McG movie to suck, but could Smallville save Superman on screen?

[MattL.]

As a fan of the superhero mythology/genre, a Superman fan, an artist, and a human being I could probably do an essay on all the reasons why the upcoming McG version of Superman will be a disgrace, a farce, and an insult. But I wont here because frankly it would be devoting more energy to it than it deserves.

So, with the suckitude of the next Superman film practically a given, I turn to two places we have left (outside of comics, and even that is debatable) where anything resembling a well crafted version of the chracter exists.

Justice League of course we've all discussed at length and I'm looking foward to his upcoming spotlight episode. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Thank God for Bruce Timm.

Now I turn to Smallville. This show has continued to surprise me. I still have issues with the idea of the Superman legend begin funneled through the sort of Buffy/Dawson genre of teen shows. *But* Smallville so far has had a lot of heart, great scripts and perfomances, and great use of the mythology including its unique twists on some of those old themes. I've been totally impressed with Tom Welling. He's proved to me that he is Clark and not just a model tied to a cross looking like the lead singer of Creed.

I also believe that Tom Welling could (should?) go the distance. All the way to the big city, and the cape.

I would like to Smallville basically continue to run and evolve into a Metropolis series where all the seeds planted in the first show begin to bloom. I would like to see Tom Welling as Clark Kent and Superman. The costume is a must when they reach this point, so while I respect the "no tights not flights" rule in the context of Smallville when we get to Metropolis, its time to fly and in style.

Keep it basically classical, but you could modify it a bit here and there to give more of a regal uniform look. Just dont do the Lois and Clark thing. (Dont even get me started on the anti-costume rants. I've had enough of this maddening phenomenon from too cool for the room nutz on the DC boards.)

I'd like to also see a certain atmosphere to Metropolis itself. Kind of like the animated series and the current comics, where it literally is a city of tomorrow. The 1939 Worlds Fair meets the information age.


The K mutants provide a really intresting and ready made way of givining alot of Supermans classic villans life for this show. One would assume that by this point Lex knows about what Green K can do and begins to manufacture assasins to take Superman out. Off the top of my head I can easily envision the Parastie and Bizzaro being products of Green K's weird affects.

Casting of characters like Lois, Perry, and Jimmy would be essential as well as bringing Hamilton into STAR Labs. Considering his casting in Smallville you could easily fuse the characters of Hamilton and Steel into one.

Lois would be especially intresting in the post Smallville context because think about it? What is she if not basically the looks of Lana with the personality of Chloe? No wonder shes the perfect girl for him. ;)


It would be really intresting because if they were to do this, then basically the epic of Superman will have been played out over the course of years from essentially day one. Look at how long some tv shows last and kinda wear out there welcome and you wonder why their still here? They've obviously gone past their premise and their plan.

But with Smallville, you could have a show lasting that long but *with* a plan, and when the status quo changes from Smallville to Metropolis it would be a natural (not mention expected and welcome) evolution.

Anyway, just thought I would share this as there alot of Superman fans out there who have heard this news and looking for some shred of hope somewhere regarding their favorite icon in a live action medium. Smallville just *might*, be it.

[MattL.]

bump.

[Kal-el]

MattL, I have had many thoughts about how Smallville could progress to a Metropolis -based show. Depending on what happens in the next few seasons, it could definitely work. Of course, the Lex/ Clark friendship would have to be dealt with. Some finality to the Clark and Lana thing should also happen.
An idea I've tossed around would be a feature film at the end of Smallville's run that would use the same cast, and introduce new members, and chronicle Clark's transition from Smallville to Metropolis. This would deal with trying up loose ends in Smallville, the whole idea of a secret identity, the Superman costume, the Daily Planet, etc. Granted, this isn't likely at all, but it could work. This would depend a great deal on Smallville staying a success. Careful steps would need to b taken to keep it away from a "Lois & Clark" format (not that that is a bad thing...I loved L & C, but it's been done already, and not too long ago to boot).
Seeing Welling travel full circle to being Superman would be nice, at least continuity-wise. He would have to be bulkier and all that stuff, but the foundation layed by "Smallville" would give a very good characterization of Clark Kent the person.
Of course, just my opinion. Thoughts, ideas,...think I'm nuts..., anything?

[Nightwing]

Well I am tickled pink (AND blue and red :p) that I found another Superman fan as devoted to his character and stories as Batfans are to Batman. It's very refreshing, as are the intelligent and analytical stances you take on him. :)



Originally posted by MattL.
Now I turn to Smallville. This show has continued to surprise me. I still have issues with the idea of the Superman legend begin funneled through the sort of Buffy/Dawson genre of teen shows. *But* Smallville so far has had a lot of heart, great scripts and perfomances, and great use of the mythology including its unique twists on some of those old themes. I've been totally impressed with Tom Welling.

Speaking of which, I might as well just splice this text with my color and slap it into a post cuz this is exactly what I think of the show, word for word.

Now, do I think Smallville should go the distance, a la the better days of Lois & Clark? Yes and no. As you said there are still little iffy points about the show, even though these particular cracks are the width of a human hair. So what I would like to happen is this: Assign who will be fundamentally in charge with production of the show, now and in the future setting that Matt suggests, have them print out this formula he made, and use it as a guideline.

I want the focus to be mostly on Smallville as it is now. Basically a 90:10 ratio if you like math. Always keep the future in the back of your head, as we all should do with our lives, when ya think about it. :p

I especially love and demand Matt's comment about keeping things classic, but with slight modern twist to allow for the times. I've been in that state of mind since Smallville premiered. And I also like Kal-El's interpretation too.

I'm amazed why the WB is too stupid to ask US to help them write out Smallville and Clark's future in the 21st century. :)

[Kal-el]

I am a life-long Superman fan. I also appreciate very much being able to get more in-depth on the topic of Superman, especially when it seems not many really want to tackle this issue of Supes. He is much deeper and more dynamic than many think, IMHO. He's so much more than just a big boy scout.
The present and future of the Superman franchise does worry me. News regarding directors and writers interested in, or signed on, to do the next Superman movie does not give me much hope.
Knowing there are other die-hard Supes fans that are able to voice their thoughts and ideas in clear and concise ways is refreshing.
MattL, reading this thread, as well as your many other posts, I know you, along with a few others on these boards, are a strong defenders of Superman. I look forward to any discussions regarding the Man of Steel.
Nightwing, I'd have to agree very much with your last line about the WB. Even though the chances are slim and none, you make a very good point. Maybe if one of us knew someone and had some pull in Hollywood...

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by MattL.
As a fan of the superhero mythology/genre, a Superman fan, an artist, and a human being I could probably do an essay on all the reasons why the upcoming McG version of Superman will be a disgrace, a farce, and an insult.


Whatever you say, man. I find it incredible that you can make this statement based on the fact that McG has man ONE friggin' movie, and it's a movie that was supposed to be really campy and silly.

The guy can do a serious superhero adventure. Trust me.

[Toddman]

Originally posted by Cosmocat



Whatever you say, man. I find it incredible that you can make this statement based on the fact that McG has man ONE friggin' movie, and it's a movie that was supposed to be really campy and silly.

The guy can do a serious superhero adventure. Trust me.

And don't forget that the only two movies on Tim Burton's reel before Batman were Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. Everyone seems to have forgotten that.

Could McG's movie be a total waste of film? Maybe. I mean the guy's name is frikkin' McG for cryin' out loud! That sounds like the name of a McDonald's Land character.

All I'm saying is that sometimes it's hard to judge what a movie will be like based on the filmography of the director. Ask yourself this...

Based only on the movies on their resumés, who would rather have directing a Batman movie? The guy who directed Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Frankenweenieand Beetlejuice or the guy who directed The Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, and A Time to Kill?

Toddman

[Kal-el]

I'd be the first one in line to take back any negative comments about McG if his Superman film is good. I want it to be good...great even. The franchise doesn't need another mediocre Supes movie. IMO, it is in need of a cornerstone. A film that on those 'best of' lists could be debated about as whether or not it's the best one of the franchise (similar to the debates that may come up about Star Trek II:TWOK and Star Trek:FC). That would be healthy.
There is a fine line here. Most of us here know about Superman. If the next film is TOO different from what we know and expect, we'll probably reject it in some way or fashion. If the film is intelligent and stays true to AT LEAST the basics of the mythos, it might just work, even if there is some "reimagining" done for the sake of freshness.
Based on what has plagued this film, when/if it ever happens, my optimism is still very low. If my fears are proven wrong, GREAT! I sincerely hope that happens.

[Toddman]

Originally posted by Kal-el
The franchise doesn't need another mediocre Supes movie. IMO, it is in need of a cornerstone. A film that on those 'best of' lists could be debated about as whether or not it's the best one of the franchise (similar to the debates that may come up about Star Trek II:TWOK and Star Trek:FC). That would be healthy.

Kal-El,

I was wondering if you are including the original 1978 Superman movie (or even Superman II) in that thought. I agree that the third and fourth movies, as well as Supergirl, were in the poor-to-awful category. But I think that the first two movies (the original especially) were not only true to the character and history of the Superman comics, but also very well made films on their own.

However, if you are saying that the original movie needs some company in the form of another great cinematic interpretation of Superman, I completely agree.

Only wondering.

Todd

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Toddman


Kal-El,

I was wondering if you are including the original 1978 Superman movie (or even Superman II) in that thought. I agree that the third and fourth movies, as well as Supergirl, were in the poor-to-awful category. But I think that the first two movies (the original especially) were not only true to the character and history of the Superman comics, but also very well made films on their own.

However, if you are saying that the original movie needs some company in the form of another great cinematic interpretation of Superman, I completely agree.

Only wondering.Todd
Toddman, I did mean that Superman I and II were in need of company as great cinematic interpretations of Superman. Also, because it has been so long since I and II have come out, if the next one is to be in the same company, it would certainly give the film franchise a needed shot in the arm. It would also serve a similar role as the first films did for me, introducing (or reintroducing) Superman to a younger audience that may not know much, or anything, about the spirit and history of Superman. Also, a new film would most likely be done in the current continuity (barring any MAJOR reimagining), helping to solidify even older fans in the post-crisis continuity.

[Cosmocat]

Actually, McG (it's a nickname that he's had since childhood and just hasn't lost) was attached to do a hardcore submarine action-thriller before it fell through. I guess my point is that the guy is smart enough to do many types of films (I listened to the Charlie's Angels commentary, and just listening to the guy talk convinced me the guy was smart), and I'm sure he'll treat Superman with the regard it deserves. Same with JJ Abrams.

[Cassandra]

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but what I'm hoping for (praying, crossing my fingers for) is not necessarily a superman movie. Superman has had a good movie (or 2) made about him, and I like them. So, I'm not going to be happy with just a superman movie. Has to be a well written, carefully directed movie. First and foremost. I want a good movie that happens to have superman in it. Give the big blue a chance to shine. Give him a modern twist, but put that twist inside a good movie.Good plot, nice action scenes, this may sound dumb and obvious, but I DON'T want the whole validity of the film resting on superman's laurels. I want a good story, too.

He can be so fantastic when he's written well-I LOVED the Late Mr. Kent, I LOVED the first superman movie, heck, I even liked L&C-And Smallville ROCKS. Now the movie has to compete with that. I hope it measures up.

[Beyond Batman]

Blade, X-Men, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and the up and coming Spiderman, X-Men 2, Incredible Hulk, Blade 2... many of these movies (and up and coming) have raised the bar for comic/novel to movie interpretations. Look at the success of Lord of the Rings, how it's theatrical adaptation was so loyal and consistant with the book. Lord of the Rings won numerous awards and is expecting to win even more.

I think this is a wake up call for those directors looking to take on a film of superhero genre. That fans and non-fans aren't just looking for a dramatic performance for the sake of being theatrically dramatic, but how true to the story the director keeps it and how well it's captured.

I think a few of you are jumping the gun in this situation, and that you shouldn't judge what you haven't seen yet.

I agree, Smallville is very good. If its success continues, that would be nice to see Smallville on the big screen. Similar to X-Files. But from what the writers anticipate, Smallville will never see the day of a Superman suit.

Interesting how some of us believe, that if it's not done by Bruce Timm... it's considered a "disgrace" and an "insult." I don't think it's wise to have the "Bruce Timm is a god mentality..." Keep in mind, there are others who surpass his creativity, and he's not soley responsible for making the animated series what it is/was. BTW, have you guys ever met him?

Lighten up. Give Mr. McG a break. If you're criticizing him because of his name or his past directing gigs, how sure are you that he'll make a bad Superman movie??? This kind of attitude just downplays the fandom, and will make you walk into the theatre with snickers and insults.

Bottom line, be a fan and enjoy yourself.

[MattL.]

and Beyond Batmans personal vendetta shows itself again.

I've never said Bruce Timm was God and that only things done by him are cool. I know exactly where this is coming from Beyond Batman and I'm sorry if you are so personally offended that I prefer Bruce Timms animated versions of the DCU to Post Crisis mainline continuity. Yes, I'm aware that he didn't do it all by himself.

But I am glad that there is someone out there who has the understanding of the superhero genre that he does and yes, I wish there were more like him both in and out of comics.

As for jumping the gun on McG, I'm open to the slight possibility of it. However, the history of this project, the inclusion of Jon Peters, and the overall WB mentality ("light and funny") regarding this picture does not look hopeful at all. Hey, if I'm proven wrong, then thats cool.

But the way its looking now, all they've done is found a Schumacher equivalent for the Superman franchise. It also looks like both franchises will have to endure the presence of Jon Peters.

[MattL.]

Also, just want to say thank you for some of the kind words regarding my post from other Superfans on the board. Its always good to be able to have conversation with real Superman fans. Its a nice change of pace from other boards I've been to weighed down with "Superman vs. Goku" topics "Kill Lois Lane" or any of the endless streams of pompsity posted by the anti-costume brigade.



I dont think that any post Smallville TV series would fall into the Lois and Clark style. There would be some simalrities simply because the banter between Lois and Clark is influnced by the whole Gal Friday thing, its been part of the design since the begining. But I dont think we would get the Moonlighting style gags, poorly made costume, or stuff like the frog storyline.

I think it would be a very natural extension of Smallville just with the status quo and some astetics changed. We would still be seeing Clark Kent struggling with his powers and destiny only now there would be the secret idenity factor, his budding love for Lois Lane, the sheer weight of the levels his responisbility has become, and things as simple as missing his home. Both of them. Smallville and (assuminghe would actually know about Krypton by that point) he'd also be missing the home he never saw.

One thought I had was that it might be cool to keep most of Krypton totally unknown to him, yet do a World of Krypton mini-series to show us the viewers what it was like.

[mosszonedotcom]

There are going to a ton of great comic adaptations movies in the next few years. I'll name as many as I can at this time...

Spiderman
Iron Man
Ghost Rider
X-Men 2
Incredible Hulk
Iron Fist
Silver Surfer
The Invincibles

I want more!

[The Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Cosmocat



Whatever you say, man. I find it incredible that you can make this statement based on the fact that McG has man ONE friggin' movie, and it's a movie that was supposed to be really campy and silly.

The guy can do a serious superhero adventure. Trust me.
I find it incredible that you can make this statement when the man has made ONE friggin' movie.

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight

I find it incredible that you can make this statement when the man has made ONE friggin' movie.

Oh, ha-ha. I say that because I've read a lot about McG, and he's also directed many, MANY music videos. This demonstrates, if nothing else, he has the technical prowess for Supes. But, if you read a lot about a particular director, you see how and why they do things...and this is why I know he can make a good Supes.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Cosmocat


Oh, ha-ha. I say that because I've read a lot about McG, and he's also directed many, MANY music videos. This demonstrates, if nothing else, he has the technical prowess for Supes. But, if you read a lot about a particular director, you see how and why they do things...and this is why I know he can make a good Supes.
You know what's better than reading about a director? Watching movies directed by them. Superman is hardly a music video, and a director needs more than technical prowess for this project. Tim Burton knew how to direct movies, but should he be allowed to make the next one? His vision was completely wrong, and I have yet to see anything that proves to me that McG has the right vision for Superman.

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight

You know what's better than reading about a director? Watching movies directed by them. Superman is hardly a music video, and a director needs more than technical prowess for this project. Tim Burton knew how to direct movies, but should he be allowed to make the next one? His vision was completely wrong, and I have yet to see anything that proves to me that McG has the right vision for Superman.

I ask you this: was there anything beforehand that would have proven to you that Richard Donner could have done the first Superman movie? Not to me. Before that, the only hit film he had was The Omen -- a far cry from Superman. However, if you had read about him AND watched his previous work (as I have done with McG, music vids included), you'd see he was smart enough to make a great Superman movie. And he did.

[The Dark Knight]

There's a possibility he can pull this off, but I haven't seen anything that proves this to me. I won't assume this is automatically going to be a bad movie but I refuse to accept it will be good based on the fact that you consider him a smart director. Experience is very important, and his limited work in the film industry isn't exactly boosting my confidence in him. "The Count of Monte Cristo" was directed well, by director Kevin Reynolds, but his lack of experience 7 years ago is one of the key factors which led to "Waterworld" turning out the way it did. That movie could have benefitted from the studio's original choice, Robert Zemeckis, a much more experienced director. You can't deny the fact that there are many other directors that have a better chance at making a good movie out of such a troubled project. There is a chance this movie will turn out well, but until I see something on film that proves this to me, I'll keep my reservations.

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight
There's a possibility he can pull this off, but I haven't seen anything that proves this to me. I won't assume this is automatically going to be a bad movie but I refuse to accept it will be good based on the fact that you consider him a smart director. Experience is very important, and his limited work in the film industry isn't exactly boosting my confidence in him. "The Count of Monte Cristo" was directed well, by director Kevin Reynolds, but his lack of experience 7 years ago is one of the key factors which led to "Waterworld" turning out the way it did. That movie could have benefitted from the studio's original choice, Robert Zemeckis, a much more experienced director. You can't deny the fact that there are many other directors that have a better chance at making a good movie out of such a troubled project. There is a chance this movie will turn out well, but until I see something on film that proves this to me, I'll keep my reservations.

I don't really know if experience is a factor. There have been MANY first-time directors who had little or no experience that hit a home run. And, even if you didn't like Charlie's Angels, it was very well directed TECHNICALLY (because McG surrounded himself with lots of seasoned talent). And that's a smart move. I dunno -- I guess I'm in the minority here, but I really feel he can pull this off...

[Cosmocat]

Oh, by the way, which movie was Robert Zemeckis the first choice for? Waterworld or Count of Monte Cristo? Interesting on both counts...

[The Dark Knight]

For a film like this experience is very important due to all the problems it has had in the past. Many problems could arise and the more experience the better a director is at handling them. Still, I won't rule out the possibility he can pull it off even though my confidence in him is lacking.

Robert Zemeckis was originally going to direct "Waterworld". The studio knew that a film like this could be very expensive if they had an inexperienced director making all the decisions so they chose Robert Zemeckis, but Kevin Costner threatened to quit if they didn't hire his friend Kevin Reynolds and the studio gave in. It's too bad since Robert Zemeckis would have done a much better job.

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by The Dark Knight
For a film like this experience is very important due to all the problems it has had in the past. Many problems could arise and the more experience the better a director is at handeling them. Still, I won't rule out the possibility he can pull it off even though my confidence in him is lacking.

Robert Zemeckis was originally going to direct Waterworld. The studio knew that a film like this could be very expensive if they had an inexperienced director making all the decisions so they chose Robert Zemeckis, but Kevin Costner threatened to quit if they didn't hire his friend Kevin Reynolds and the studio gave in. Too bad since Robert Zemeckis would have done a much better job.


Would Robert Zemeckis have been able to wrangle out the Waterworld script? That movie was faulty from the start. For what it was, I didn't find Kevin Reynolds' directing in Waterworld bad at all...it was just the script that was screwy.

To me, the way you get experience making big-budget fantasies and the problems that arise is, well, making big-budget fantasies. Charlie's Angels had a huge budget as well, so McG's not exactly a stranger to big-budget productions...

[The Dark Knight]

Well, there was a reason the cost of "Waterworld" was so high. They wasted a lot of money because of bad decisions.

His experience is minimal, but at least this isn't his first movie. As I said before, I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that this Superman movie will turn out well, but I'm wary of it for now.

[X-human]

Perhaps running the next batch of Superman movies after Smallville is best simply because Richard Donner's unsurpased film was written pre-Crises, and we now live in a post-Crises world.

I'm not the biggest fan of Smallville (it needs much tweaking), but it certainly shows that any film based off it at least won't become Batman Forever or even Batman and Robin.

Tim Burton's Batman is a pretty lack-luster film. It's evident Burton tried to change as much as he could, but at the time he didn't carry much weight so it stayed close to the the DC Universe. But with Burton's success it further strayed with Batman Returns, and after reading the pre-production of Superman Lives, it seems evident to me that perhaps the last thing Superman needs is someone creative.

The next Superman film needs to start it all over again, much like Batman: Year One, and have a director who will stick to what's works and not stray far from that. Someone who will look at the Superman Films, Superboy, Lois & Clark and Smallville TV series then make a blue print with Unbreakable, X-Men (2000) and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man to create the most unoriginal by-the-original-comic-book film he can't. McG just might be the man to do that.

I haven't watched the TV series or the Charlie's Angles film, but I get the feeling (and I want you to correct me) that McG tried to stay as close to the original series as the year 2000 would let him. If he follows that plan with Superman, at the very least, we won't get a bad movie. And the way things are looking right now, I doubt anyone could really complain. :rolleyes:

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by X-human


I haven't watched the TV series or the Charlie's Angles film, but I get the feeling (and I want you to correct me) that McG tried to stay as close to the original series as the year 2000 would let him. If he follows that plan with Superman, at the very least, we won't get a bad movie. And the way things are looking right now, I doubt anyone could really complain. :rolleyes:

Actually, no. The Charlie's Angels movie was a very tongue-in-cheek, we-don't-care-we're-gonna-have-fun, silly movie. Nothing like the TV show at all. The TV took itself fairly seriously...

[Kathy Kane]

Alright!!!!

Who the hell is Mc G!!!???
What has he, she or it, done??

[The Dark Knight]

McG is currently scheduled to direct the next Superman movie. You probably know him best as the director of "Charlie's Angles", and I'm sure Cosmocat can fill you in on his previous work better than I can.

I seriously doubt this movie will ever make it simply because of one man, Jon Peters. Look at the other Superman movie thread to read more about this man and why he is satan.

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by Kathy Kane
Alright!!!!

Who the hell is Mc G!!!???
What has he, she or it, done??

Prior to Charlie's Angels, McG was an A-grade music video director, directing videos for such groups as Korn and The Offspring. He's as technically slick as any A-list director working today, and he's pretty smart to boot.

[Beyond Batman]

Have any of you ever written a complete story being given only one paragraph to write it in? It's hard. If you were to write a story given 6 pages, you'd have a lot to write about.

To effectively portray a story within a short amount of time is a talent not many writers can accomplish.

Just the same way it is to direct a music video. Your telling a short story in only a limited amount of time that captures both the song and the story. It must be reflective, artistic, and captivating. Those same attributes, applied to a feature length films, make movies enjoyable to watch. Combine that with comic continuity, true and faithful to detail, and you'll have yourself a fine Superman film.

If McG has the talent to direct music video's, moving on to big budget productions such as Charlie's Angels, why not give this guy a chance? He may have some unforeseen talent that we haven't seen before.

BTW, what exactly do you mean by "tongue-in-cheek?"

[Cosmocat]

Originally posted by Beyond Batman
Have any of you ever written a complete story being given only one paragraph to write it in? It's hard. If you were to write a story given 6 pages, you'd have a lot to write about.

To effectively portray a story within a short amount of time is a talent not many writers can accomplish.

Just the same way it is to direct a music video. Your telling a short story in only a limited amount of time that captures both the song and the story. It must be reflective, artistic, and captivating. Those same attributes, applied to a feature length films, make movies enjoyable to watch. Combine that with comic continuity, true and faithful to detail, and you'll have yourself a fine Superman film.

If McG has the talent to direct music video's, moving on to big budget productions such as Charlie's Angels, why not give this guy a chance? He may have some unforeseen talent that we haven't seen before.

BTW, what exactly do you mean by "tongue-in-cheek?"

I'm a professional writer, man. I know all about having to cut back on yourself and being given a certain amount of space. Personally, I don't like it -- I have a hard time making a point in a given amount of time; I feel pressured and "under the gun".

As for your music video theory, that's all it is -- a theory. There's no rulebook that says your video has to be all those things. HOWEVER, if you want to direct videos for the biggest pop bands on the planet, then yes, it's better if you can do that.

Anyway, what I mean by tongue-in-cheek is this: not taking itself seriously.