Is it a bad idea to start a story with zero action? I mean, none until, say, half way through the whole piece? B/c sometimes my intros can be a bit boring casue I cant think of some spcetacular think to happen then.

that John Wayne qoute is now one of my favorites. Uhh...he was right, I guess.

Maybe it's because I'm a really bizarre person to begin with, but the drawing line method isn't a steady rise for me.  I try to have it all over the place, getting exciting where you would least expect it.  Grabbing them by the balls in the first few pages usually works, but that doesn't necesarilly mean that you have to have action.  IT does not have to be amazing at all.  I prefer to make the audience think in the first few pages, making them wonder by showing things out of place or just something that is plain weird, to make them intrigued and want to get interested, then as soon as I have a story going, and have them coaxed in, have a plot twist, where action might occur and grab em and yank as hard as you can.

The "beginning" of any story is probably the most important, in my humble opinion. Although action is not necessarily needed, the first 20 pages should definitely set up the story and give the reader or viewer a "reason" to continue reading or watching. A good example, is "American Beauty". The writer sets up the entire story with zero action and one line of dialoge that draws  the audience in. Kevin Spacey's character narrates and says comething like (I'm paraphrasing) "...In three days I'll be dead". This line is enough to keep the audience definitely interested and sets up the story/plot almost entirely...

The first 20 minutes are indeed important, that's maybe something that I should look out for.

Well, with my last script I wanted to grab the audiences attention so I had the opening scene a big fight between two major characters.

The greatest opening of any movie is Save The Tiger - which opens with Jack Lemmon sleeping. See the movie and you'll know what I mean.

Action is less important than meaning.