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.
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.
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.
This sounds like you are talking about people transitioning to being a writer, not a show runner.
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".
No, there are many showrunners. It’s essentially just a management-like writing position for any of the thousands of scripted programs that produced each year.
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.
They’re not in charge of the project any more than any other project/product manager.
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.
I don't think you understand what a showrunner is.
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.
You might be confusing a 'runner' on a show, which is an entry level production position with 'show runner' which would be the person in charge of the entire show.
Very few people don't operate under constraints. Even an executive producer (= showrunner) who owns their own production company needs to sell their projects to clients though there are presumably more options these days and people supplying money do expect some say in the final product most of the time.
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.
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.
the old adage in show business was to never spend your own money. with the plethora of streaming options, that has been turned on its head. look at all of the shows where the lead talent is also an executive producer (the ones that write the checks).
Studio = Yale Investment Office, limited partner
Producer = VC, general partner leading a funding
Writer = Startup CTO, founder
Director = Startup CEO
It's a little different because studios greenlight and producers generally don't. But there are a lot more startups than movies or tv shows. Well, maybe studios don't greenlight development deals (seed startups).
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
Wow, I think this is probably one of those things trying to be funny but just isn't. Maybe you're just totally misguided on what a producer does, which may be the joke you're trying to make that nobody knows what a producer does.
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.
Maybe you're just totally misguided on what a producer does, which may be the joke you're trying to make that nobody knows what a producer does. The producer would be closer to the president of the board while the director would be the CEO.
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).
Depending on the studio, they can be much more than a limited partner. They can be providing the facilities to office out of for pre-production and development, the actual production work using their soundstages and other properties, and to do post-production.
Or you have a project that as an actor you really want to perform a certain role so you show your commitment by putting up some money to get the project rolling. One of the common ways for financing media projects is where someone is willing to match someone else's contribution. The slimey parts come in when the original funding that is matched is guaranteed to be paid back first before others are paid, but that's not unique to the film industry
