So it would be a shame if all media would be forced to follow the same library structure as music.
This view is based on a false premise—that there's a "library structure" that's based on or geared towards audio. It's not. It's a simple, elegant, robust system that can be applied to a wide variety of different media and circumstances.
Everything can not be forced in to the same template.
Why not? If all its fundamental elements are applicable to all media types, how could it be forcing anything? What media type does not have information associated with it? Cannot be categorized and displayed based on that information? Cannot benefit from being represented by images? The "template" is so open it can be applied to
anything, not just media. The problem, if there is one, must be a need for a template (of the type you're imagining)—not that such a system is imposing one that doesn't fit.
Although there are elements of the basic design or architecture of the system that are arbitrary and fixed—like navigation based on a hierarchy of categories—it's inherent flexibility and simplicity of use would not be possible without some such foundation. So I think you've got it wrong. MC already has the basis of the ultimate media centre—precisely because it does
not embrace the idea different media must be handled differently.
If it's an inflexible system offering only a template designed for one media type, why do I have a multitude of different views spanning all media types and addressing every circumstance I'm able to conjure up? No other media application comes close to matching that capability. Furthermore, none of them, even with their pathetically inflexible views, comes close to matching the performance of MC. So it's clear MC is well on it's way to being the ultimate media centre, despite demands it comply with the misguided design premises of it's inferior competition.
But that's just my two cents.