DoDaN2nfTnA

See more at https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=DoDaN2nfTnA&redir_token=cpYaIxgm8jdBqqTvVCaxynzlZF98MTUzMzE5MTgyMkAxNTMzMTA1NDIy&event=video_description&q=https%3A%2F%2Finterviews.televisionacademy.com%2Finterviews%2Fvalerie-harper

I have never seen a more scatterbrained, convoluted interview. Is she on speed? I can't understand her train of thought.

Well, in her defense, she does say she hasn't thought about it in a long time. It's still interesting hearing the details she remembers/digs up. Man, I love that EmmyTVLegends website---what a treasure trove of interviews!

And, she mentions an aquaintance of ours: Lorimar ;)

I have so much respect for this woman and her perspective on things and what really matters in life.

She may have done this interview while battling brain cancer hence the scattered thought patterns, who knows? Who cares? My mom has dementia, it takes her awhile to put her thoughts together too.

The point is Valerie Harper is not a grudge holder. She was treated unfairly, was vindicated but doesn't act like she didn't also play a part in what went down in that debacle. She has put the situation behind her and moved on.

Suzanne Somers could learn a lot from her. :wave: She still whines about her firing to this day.

I have so much respect for this woman and her perspective on things and what really matters in life.

She may have done this interview while battling brain cancer hence the scattered thought patterns, who knows? Who cares? My mom has dementia, it takes her awhile to put her thoughts together too.

The point is Valerie Harper is not a grudge holder. She was treated unfairly, was vindicated but doesn't act like she didn't also play a part in what went down in that debacle. She has put the situation behind her and moved on.

Suzanne Somers could learn a lot from her. :wave: She still whines about her firing to this day.

She may not be a grudge holder, but Warner Bros sure holds grudges! They released it to Antenna so I'm hoping somebody will release The Hogan Family on DVD, it's an underrated show.

She may not be a grudge holder, but Warner Bros sure holds grudges! They released it to Antenna so I'm hoping somebody will release The Hogan Family on DVD, it's an underrated show.

Yes.

Suzanne Somers could learn a lot from her. :wave: She still whines about her firing to this day.

A lot of that may have to do with the fact that Valerie had a long television career before "Valerie", while TC was Suzanne's first foray into television (plus the whole unfairness thing over equal pay; even if she were asking for more money [and I know she was], there was still that sexism in salary).

Yes.

At least it's airing on Antenna now.

Well, in her defense, she does say she hasn't thought about it in a long time. It's still interesting hearing the details she remembers/digs up. Man, I love that EmmyTVLegends website---what a treasure trove of interviews!

They do have the best interviews, asking questions no one else ever asks. I just wish Valerie's response had been in any way coherent. It's like she starts a sentence, and then moves to another train of thought, and then another, then another, without ever finishing her original sentence.


And, she mentions an aquaintance of ours: Lorimar ;)

Haha! Somehow, I don't think she was talking about our Lorimar.

I have so much respect for this woman and her perspective on things and what really matters in life.

She may have done this interview while battling brain cancer hence the scattered thought patterns, who knows? Who cares? My mom has dementia, it takes her awhile to put her thoughts together too.

You have a point about people having scattered thoughts, but they could have just asked her to slow down. Whenever I've recorded an interview, if someone started the interview like this, I would stop recording, try to get the person calmed down, and then do a retake. I would never use a take like this.


The point is Valerie Harper is not a grudge holder. She was treated unfairly, was vindicated but doesn't act like she didn't also play a part in what went down in that debacle. She has put the situation behind her and moved on.

Suzanne Somers could learn a lot from her. :wave: She still whines about her firing to this day.

My problem with Suzanne isn't her bringing up her firing, it's that she doesn't tell the truth while doing so. She has stated in several interviews that she was in season six when she began her contract re-negotiations. Suzanne wasn't even in most of season five, so her contract re-negotiations started during or after season four. She never brings up the fact that she claimed she had a cracked rib (wonder why), she doesn't mention the skipped tapings, she doesn't bring up the fact that she went on talk shows to complain about her role reduction, she claims the media was 'somehow' focusing more on her when we know she actually hired publicists to make that happen, she glosses over the reasons that John and Joyce were offended by her behavior, etc.

To be honest, if my role was reduced in the way Suzanne's was, I would complain about it, too, because what the producers did with the "Chrissy Minute", and having security escort her on and off set, was frankly cruel. But she hasn't been honest about what caused those things to happen.

You make a good point about Valerie acknowledging the brinkmanship that she and her husband contributed to. I still would have liked to have heard the whole story from her perspective, rather than this odd rambling, but as you say, she does admit that some of it was their fault.

Valerie and Miller-Boyett were a bad match from the beginning. Valerie thought that actors, especially ones as well-known as her, mattered, while Miller-Boyett would replace or write off actors at the drop of a hat... and did so, frequently, on nearly every show they produced.

I have never seen a more scatterbrained, convoluted interview. Is she on speed? I can't understand her train of thought.


I did not have any difficulty understanding her train of thought at all. She talked about something that occurred on or about 30 years ago at the time of the interview! She did not seem like she was talking too fast, but rather she seemed to be talking at a normal pace.

Maybe you could try it again? :)

I have so much respect for this woman and her perspective on things and what really matters in life.

She may have done this interview while battling brain cancer hence the scattered thought patterns, who knows? Who cares? My mom has dementia, it takes her awhile to put her thoughts together too.

The point is Valerie Harper is not a grudge holder. She was treated unfairly, was vindicated but doesn't act like she didn't also play a part in what went down in that debacle. She has put the situation behind her and moved on.

Suzanne Somers could learn a lot from her. :wave: She still whines about her firing to this day.

Yet Suzanne had no problems on her Lorimar show Step By Step

She may not be a grudge holder, but Warner Bros sure holds grudges! They released it to Antenna so I'm hoping somebody will release The Hogan Family on DVD, it's an underrated show.

Very Underrated!

I have so much respect for this woman and her perspective on things and what really matters in life.

She may have done this interview while battling brain cancer hence the scattered thought patterns, who knows? Who cares? My mom has dementia, it takes her awhile to put her thoughts together too.

The point is Valerie Harper is not a grudge holder. She was treated unfairly, was vindicated but doesn't act like she didn't also play a part in what went down in that debacle. She has put the situation behind her and moved on.

Suzanne Somers could learn a lot from her. :wave: She still whines about her firing to this day.

https://www.nickiswift.com/132496/actors-who-were-fired-after-they-asked-for-more-money/

A long winter for Suzanne Somers

As the Three's Company cast and crew prepared for its fifth season in 1980, the optimism around the TV series was palpable. The sitcom had become one of the most popular shows on television, and two of its stars, Suzanne Somers and John Ritter, had just earned Golden Globe nominations. But Somers was not happy.

Trying to capitalize on her popularity, she approached ABC executives and argued that she deserved more than the $30,000 she was making per episode. While the network agreed, reportedly offering Somers a $5,000-per-episode raise, Somers had a much larger number in mind. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the actress demanded $150,000 per episode. That would put her on par with other TV stars, including co-star Ritter. When the network declined her request, Somers refused to shoot and got fired for it.

Under ideal circumstances, Somers might have won her fight. The problem, according to her husband, Alan Hamel, was that ABC allegedly felt pressured to nip a recent trend in the bud. "I got a call from a friend who had connections high up at ABC and he said, 'They're going to hang a nun in the marketplace and the nun is Suzanne,'" Hamel told The Hollywood Reporter. "The network was willing to do this because earlier that year the women on Laverne & Shirley had gotten what they asked for and they wanted to put a stop to it."

Killing off Valerie

During the second season of Valerie, a sitcom starring Valerie Harper and a young Jason Bateman, there was hope in the air because show ratings were improving. With the series looking primed for a strong third season and Harper starring as the titular character, the actress decided to ask for a raise.

According to People, she was contracted to make "$56,750 per episode by her third year, plus 10 percent of the show's adjusted gross profits," but she requested a new contract of $100,000 per episode, plus 35 percent of the profits. When the studio balked, Harper pulled out an old trick. Twelve years earlier, she was the star of Rhoda. Back then, when her raise request was denied, Harper refused to show up for work and got what she wanted. This time, however, the hold-out tactic was not as successful. The show's producers agreed to terms on a new contract worth $65,000 per episode, plus 12.5 percent of profits. This got Harper back on set, but not for long. After filming only one episode, she was fired.

With the titular star gone, Valerie writers killed Harper's character, and the show was retitled Valerie's Family for Season 3. A season later, the show was renamed The Hogan Family. While the sitcom remained popular without its original star, Harper got the last laugh, successfully suing producers for wrongful dismissal.

Read More: https://www.nickiswift.com/132496/actors-who-were-fired-after-they-asked-for-more-money/?utm_campaign=clip

I have never seen a more scatterbrained, convoluted interview. Is she on speed? I can't understand her train of thought.

When I first saw the interview, I just felt that Valerie was pretty much saying stuff that most of us already know. I was kind of hoping that she would go deeper on her issues (namely working with Miller-Boyett as producers) with the show.

The network's side was to say that Valerie was fired because she was mentally unstable:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19870930&id=kP9JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JB4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4475,3882738&hl=en

Valerie's side of the story:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19880111&id=xidVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aI8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2376,964726&hl=en

The actual story was that Valerie was having creative differences with the writers and producers. NBC was happy because they wanted a vehicle for Jason Bateman for a long time. When Valerie got demanding NBC let her go and she was not shy about talking about it.

The big difference was Valerie had a financial stake in the show before the problems. So instead of going to court, she paid a private "arbitrator" to settle it and the producers agreed to it. Valerie said, she believed she was right but realized how Hollywood worked and didn't want it to get around she was hard to work with. And if it took years to get through the courts, the truth, over time, would be lost and disputed.

By going to binding arbitration the case was resolved fairly quick and in her favor and she wound up with a total of 25% stake. This made the big difference as now Valerie Harper had no incentive to knock or run down or even talk about the show, since she'd lose money in the long run and she was getting a nice paycheck for doing nothing AND she was free to work on other projects.

FoXqBOYAnX4

When I first saw the interview, I just felt that Valerie was pretty much saying stuff that most of us already know. I was kind of hoping that she would go deeper on her issues (namely working with Miller-Boyett as producers) with the show.

The network's side was to say that Valerie was fired because she was mentally unstable:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19870930&id=kP9JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JB4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4475,3882738&hl=en

Valerie's side of the story:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19880111&id=xidVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aI8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2376,964726&hl=en

The actual story was that Valerie was having creative differences with the writers and producers. NBC was happy because they wanted a vehicle for Jason Bateman for a long time. When Valerie got demanding NBC let her go and she was not shy about talking about it.

The big difference was Valerie had a financial stake in the show before the problems. So instead of going to court, she paid a private "arbitrator" to settle it and the producers agreed to it. Valerie said, she believed she was right but realized how Hollywood worked and didn't want it to get around she was hard to work with. And if it took years to get through the courts, the truth, over time, would be lost and disputed.

By going to binding arbitration the case was resolved fairly quick and in her favor and she wound up with a total of 25% stake. This made the big difference as now Valerie Harper had no incentive to knock or run down or even talk about the show, since she'd lose money in the long run and she was getting a nice paycheck for doing nothing AND she was free to work on other projects.

FoXqBOYAnX4

Thanks, TMC. These links and the video here are great.

I was somewhat aware of the Valerie dispute because I was a viewer of the show at that time, and the TV newsmagazines were constantly reporting on the spat. Watching the show go through two title changes, as well as listening to details of the feud at the time, was interesting.

It seems more clear now that Valerie was worried the show was becoming The Jason Bateman Show, and she definitely had a legitimate reason to worry: Miller-Boyett had a long history of focusing on a break-out character, to the detriment of the other characters.

https://www.nickiswift.com/132496/actors-who-were-fired-after-they-asked-for-more-money/

I have an issue with that article. It seems to imply Ritter was earning $150,000 per Three’s episode when it was more likely $50,000.

It seems more clear now that Valerie was worried the show was becoming The Jason Bateman Show, and she definitely had a legitimate reason to worry: Miller-Boyett had a long history of focusing on a break-out character, to the detriment of the other characters.

Very true

It seems more clear now that Valerie was worried the show was becoming The Jason Bateman Show

I think someone said according to her book, that's not true (I haven't read it though).

Does anybody on here feel that NBC unfairly characterized Valerie Harper as being distributive and a diva? It wasn't exactly like a Suzanne Somers kind of thing over on Three's Company. Sure, Valerie may have had her faults - she even admitted in one of her interviews that she takes ownership of things she did. But on the same token, she had a number of years as a professional actress and had already appeared on two hit shows, and this show was about her and named after her. Valerie by the simple looks of it, felt being that it was quite literally, "her show", she was entitled to more money (but not a "crazy amount" mind you) and creative input.