screening of the day) and the film suddenly stopped. A couple of us, frothing at the mouth ofc, went out looking for the staff but could only find a lone security quard wandering the halls who managed to get his supervisor to come to the theatres. He then burst into a staff room of sorts and got someone to come out and put the film back on roughly where it cut off. Was a tense couple of minutes though :P