I've read a book somewhat recently that I feel sort of takes Michael's stance on action. It's like the author was thinking, "Well, as long as things are blowing up and people are fighting, that'll make my book interesting!"
I wish sometimes authors (and screenwriters and anyone making a story) could see that they're pulling a Michael here. Now, obviously there needs to be action, and for some stories it's appropriate to have guns and that type of action. People have guns in TV shows and movies because it is exciting, like Michael said. But Michael fails to realize that usually before the big fight that he wants to emulate in his improv class, there's character development and conflict and mystery. They may start out with a big scene, but then it peters out and we get the plot. Bursts of action may come in the middle, but sandwiched between those there's other crucial elements that make a story interesting and worth reading/watching.
But really, seeing/reading anything that just seems to down on the action without incorporating other elements can just be tiring. This may be more of a jab toward action movies than books, but this is something we can all fall into and I've been thinking about.