Laws of Showrunning (2016) [pdf]

https://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/11_laws_of_showrunning.pdf

by luu • 3 years ago

194 65 3 years ago

okbjgm.weebly.com

Out of curiosity: Has anybody ever heard of an engineering manager making the transition to showrunning?

I don't think people with no knowledge of entertainment productions typically "transition" into the highest position orchestrating the use of many millions of dollars and hundreds of people.

tough• 3 years ago

If the millions are yours you can certainly do as you wish with them tho.

swatcoder3• 3 years ago

Nah, I don't know specific examples that satisfy the OP's original question, but writing for entertainment (and showrunning as a management-level tier of that track) is just a career transition like any other.

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.

CalChris2• 3 years ago

No, Hollywood attracts talent broadly. You'll still serve an apprenticeship, reading scripts, ..., but my anecdote is walking across the parking lot on the way to a meeting at Paramount and seeing a US Naval Academy license plate frame.

walterbell• 3 years ago

Documentary director rather than TV showrunner, Charles Ferguson was the founder of Vermeer which created FrontPage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ferguson_(filmmaker)

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

crazygringo2• 3 years ago

It's not a lateral move. Aside from the management aspect, it's an entirely different skill set.

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.

sogen• 3 years ago

In The Offer, the tv series deals about The Godfather, and the main guy jumping from tech to show running.

jasmer2• 3 years ago

Mike Judge is almost that.

simonw• 3 years ago

Not an engineering manager, but I love that the Queen's Gambit was written by the former CEO of a bunch of Scottish whisky distilleries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Scott_(Scottish_screenwr...

Terretta2• 3 years ago

Yes

qazxcvbnmlp• 3 years ago

“For many, the undeniable triumph that is pitching a series idea, having a pilot ordered, successfully producing it, and then having it ordered to series is nothing less than a validation: not only their voice and talent, but also of their Way of Doing Things. This often translates to an intractable adherence to the notion that "my creative process" is so of the essence to success that all other concerns must be made subordinate lest the delicate alchemy that made success possible be snuffed“

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.

6gvONxR4sf7o• 3 years ago

Lots of parallels with silicon valley corporate life in here. This one in particular rings true to me:

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.

jobu• 3 years ago

It's really a treatise on good leadership and management from the perspective of a showrunner.

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.

MichaelDickens• 3 years ago

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

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.

KerryJones• 3 years ago

I have almost no interest in showrunning but I enjoy the slightly biting writing style:

"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."

zug_zug• 3 years ago

I love this.

"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.

andsoitis• 3 years ago

What makes that quote powerful is that it isn’t prescriptive. Unlike self-help books and business literature, it doesn’t purport to have the wisdom to tell you what to do or how to behave. Instead, it presents you the two paths in front of you and gives you context what you can expect in choosing either, but then leaves the choice to you. You have to take full responsibility, you cannot scapegoat the author.

tdoggette• 3 years ago

It's not until the Third Law that the author names a show of his: The Middleman (2008) on ABC Family, a one-and-done cult classic comedy show. That show's quality lends strong credence to the expertise backing up his second and third laws. That show really knew what it was, and every decision top to bottom worked to convey the show's very particular tone and style.

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."

Sniffnoy• 3 years ago

I mean, the author's name is right on top, you can loop up what else he's done: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0342057/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Grillo-Marxuach

Looks like that might be the only show he was actually showrunner on, if I'm understanding correctly?

1980phipsi• 3 years ago

I recognized who he was immediately because that show was so good.

Animats• 3 years ago

That's been around for years. There are two versions. This is the longer, tougher version.

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.

crazygringo2• 3 years ago

1) US practice is that TV showrunners are writers

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.

ghaff4• 3 years ago

E.g. the directing skillset is somewhat related but ultimately very different.

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.)

tptacek3• 3 years ago

If you listen to Scriptnotes (which is excellent, and you should listen to it), Craig Mazin and John August talk somewhat regularly about the different roles writers have in features versus series. Directors run movies, and writers tend also to be the showrunning executive producers for series.

wpietri• 3 years ago

Wow, I have worked for this boss for sure:

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!"

xbar• 3 years ago

In this quote, there is truth:

"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. "

ajkjk• 3 years ago

This is so good.

TchoBeer• 3 years ago

not totally related, but I read this initially as "the elven laws of shadowrunning"

jasmer2• 3 years ago

It's amazing that in an industry with so much money they don't have accepted norms of professionalism baked in.

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.

andrewflnr2• 3 years ago

It's a young industry, as these things go. Just about a century, I think? And that's counting generously, not taking into account growing faster in headcount and budget than it can learn (sound familiar?). A lot of the serious "professions", I'm thinking of e.g. accounting, engineering, or medicine, have histories that go back several centuries, with rules written in blood.

Terretta2• 3 years ago

amazing that in an industry with so much money they don't have accepted norms of professionalism baked in

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.

reillyse• 3 years ago

I got to number 5 but I’m guessing brevity never features?

ChuckMcM• 3 years ago

From the article:

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.

ghaff4• 3 years ago

Cable TV also mostly evolved into more channels of more or less the same thing.

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.

robodan• 3 years ago

I find it interesting that he barely mentions the actors, costumers, set designers, etc. These are the "face" of the show.

I take this to mean that story trumps all in television. You have to know what your core product is.

tptacek3• 3 years ago

In features, directors are the ultimate creative authority. But in a series, the showrunner is, and the showrunner is usually a writer --- most series have episodic directors (and often episodic writers, or at least a member of the writer's room credited for each episode), and because the showrunner has the top-down view of the whole series, the show bible, and has made all the decisions about tone and style that directors will rely on, they end up calling many of the shots a feature director would ordinarily call.

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.

andrewflnr2• 3 years ago

I wouldn't read sweeping conclusions into it. I think it's more that most people's instincts suffice for dealing with those aspects, so he doesn't need to write about them as much; he hints at that in calling the "sexy" jobs a refuge from writing. Or just that story is more directly relevant to the part or stage of TV-making he's writing about.

darkerside• 3 years ago

The story and script are the blueprint. Everyone else can operate in a coordinated fashion off of a solid blueprint. The plumber, electrician, framers, etc. are all important and performed by specialized labor, but it's all within the context of a high level plan.

pallas_athena• 3 years ago

Javier Grillo-Marxuach was also a writer on LOST and wrote a lengthy document about that experience:

http://okbjgm.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/5/0/31506003/2._lost.pd...

Laws of Showrunning (2016) [pdf]

Related Stories