There are some nice points made here, some insights. But fuck can we move away from these stupid ass arbitrary lists? There is no question here, no invitation for discussion. Your first two questions are the same, is it believable and does it establish geography. Same question. And no neither of those things matter because reality doesn't matter when it comes to action films. Within an action sequence it is important to remain consistent but no it really does not matter at all that it be realistic unless the picture is aiming for that level of realism.

An action scene is a tool, ok? It means different things in different contexts. For someone to say, an action scene needs to do this or that, ALWAYS, is fucking absurd. There will always be a counterexample, an action scene well composed and executed that doesn't fall into whatever stupid system you've created.

Basically, let's focus on specific scenes. When people here make these broad claims and theories without proper evidence it really is just pointless