Try 60 days of free premium.

Showrunner/Creator/Developed By

Tonks wrote a month ago: 2

tnt wrote:
Showrunner entry could be not part of the show's crew credits, but a property of the show/season, to be displayed in the 'Info' box. This way it is not necessary for someone to be credited as Showrunner on-screen, any other valid data source would suffice.

it should have an attribute linked to seasons, so we can add as many as they go through them. Look at the arrowverse and how many changes have they gone through, same the ncis, or supernatural, bull, grey's anatomy, station 19 etc.

It would be a great addition.


Jan wrote a month ago: 1

As it's already been stated: Showrunner is a role that can be given to the top decision maker for a show. It's usually an executive producer who is called the showrunner but it can also be the creator or lead writer depending on experience,...

The showrunner role goes beyond the responsibilities of the above mentioned jobs.

It started as an informal role used internally in a production to identify who is taking the lead but it's been transitioning to an official title. I'm seeing official training programs,https://www.wga.org/members/programs/showrunner-training , awards https://www.writersguildofcanada.com/sites/default/files/2019-01/WGC%20Showrunner%20Award%202019.fpdf__0.pdf ...

I'm not against having this title added. And as with any other credits, the current rules apply.
However it would be helpful to get some actual on-screen credits examples other than Doctor Who to make sure there are enough usecases for it.


LadyShelley wrote a month ago: 1

Jan wrote:
As it's already been stated: Showrunner is a role that can be given to the top decision maker for a show. It's usually an executive producer who is called the showrunner but it can also be the creator or lead writer depending on experience,...

The showrunner role goes beyond the responsibilities of the above mentioned jobs.

It started as an informal role used internally in a production to identify who is taking the lead but it's been transitioning to an official title. I'm seeing official training programs,https://www.wga.org/members/programs/showrunner-training , awards https://www.writersguildofcanada.com/sites/default/files/2019-01/WGC%20Showrunner%20Award%202019.fpdf__0.pdf ...

I'm not against having this title added. And as with any other credits, the current rules apply.
However it would be helpful to get some actual on-screen credits examples other than Doctor Who to make sure there are enough usecases for it.

Even Doctor Who didn't use Showrunner as a credit, there were press sources for who was in charge of the production. Russel T Davis, Steven Moffat, and Chis Chibnall are all credited as "Executive Producer" A spot check of my pre 2005 DVDs and Eric Saward, David Whitaker, John Nathan Turner and such were credited as "Story Editor". 

Hart Hanson was the Showrunner for Bones, The Finder, and Backstrom, but I think he's credited as Executive Producer as well. 

John Rogers was the Showrunner for Leverage and the first season of Librarians, credited as Executive Producer. 

It is one of those things that people who watch the shows will just know as the "face" of the production. 



Aidan wrote a month ago: 1

Yeah. Showrunners are never credited as such on-screen.


SilverSurfer wrote a month ago: 1

While they may not get screen credits, show runners are real and they have a significant role on what happens on shows. How many times have shows changed show runners and the result has been a s***storm of online outrage over the new direction the show has taken? Actors can be in a show as 'uncredited' with no onscreen credit, perhaps no credit even in the press releases.

No offense to all the people who work as part of the team to make a show possible but, IMHO, a Show Runner is 1001% more important to know than is the 'Dubbing Mixer'.

ymmv



Aidan wrote a month ago: 1

No one is arguing the importance of show runners. The questions are, in my opinion, do we have sources that are reliable and consistent enough to accurately list them and do enough shows actually announce show runners for it to be any point in listing them ? 

While all this is fine for high profile scripted US shows there's an ocean of shows where I fear this information will be lacking, or even worse, inaccurate or dated.


tnt wrote a month ago: 1

Aidan wrote:
While all this is fine for high profile scripted US shows there's an ocean of shows where I fear this information will be lacking, or even worse, inaccurate or dated.

I've never heard the moniker "showrunner" used anywhere except U.S., Canada, UK and Australia, so I don't think it would be applicable somewhere else. And these countries don't suffer from the lack of press releases )))

On the other hand, Canada even have a Showrunner Award :)


SilverSurfer wrote a month ago: 1

Aidan wrote:
No one is arguing the importance of show runners. The questions are, in my opinion, do we have sources that are reliable and consistent enough to accurately list them and do enough shows actually announce show runners for it to be any point in listing them ? 

While all this is fine for high profile scripted US shows there's an ocean of shows where I fear this information will be lacking, or even worse, inaccurate or dated.

Sorry, I just don't understand your POV. Because we may have this info for only a smaller percentage of shows we should not bother listing it? My POV is we should be listing as much data as is available. All data entered onsite could be inaccurate or dated but we have to trust the motives and good will of the vast majority of visitors/contributors to adding data that is accurate, current and vital to a site who's existence is almost all data driven. ymmv


JuanArango wrote a month ago: 2

SilverSurfer wrote:
Sorry, I just don't understand your POV. Because we may have this info for only a smaller percentage of shows we should not bother listing it? My POV is we should be listing as much data as is available. All data entered onsite could be inaccurate or dated but we have to trust to motives and good will of the vast majority of visitors/contributors to adding data that is accurate, current and vital to a site who's existence is almost all data driven. ymmv

I also think we should list it for the shows it is available :)



Aidan wrote a month ago: 1

What I've been trying to say is that there's a lot of potential for errors and I'm asking (probably rather clumsily) for safeguards and clear guidelines to minimize those.

All I'm really hearing tho is, "haha,don't worry we'll wing it!".


SilverSurfer wrote a month ago: 1

Aidan wrote:
What I've been trying to say is that there's a lot of potential for errors and I'm asking (probably rather clumsily) for safeguards and clear guidelines to minimize those.

Oh agree, while I trust the vast majority here, guidelines are required to make sure we're all rowing in the same direction.

All I'm really hearing tho is, "haha,don't worry we'll wing it!".

"HaHa, don't worry Captain Smith! We'll wing it! What could go wrong?"


tnt wrote a month ago: 1

Aidan wrote:
I'm asking (probably rather clumsily) for safeguards and clear guidelines to minimize those.

Well, we already have a list of valid sources in the policy. Does it stop people from using all kinds of wikis, forums, tvdb, imdb etc. as a primary source of information? No. Are people ignoring or bending the existing policy whenever it suits them? Yes. So what are we still doing here? :D

Having some amount of bullshit data is inevitable, no guidelines or safeguards (except maybe some elaborated AI) will prevent that. But it doesn't mean that we need to limit available information because it could be inaccurate.


Jan wrote a month ago: 1

tnt wrote:
Just an idea, how it may look:

https://i.imgur.com/NLZQhYP.png

https://i.imgur.com/abv5SJv.png (showrunner could be chosen from existing show's producers)

I like the initiative, however we're getting ahead of ourselves. Implementation is not the issue.
I want to see some examples of the role being treated as an official title in on screen accreditation before moving forward to how and where it will be added.


tnt wrote a month ago: 1

Jan wrote:

on screen accreditation

As Shelley said above, showrunners don't get on-screen credit, only in press releases. It's not a crew type, but an additional job of one of the show's producers, an official moniker.

However, on-screen data is just one of the 5 valid data sources (20%), if I get the policy right. Showrunner usually mentioned in 3 of remaining sources (except TV Guides).

Episode names also does not written on-screen in the vast majority of the cases. But we do not using generic names because there's no on-screen name, we turn to the next best source, right? :)


SilverSurfer wrote 10 days ago: 2

Jan wrote:
I like the initiative, however we're getting ahead of ourselves. Implementation is not the issue.
I want to see some examples of the role being treated as an official title in on screen accreditation before moving forward to how and where it will be added.

Don't know if it will be onscreen but, just noticed the title in an official press release from the CBC ...

FRIDGE WARS is a CBC original series, co-produced and co-created by CBC and The Gurin Company Inc.  The Executive Producer is Tracie Tighe, the Showrunner is Barry Davis, and the series Producer is Jeff Thrasher. For CBC, Sally Catto is General Manager, Programming; Jennifer Dettman is Executive Director, Unscripted Content; Alexandra Lane is Senior Director of Production, Unscripted Content; and Ann-Marie Redmond is Executive in Charge of Production.

 

.