Laws of Showrunning (2016) [pdf]
okbjgm.weebly.com
okbjgm.weebly.com
> In the 1980's, the members of the Berlin Symphony told joke about their notoriously imperious conductor, Herbert Von Karajan. It went like this: The maestro gets into a taxi. The driver asks "Where to?" "It doesn't matter," Von Karajan declaims, "I'm needed EVERYWHERE!"
"The simple answer is that "simple" doesn't necessarily mean "easy". In my experience, the simplest decisions are often the hardest because they demand a painful concession to an unpleasant truth. "
It must have been a real trick to communicate that effectively-- The Middleman was like "X-Files meets Doctor Who, but less serious than either, and with a sense of ironic detachment, but not so much detachment that we can't tell stories about emotions, and also everyone talks like they're in a comedy sketch making fun of the dialogue in Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Looks like that might be the only show he was actually showrunner on, if I'm understanding correctly?
The interesting thing about the culture is that 1) US practice is that TV showrunners are writers, and 2) that all the writing for the season isn't done before starting production. Movies are not usually made that way. The script is usually set before production gets a green light.
Is that different in any other countries? I'm having a hard time imagining what other background a showrunner would come from. E.g. the directing skillset is somewhat related but ultimately very different.
> 2) that all the writing for the season isn't done before starting production.
Well you certainly can't do that for a 22-episode season, especially as writers very much adapt in real time to what's "working" in the show. It's quite common for a character intended only for a single episode to turn out to be unexpectedly extremely charistmatic and quickly turn into a main character, because of the actor's performance.
But for an hourlong 8-episode prestige drama for HBO, it's not uncommon for all of the writing to be done ahead of time. Or at the very least, the entire story is "broken" (outlined) in detail, even if the dialog isn't written out.
Certainly. That's why the showrunner mostly doesn't direct episodes and film directors mostly didn't write the script (though they probably influenced it).
The difference is that films can go through a multi-year development process with things hopefully largely nailed down before production starts--because that's when the bills really start mounting fast.
TV, on the other hand, historically had a lot more writing and production values were often a lot lower. So writing was important (and had to happen relatively quickly) while a solid journeyman director was probably fine. Certainly their name was mostly not a draw for audiences.
(Obviously something like Rings of Power is a lot different from a season of Law and Order.)
Writing even good formula is hard to screw up too badly given some level of talent (and clearly communicated and guardrailed formula).
Anyway, here’s 10k words from orc logistics guy you can read so you can prove me wrong: https://acoup.blog/tag/rings-of-power/
"So you finally have the Brass Ring... and guess what? It won't make that you never found a publisher for your first novel any less painful, and it won't make your daddy finally love you, or your spouse more sexually compliant, or your kids less disdainful of your bad puns and clumsy attempts to make them understand that you really DID like and understand that last Sky Ferreira album."
"You can also [motivate] by instilling fear - of job insecurity, of the loss of political capital in the show's hierarchy, or simply the harsh judgment of a capricious father figure. You have the power to be either an enabler of your employees's creativity, or make them the enablers of your whims."
It's refreshing when I find a piece that doesn't reduce the workplace to naive fix-all tropes like "assume positive intent." Of course the film industry just had "me too," so perhaps the lesson is particularly clear there, but it's not like quid-pro-quo doesn't happen in software.
> So, once they have a show on the air, even the most inept of managers - or the most sociopathic of abusers - muddle through and keep their show on the air on something resembling time and on budget: usually by the sweat of a lot of talented individuals who are then denied credit for their toil at the altar of the "visionary auteur"'s brilliance.
As I keep reading, this document is great advice for any manager or project lead, and very well written.
There are a bunch of great quotes, but this bit from 4th Law (Make decisions early and often) really hit home for me:
> But you know what "nice people" and "good bosses" actually do? They rip off the Band-Aid early, make the case for their decision, hear out any remaining arguments to a reasonable degree, then shut down the discussion and send everyone off to get on with their work.
Even worse than making the wrong decision is not making a decision at all, that's true in any leadership position.
I don't know about this part. Media is the only industry I know of where most people involved get credit. When you buy a phone or a car or a cup of coffee, you don't get a list of everyone who contributed to making it.
The dark side of the drive to prove one's primacy of vision (colloquially better known as "I'LL SHOW YOU FATHER THAT YOU WERE WRONG TO NOT LOVE ME!") is that inefficient and self-indulgent - and more often than not abusive - senior management is endemic to the television industry. As cable, streaming, and Internet services adopt the television production model to generate content, the problem only gets worse.
For me, this was one of the surprises from Netflix, Amazon, and Apple jumping into funding series production. The observations the author makes are anecdotally confirmed by the various "leaks" in the industry (and yes, this biases the view because people often don't complain about a good thing, I know), and yet rarely is the content produced by the studios working for these new entrants much different than the content produced "en masse" so to speak.
When this started, I expected more "Love Death Robots" kinds of things and less "Game of Thrones wannabes" kinds of things. I'm really curious how it went on the team doing "The Peripheral" (a show that I really liked), vs "Carnival Row" which seems to be "Jane Austen + Steampunk + Fairys" and, again for me at least, not particularly compelling.
As a result I've always wondered if studios did "retros" or look backs to understand how the product evolved, and if the people paying them ever tried to evaluate their process as a means of managing their investments.
I doubt I'll ever know, but I will remain curious about these things.
Streaming (outside of YouTube/TikTok/etc.) has done mostly the same thing--albeit with something of a bias towards prestige drama and away from slot filling procedurals. But there's less strikingly original and good stuff than one might like. And even the anthologies have been a mixed bag.
Even for startups.
It's almost like VC land should have the rule, 'once the cheque is >$1M, you do this required 2-week long training' hopefully jam packed with essential goodies.
Most of our time in school is academically oriented, nothing in particular applied.
I find that very odd.
Both US tech and entertainment revenue are in the magnitude of half a trillion per year.
Might be hard to argue tech has more repeatably professional norms than TV or movies.
Also seen in other fields as “I raised money for my company, so you will do this my way” doesn’t matter if the way is good.
The executive producer is in some senses a liaison between the people providing the money and the people spending the money.
I may be mixing this up. I know that “producer” and “executive producer” are somewhat different roles depending on whether you’re doing TV or film.
Studio = Yale Investment Office, limited partner
Producer = VC, general partner leading a funding
Writer = Startup CTO, founder
Director = Startup CEO
Investors = Investors
Studio = VC, etc.
Executive Producer = CEO, COO, CLO, anybody with decision-making power
Lead Writer = lead designer, i.e., the Johnny Ives
Writer = designer
Director = project manager or product manager
Producer = the weird old guy who let you use their house during your ramen phase, that investor who thinks he cofounded your startup because he gave you a bunch of money, the salesperson who landed the really big client and was given the recognition for it
The producer would be closer to the president of the board while the director would be the CEO. The producer and director work closely to get the project off the ground, with the director have say on who is hired for the key roles (the lead person for each craft). These keys then can staff out around them and the director rarely interferes unless there's just something personal going on.
Who the creator/founder equivalent is really differs between projects. Sometimes, the producer has the idea and staffs around it. Sometimes, the director has the idea and also acts as a producer or just staffs the producer out to someone. Sometimes, it's the studio's idea and staffs everything out.
This is false. It seems you don't know what you're talking about. OTOH, I have worked with multiple studios including Fox (now 20th Century), Searchlight, Vendome, Canal+, and Lightstorm.
The executive producer is similar to the CEO or other executive; hence the "executive" in their title. They are in charge of the overall production, but not the creative aspects of the film or episode, and usually are not involved in the day-to-day operations. A regular "producer" can be anyone involved with the day-to-day operations of this production, and this title was once given out like candy. (Look at the credits for Top Gun: Maverick, for example: David Ellison is credited with a "producer" title despite having no actual involvement with the movie beyond being the CEO of one of the studios funding the production.)
The director is not involved with hiring crew, unless they also act as a producer (aka, the "auteur" school). These days, many directors also executive produce their own films (e.g., Nolan, Cameron, etc.), but many don't (e.g., almost all Disney movies). The director gets to provide input as to who gets hired, but quite frequently the main crew and cast will already be attached to the film. Notably, directors can and do leave films all the time (e.g., Rogue One, Justice League).
Who the creator/founder equivalent is really differs between projects. Sometimes, the producer has the idea and staffs around it. Sometimes, the director has the idea and also acts as a producer or just staffs the producer out to someone. Sometimes, it's the studio's idea and staffs everything out.
This is true for a few films, but the vast majority of films start with a screenplay that has come across the producer's desk. Auteur directors might produce their own ideas (e.g., Lucas, Shamalayan, Nolan, Cameron), but even they will usually start with an idea they acquired from someone else (Shamalayan: Old and Cabin at the End of the World, Gunn: Guardians of the Galaxy, Nolan: Insomnia, The Prestige, Batman Begins, Spielberg: almost all of his films, etc. Look at IMDB to see the production credits they have far exceed the films they actually direct).
People who've had one professional career and been grinding on their writing on the side absolutely make the leap and move their way up. Often, their break comes from writing from their expertise. If you dig through shows about medicine, law, policing, etc etc, you'll often find several writers who were worked in those fields.
Not every writer was a barista until they made their break. Some of them were indeed lawyers and engineers.
That's like someone saying "has anyone transitioned to running cartoon network?" and someone else saying "people have transitioned to being an animator, which is almost the same thing".
It’s an achievement to be proud of, just like being a partner at a law firm or an mid-high position at a high-profile FAANG, but it’s not as rarified as you seem to think.
Also no, people don't transition from middle management in one industry to the top position of another industry.
Somebody else is still making final go and stop decisions on their projects, setting their budget, demanding stupid details, etc. They’re just in charge of wrangling some of the creative and production processes and get to take credit for the overall creative vision of the project (or blame their execs/peers/staff if they’re unhappy with it). Literally the same as in any other industry.
I don’t know why I keep replying, but any reasonably social 40+ adult who had lived in SoCal personally knows showrunners as well as people in most other roles in the industry. Some have even held some of those roles! This isn’t some made up basement-dwelled bs that I’m sharing with you; this is actual ground knowledge.
The showrunner is in charge of the stop-and-go decisions, the details, spending the budget allocated by the studio. They hire the key crewmembers (DOP, lead writer if not the showrunner, casting director, etc. who then build out the cast and crew. They are as in charge of production as they choose to be: some showrunners micromanage, while others let their crew have a relatively free hand to do their jobs.
Of course the studio (usually) has final approval; they're paying for the show. But that doesn't mean the showrunner isn't the boss. It just means that...like every CEO...they still answer to the person with the piggy bank.
Also, showrunners aren't as common as you seem to think they are. You might be mixing up showrunners with producers? Producers are as common as weeds. Frequently, writers and cast members are given producing responsibilities and credits for an episode or two, as are many investors, and generally anyone who handles a task that is in any way related to production and has the leverage to demand some sort of credit.
But that's true of Oscar winning directors and senior partners at architectural firms. It's even true of the studio boss if he's had a string of flops.
That's like someone asking if they can 'transition' to being the CEO of a nationally known company.
He also wrote one of the best startup failure-and-recovery books, "High Stakes, No Prisoners", https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2719001
If you're an engineering manager who wants to become a showrunner, the process would basically be:
1) Take a bunch of screenwriting classes until you know you're reliably good at nuts-and-bolts screenwriting, which is far, far harder than you might ever guess. Writing a single compelling scene is hard enough, writing a good TV pilot is shockingly difficult. Time: ~3 years full time, but realize there's a 95+% chance you'll quit as you realize you ultimately don't have the writing chops or discover you simply don't enjoy it after all.
2) Write a few pilot scripts and use them as a portfolio to get hired in a writer's room on a TV show. Time: 2-3 years because it's going to take a while to write and take a while to get hired, at least on a show that is even somewhat similar to the type of show you ultimately want to showrun
3) Work for that TV show and then a couple others to build up actual experience, and don't just hang out inside the writer's room. Use the opportunity to get deeply familiar with all aspects of production. Time: 5 years
4) Now with your knowledge of the industry, write 2-3 excellent pilot scripts you think actually line up with what studios are looking to produce commercially. Shop them around until you a studio funds you. Showrun a pilot. Time: 3-5 years
5) Your pilot doesn't get picked up because it's too similar to another show that premiered on another network last month and doesn't have great ratings. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of your own show. Repeat step 4, maybe more than once. Time: 3 years
6) This time your pilot gets picked up. Congrats, you're a showrunner! Total time: 18-ish years??
So obviously it's better if you quit your engineering manager job at age 22 or 25. But age doesn't really matter in showrunning except for your own energy level. Being 50 or 60 and running a show is pretty normal. So even if you want to make the move at 40, it's totally doable, if you have the writing talent.
Now of course yes there are a few genius/lucky types that made a hit YouTube series on their iPhone and got their own show a year later (e.g. Broad City). But that's not usually how it works, unless you've really truly got something incredibly fresh and relevant to say. If you know you've got lightning in a bottle, then the above timeline doesn't apply.
I take this to mean that story trumps all in television. You have to know what your core product is.
It's probably not really so much that television values story more than film than that the episodic structure of television lends itself to this kind of system.
http://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/2._lost.pd...