Alright, just out of curiousity. How much do you think an actor should be involved in making the show? I noticed in the shows I watch sometimes an actor does the directing. Dana Elcar directed the episodes The Challenge and The Invisible Killer for MacGyver. Renee 'O Connor also directed two episodes in Xena, just as Michael Hurst did, think he did a few more. And in the most recent show I've been following Michael Chicklis has directed 2 episodes for The Shield. Besides that he's also became the producer just as Kiefer Sutherland is for 24.

First of all, an actors job is acting but do you think it would make the show better if they also show initiative in producing the show, directing episodes or even writing them? Or do you think they just should do what they were hired for and act?

In this case I'm talking about the main character but also supporting characters. I was just wondering this after I noticed Michael Chicklis directed 2 episodes in The Shield. He's the lead character in that show.

What do you think about episodes if RDA did the writing and directing of it? What would they be all about? What would he do to or with the character?

I think he probably would've written the Serenity episode than and I think he would've also written his own Mac-Pete-Jack adventure or maybe a Mac-Murdoc confrontation.

What do you guys think?

Well that it's ok once in a while. Michael Shanks and Chris Judge wrote episodes of Stargate SG1 and Amanda Tapping directed. That's fine once or twice. But it can be grossly overdone. For example, when Michael Landon was starring in Little House on the Prairie (another show I grew up with and I love), he was also writing, directing and producing! Too Much!!!

I'd say like two or three times per season.

Some people think they would do better behind the camera... case in point: Henry Winkler, Bill Bixby, etc... They did well both in front of the camera and behind.

As for Michael Landon... he turned the books I loved as a child to episodes that mostly focused on his character, which was not what the story was about. I stopped watching because of that... and if you believe the rumors, his castmates were none too pleased as a result. But show had a VERY long run, so he must have been doing something right.

I don't know if it was a coincidence or not, but as soon as RDA quit Stargate, the show went down the tubes (in my humble opinion.) I think it was his input as a producer as well as his physical appearance that was lacking in the last 2 seasons.

I think if an actor wants to stretch his/her wings, more power to him. But not to do too much... it will show eventually in his/her performance.

Writing, directing, acting and producing are different skills -- extremely different. And good writing, directing, acting and producing requires each different talent as well as skill. It takes an unusual talent to be good at more than one; in particular, it's very rare for writing and production to overlap well.

For that matter, in live contemporary theatre, writers are notoriously bad directors -- except for the rare individuals who aren't.

It's much more common for an actor to develop into a director -- the experience applies better. In an established show, it's very common for a lead actor to direct an episode or two; many actors are interested in directing, and going from in front of the camera to behind it is one of the few somewhat smooth paths in the entertainment industry (at least in this country). I think most of the Star Trek: TNG regulars directed at least once, and those who didn't would have been the ones who didn't want to.

In TV and film work, especially once a show is solidly established, the directing work can be juggled so that even the lead actor can direct -- consider all of Kenneth Branagh's films for starters. Wearing two hats (or more) is incredibly hard work and can be extremely draining, though. RDA's work as a producer certainly contributed to the high quality of Stargate -- but might have also burned him out.

As for MacGyver, Dana Elcar didn't direct many episodes (only those two, I think), but those he did were outstanding. I wish I could have seen more of his directing work.

RDA was obviously a terrific producer, but that doesn't mean he would have been any good as a director. It certainly wouldn't make him a writer unless he had that skill and talent as well. He's well documented as having a great deal of input into the show, including rewriting his own lines; but that's not the same thing as writing an entire script.

BTW, trtl, I agree with you about "Little House" -- loved the books, couldn't figure out why that TV show even had the same title.

Surely how often someone does something like that should depend on how good they are at it.

If they carry the episodes in the same line as other episodes and keep the same feel to the show, they can do it as often as they like.

If they mess around with stuff or only make a certain kind of episode, then that has to be balanced out through the season.

Little House started well, but by the 5-6th seasons, Michael Landon wrote in so much melodrama. I saw an interview on YouTube where the actress who played Mary Ingalls was asked if Michael Landon had it in for her with all of the melodramatic storylines that he wrote for her character. Some of the characters that were never in the books were a little much too. But I still enjoy the show with my kids. Right now we watch mostly MacGyver together, and some Stargate (as far as TV shows) and of course lots of Disney and old classics.

As for MacGyver and Stargate, I agree that being a producer probably exhausted RDA at times, which is probably why he chose not to direct or write.
Dana Elcar directed the Challenge and the Invisible Killer and both were terrific. I noticed how Dana Elcar wasn't an actor though in the Challenge--he focused on directing this very intense and emotionally charged episode which required a focus on charcter development, good direction and writing, a vision for what the director wanted and good actors (RDA and the others too) to bring it to life.

I second MacBeth. Writing, directing, acting, producing...all different skills, and one should only do the ones they are good at. Some folks are multi-talented, some aren't. The ones that are, well, it's ok to play around from time to time, but in general, so as not to overextend themselves, best to only wear a few hats, not all of them at once.

Agreed on Little House.

Oh, and TNG-Jonathan Frakes is a very fine example of an actor turned director, and his skills seem to actually be better behind the camera. It does happen, and he's still going strong.

It seems like many actors like to direct at least one episode of the hit show they're on. I'm thinking both Dean Stockwell and Scott Bakula directed episodes of Quantum Leap, for example. (But only a couple.) Some of course become really good at it. I know Scott Baio directed quite a few episodes of Charles in Charge and later went on to direct episodes of Out of this World, among other projects, both directing and acting.
And don't forget probably the best example- Ron Howard, who went from directing episodes of The Andy Griffith Show as a kid (just kidding )- but starred both as Opie Taylor on that show and then as Richie Cunningham on Happy Days- and of course, he's become a great director of cool movies such as Splash, Cocoon, Apollo 13, How The Grinch Stole Christmas and A Beautiful Mind, among others.
So obviously some actors make great directors- but some are probably better actors and should stick to that. If Richard Dean Anderson wanted to direct episodes of MacGyver, I honestly wouldn't have cared (because at the time it was airing I wouldn't have been paying any attention to that in the credits anyway- actually I still wouldn't now.)

Scott Dracula?

Yeah, maybe. Out of all the actors that became directors and who is good in all four skills doing at once is Sylvester Stallone.

Maybe you should. It can help out seeing the styles of the writers. That's at least what I do. Only in series I pay attention to the writers.

And Jason Priestly (who we all remember from the Blood Brothers episode) directed a number (15 I think) of Beverly Hills 90210 episodes, and has continued to both direct and act.

I've heard many times from actors, that actors make better directors because they understand how an actor works and what direction they need, and so they're better able to communicate with the actor.

It does make sense. I would say Production would be a different kettle of fish though. That would be more about management of people and resources I would think.

So that's what makes them good. I always thought it was cool having a known actor directing like Sly does and Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood. I don't know, it always gives that little extra to the movie.

I wouldn't say it makes them good; makes them better, perhaps, if they already have the director's knack.

A good director has to be able to take both a focused and a broad view of a show. Most actors tend to take narrower views -- they're usually focused on their own part of the activity, and not taking in everything else. The leap from acting to directing has to include that ability to broaden perspective. If they can successfully carry both the broad and the focused view, that's the magic combination.

Yeah it makes them good from the actors point of view because they are able to "speak the actors language".

Doesn't necessarily make them any good as a director though.

Now some actors make great directors, aka Robert Redford for example. Clint Eastwood is another, Mel Gibson in Braveheart and the Passion of the Christ. All are good actors and good directors. But to handle both roles at the same time is a bit much.

Though it does make for very interesting one-sided arguments when the director and actor have creative differences.

You should just see the kind of arguments that can break out when it's a writer/actor/director doing a one-man show. Ever see someone fire themselves?

yeah- it's sad when they "just can't work with this man!"