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]
>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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
"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.
'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.
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.
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.