Comment by jowday | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jowday | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Looking at the imdb page this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project with lots of different directors that haven’t don’t anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows.

With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers script - they’re not making many creative decisions the way a movie director does. The creative authority on a TV show generally rests on the lead writer(s), not the directors. When people talk about the Sopranos, they talk about David Chase; Breaking Bad, Vince Gilligan. And in both of those cases they had teams of writers under them who would write different episodes. This didn’t stop those shows from having a strong auteur-driven vision.

In the case of the LotR show, the lead writers are JD Payne and Patrick McKay. I think they’re passionate about Tolkien from what I’ve read. Look them up if you want to know more.

In TV 'Mr. Big' is usually the 'Showrunner'. Basically the original creators. It's like a form of creative production and management.

For film, the Director is often kind of the version of 'Showrunner'.

If the director was the one doing the pitching, raising the money - they they are that.

If it's a big IP asset, like Star Treck, then it's different, sometimes a team effort.

Like Kathleen Kennedy is the 'Big Honcho' for Star Wars and will have absolutely the 'last word' on everything, directors may not. Directors may have to negotiate their degree of freedom and may really want to avoid those situations where they are 'not in control', and will be forced to 'take notes'.

So 'director', depending on the type of show, does not have to be the most critical thing, it really depends.

Something that's heavily dependent on the quality of the acting, probably the director will matter a lot.

A perfunctory serial, a bit less.

For something so fundamentally institutionalized, like 'The Big Bang Theory' I'll bet you could remove almost any single person, and the gap would be filled in by the others who are all professionals. Like literally a child could direct an episode, because everyone would know 'what to do'.

But yeah, it helps to have a 'core creative team' that has track record of resonance, this way, you have an idea of what you will get.

Cohen Brothers, Villeneuve, Tom Cruise Inc., they use a lot of the same people. So you have less risk.

Sure - the MCU uses a lot of TV directors for example - since it functions more like a TV show than a auteur-driven series of films.

And because it's a lot cheaper.

The creative elements in MCU films are (mostly) not director-driven, they are franchise-driven. You need a 'good' director and a 'good' script, with 'good' and 'famous' actors, from there, so long as the creative leads are professional and the budget is there, you're good.

I believe that DC suffers from bad creative direction and bad scripts. Most of the rest is workable.

Star Wars suffers from bad stories/scripts and Kathleen Kennedy interference politics.

Am I the only one struggling to understand this? Are 'Mr. Big' and 'Showrunner' references to something specific? Why are these terms in quotes?

He’s putting those in quotes because they’re generally not formal positions that are explicitly credited, but are informal phrases referring to whoever has final creative control over a series.

That sounds like it's all a bit made up then...

It’s not. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showrunner

So these are real terms then...

Showrunners are a thing. See eg https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hollywood+repor... for some stories from the trenches.

"Mr. Big" and "Head Honcho" are euphemisms for "the person who is actually in charge", or the boss.

"Director" and "Showrunner" are job titles you'd have on your resume. In the case of the showrunner, they're directly involved in day to day stuff. I've heard interviews in which showrunners say their job involves making 500 snap decisions every day: "which fabric swatch should we use? is it worth an extra $80k to film in this location?" that kind of thing. I guess the software equivalent would be a product manager? In Kathleen Kennedy's case, as head of Lucasfilm, she's making big decisions on everything, but likely not micromanaging individual decisions. So, she'd be the CTO or equivalent.

Showrunner isn't a job title though. Most likely the actual title on the resume would most likely be "Executive Producer".

Showrunner is definitely job. It's something you put on your resume.

'Executive Producer' is just a credit, it doesn't mean anything really. A powerful actor participating in a film, might get an exec prod. credit, not for doing anything at all.

> the showrunner

This term seems to have entered common usage quite recently.

Q: Why?

"In United States network television [the showrunner is] typically credited as an executive producer"[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showrunner

You can't use the terms interchangeably. An "Executive producer" credit may be applied to lots of people who are not the showrunner.

>This credit is given to the showrunner, or the head writer, and is sometimes also given to other important members of the production. These could include the show’s creator if different from the showrunner, other high-level writers (often future seasons’ showrunners), the owner/creator of source material, a show’s star, the star or writer or creator’s manager, a high-level executive or creative type (like Steven Spielberg) influential in the show’s creation, or any other number of people.

>Many TV shows have multiple executive producers, and without knowing the specific situation, it’s hard to say what the individual people do. For instance, a TV show derived from a movie (like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”), may bring with it Executive Producers from the original film, who have little direct involvement with the show.

> You can't use the terms interchangeably

Right, but what's the actual definition of the term "showrunner"?

It's "the leading producer", according to the first sentence of that Wikipedia article. Why aren't we talking about the "lead[ing] producer"?

Is the term "showrunner" perhaps just industry jargon that slipped out into the mainstream?

EDIT: Go read through the Wikipedia:Talk page for 'Showrunner'[0], the quote "so much conflicting terminology, contradictions within contradictions" seems pretty apt. An ill-defined and (?) informal position?

Q: Is it just me or are people - particularly journalists - desperate to use terms that make them sound like they're part of the "in" crowd?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Showrunner

The showrunner is the person responsible for the long-term trajectory and story health of a tv show. It's a real term (Joss Whedon is the showrunner for the Whedon-verse shows), but "leading producer" is not a term, it's an attempt at a description.

The showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles.

To answer the specific question in "Ack", it's a recognition of the person who is day-to-day the final decision maker. They can be overruled from above by executives (the showrunner is not the supreme content creator overlord), but the executives are overseeing a lineup or channel. The showrunner is the one who are making sure the season goes right as a full-time job.

> It's a real term [..] the showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles

Q: Is "showrunner" an official title, or not?

EDIT: apparently not[0]:

"The highest ranking producer is the showrunner, the man or woman ultimately responsible for the creative direction of the series. Showrunner is a function, not a title — this person is credited as an Executive Producer. In many cases, he or she has “Created by” credit on the series"

[0] https://johnaugust.com/2004/producer-credits-and-what-they-m...

EDIT2: "A showrunner is the unofficial title given to the top-level creative decision maker and manager overseeing all episodes of an individual season of a television/episodic series. The showrunner is usually credited as an executive producer, producer and/or writer. "[1]

[1] https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credi...

You are misrepresenting those definitions a bit. Or they are poorly written.

Showrunner is a thing, TV projects have them. They are the 'nexus' - both creative and a bit operational of the show. Like the 'founder' and 'visionary' of the show. They also kind of 'make the show happen'.

Dan Levy is the 'Showrunner' for Schitt's Creek.

Just type the name of your favorite TV show along with 'showrunner' and you'll see who it is.

Usually will be 'creator' and 'writer'. They will probably get a producer credit. Note that 'showrunner' is generally not a specific kind of 'credit' but that a feature 'credit' isn't really a title either. 'Exec. Producer' can mean anything. Or nothing.

The 'director' in TV is generally less important.

For film, usually the Director kind of plays that role as the lead visionary, especially if they pitched and raised the money, got the team together, got the actors to sign up etc..

Producers are generally not directly creative visionaries.

Actually, you could say we're in the middle of a transition. All the Marvel shows have used one director for the whole season of their shows, and they're not the only ones to have moved on to this format.

As for OP's point, with the series' budget so high, a gun-for-hire TV director might not be accoustemed to the staggering budget they have to manage.

Not one of the Marvel Shows would break any reasonable TV top 10. The "1-2 showrunners, a writers room, and a rotating cast of directors" model is unimpeachably successful; it got us Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Deadwood, The Americans, and Mad Men, among many others.

Atlanta and Barry both have small director pools, being mostly Hiro Murai and the series star/creator. Even those benefit from being able to switch for tonal benefit.

To some extent I think Louie set the precedent there, as CK was given complete creative control. Comedians were asking for "the Louis deal". Glover (and Ansari) seemed to get it, and both had the sense to hire other talented people. Louie (the show) suffers from its self-indulgence to the point it can't be rated that highly, where Atlanta maybe mostly avoids that fate.

Barry has something like 11 writers, and 6 directors, though Berg and Hader direct most of them. Arguably, writing in TV shows is more (or at least equally as) important than direction.

Also, say, things coming out of the other end of Disney: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mandalorian#Episodes

But are those representative of the average 1-2 showrunner outputs? No. They’re not. Most tv sucks. The fact that some shows are not in the top 10 greatest series of all time is irrelevant.

I would say the marvel tv series so far have been pretty solid. Even if you don’t like them because you have an allergic reaction to marvel, their execution has been really good.

If we must talk of THE BEST, then season 1 of American gods on StarZ was the best season of television I’ve ever seen. Mostly all written by Bryan fuller and Michael Greene. Not entirely. How do we weigh this? Hard to say, but man did that show crash and burn when they left.

Most of everything sucks. The point is that the showrunner model, with rotating directors and writers, is the industry norm; it's not some goofy thing Amazon is doing to cut costs.

I saw the first season of American Gods on Starz as well. It did not motivate me to watch the second season. That same year, though, we had The Good Place (showrunner), Better Call Saul (showrunner), The Deuce (showrunner), The Leftovers (showrunner), Maisel (showrunner), and Legion (showrunner). I think the model acquits itself nicely.

They're limited series, effectively just glorified really long movies cut into 6 episodes. They also don't have real showrunners because Kevin Feige calls the shots on overall continuity and vision. It's doubtful that 5-9 season television is ever going to go to this model.

That also has to do with the short length of the series.

Having a single director direct 24 1 hour episodes is probably impossible.

This isn't even true, I went and looked up the directors for Daredevil out of curiousity and each season has a bunch.

Edit: I guess you're referring to the various recent miniseries Marvel has been doing? It's never been uncommon in miniseries, for fairly obvious reasons.

Legion is at least one counter-example. They used award winning indie film directors on a per-episode basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_(TV_series)

The result was that each episode often had a very distinct style, which matched well to the underlying theme of schizophrenia.

> Actually, you could say we're in the middle of a transition.

I recently noted the same while watching Severance. Almost all of the episodes, barring one or two, were directed by Ben Stiller. I found it one of the best (first) series ever.

i would argue that in many cases, having multiple directors is actually one of the great benefits of television and even within the constraints of a show, they still have considerable freedom to define the tone. tv is also a great format for relative unknowns to find their voice. steven spielberg was an 'unremarkable' tv director until he worked on Columbo and his episode- The Perfect Murder was a breakthrough that still stands apart to this day. similarly, put together any two episodes of the x files and the range is pretty incredible, Grotesque and Jose Chung's From Outer Space are only a few episodes apart and they might as well be entirely different shows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com