I'm just forwarding what I read (https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-actors-that-were-replaced-because-they-overestimated-their-importance/answer/Steve-Marshall-124) elsewhere (https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-actors-that-were-replaced-because-they-overestimated-their-importance/answer/Steve-Marshall-124?comment_id=173727486&comment_type=2):
One that springs to mind is Valerie Harper, who starred in a sitcom titled VALERIE. She was fired for being difficult (https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-actors-that-were-replaced-because-they-overestimated-their-importance/answer/Steve-Marshall-124?comment_id=173599774&comment_type=2). She probably figured “How do you do a show called VALERIE without me?” Sandy Duncan replaced her and the show was re-titled THE HOGAN FAMILY. She may have been right, though. The show failed.

Now I have to edit myself. I just checked and THE HOGAN FAMILY ran for six seasons, which is a success in anyone’s book. So Valerie did overestimate her importance after all. But I loved her anyway. May she rest in peace.

She was wrongfully fired and won her lawsuit against all parties. She starred in a new sitcom not too much longer after this ordeal occurred. She was never considered to be difficult from what I ever heard or read.

I'm just forwarding what I read elsewhere
That doesn’t excuse you for spreading gossip.

That doesn’t excuse you for spreading gossip.

Why when I post something that inquires towards why Valerie Harper may have lost her job at the show that was named after her, you turn things around and try to blame the messenger? I myself, don't absolutely know for sure if Valerie was difficult (or at the very least, assertive) throughout her career, but I don't understand why you feel the need to get so defensive or jump to conclusions. It's just that the the star of a network, prime time show, being dismissed was very unprecedented (and still is as evident by Roseanne Barr and Charlie Sheen). Neither of us were there, so you're not in as much of position to immediately come to a conclusion as I am. There's a difference between flat out saying that someone is "difficult to work with" and asking based on the available evidence if said person comes across as being "difficult".

Why when I post something that inquires towards why Valerie Harper may have lost her job at the show that was named after her, you turn things around and try to blame the messenger? I myself, don't absolutely know for sure if Valerie was difficult (or at the very least, assertive) throughout her career, but I don't understand why you feel the need to get so defensive or jump to conclusions. It's just that the the star of a network, prime time show, being dismissed was very unpresented (and still us as evident by Roseanne Barr and Charlie Sheen). Neither of us were there, so you're not in as much of position to immediately come to a conclusion as I am. There's a difference between flat out saying that someone is "difficult to work with" and asking based on the available evidence if said person comes across as being "difficult".

I think you are making a very fair point. When you look at the two series she was the lead in there were significant issues on both occasions and it is difficult if not impossible to ignore the similarities.

Rhoda was a top 10 hit that took a wild turn at the beginning of season 3 and never recovered. Move to Valerie and some of the same things are starting up again. The producers and the network who are bankrolling the project seemed to have big differences with Harper on how they wanted to proceed, and let's face it, may not have wanted a repeat of what eventually happened to Rhoda.

I understand Harper's position, but she wasn't the hot property she was a decade earlier and I think that based on what happened on Rhoda her career may have been better served working in a more collaborative way.