Should we be blaming Alan Hamel?

[JackJanetChrissy]

A convo on another thread got me thinking....everyone blames and vilifies Suzanne for asking for too much money, but she was doing the bidding of her very misguided husband/manager, Alan Hamel.

Obviously Suzanne is responsible for her own actions, but I think Hamel really steered her wrong. From what I've read about the whole situation, he was kind of like the serpent whispering in Eve's ear (a little dramatic, but bear with me). Suzanne wanted huge success and Hamel promised her big things, but he never delivered. If she hadn't married him, his ass would have been fired as soon as she realized he was screwing up her Three's Company situation. If any real manager would have screwed up that bad, they not only would be fired but probably blacklisted by his other star clientele.

Jay Bernstein, her original manager, was well-known in Hollywood and probably could have pulled strings to get her a raise within reason. But nobody could've gotten her $150,000. That was just insane. And Bernstein (or another competent manager) would have told her that, too. I feel like Suzanne was a kid in a candy store who wanted everything in sight, and she needed someone to moderate her expectations. Hamel failed miserably.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

A convo on another thread got me thinking....everyone blames and vilifies Suzanne for asking for too much money, but she was doing the bidding of her very misguided husband/manager, Alan Hamel.

Obviously Suzanne is responsible for her own actions, but I think Hamel really steered her wrong. From what I've read about the whole situation, he was kind of like the serpent whispering in Eve's ear (a little dramatic, but bear with me). Suzanne wanted huge success and Hamel promised her big things, but he never delivered. If she hadn't married him, his ass would have been fired as soon as she realized he was screwing up her Three's Company situation. If any real manager would have screwed up that bad, they not only would be fired but probably blacklisted by his other star clientele.

Jay Bernstein, her original manager, was well-known in Hollywood and probably could have pulled strings to get her a raise within reason. But nobody could've gotten her $150,000. That was just insane. And Bernstein (or another competent manager) would have told her that, too. I feel like Suzanne was a kid in a candy store who wanted everything in sight, and she needed someone to moderate her expectations. Hamel failed miserably.

I agree 100%.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

A convo on another thread got me thinking....everyone blames and vilifies Suzanne for asking for too much money, but she was doing the bidding of her very misguided husband/manager, Alan Hamel.

Obviously Suzanne is responsible for her own actions, but I think Hamel really steered her wrong. From what I've read about the whole situation, he was kind of like the serpent whispering in Eve's ear (a little dramatic, but bear with me). Suzanne wanted huge success and Hamel promised her big things, but he never delivered. If she hadn't married him, his ass would have been fired as soon as she realized he was screwing up her Three's Company situation. If any real manager would have screwed up that bad, they not only would be fired but probably blacklisted by his other star clientele.

Jay Bernstein, her original manager, was well-known in Hollywood and probably could have pulled strings to get her a raise within reason. But nobody could've gotten her $150,000. That was just insane. And Bernstein (or another competent manager) would have told her that, too. I feel like Suzanne was a kid in a candy store who wanted everything in sight, and she needed someone to moderate her expectations. Hamel failed miserably.

I have to keep reminding people that of all the people involved with Three's Company, Suzanne Somers became the wealthiest, by far. And Alan Hamel has been there all along.

[JackJanetChrissy]

Originally Posted by LittleRickyII

I have to keep reminding people that of all the people involved with Three's Company, Suzanne Somers became the wealthiest, by far. And Alan Hamel has been there all along.

You have a point.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

You have a point.

I think of Suzanne Somers as more of a business person than a performer. Performing was a means to an end: she wanted to be rich and famous and she used performing to get there. And now she's very famous and very, VERY rich. People who succeed in business have to know how to play the game, and business is about taking risks and receiving rewards. The bigger the risk, the bigger the possible return. Sometimes you take a risk in business and don't get the results you want, which is what happened in 1980. But sometimes those risks result in a big payday. I'm assuming Suzanne and Alan have taken many other risks since 1980 and overall the payoff has been tremendous for them. Some of these products she's endorsed over the years many actors would be hesitant to get behind, but she's done it and survived it and cashed out big time.

It kind of amuses me that people paint Suzanne Somers as a failure because of a single incident in her very long career. But she has accomplished in life what SHE set out to accomplish, which is not necessarily what the fans wanted. I'm guessing that Suzanne and Alan see the events of 1980 as more of a learning experience than a mistake. They took the lessons they learned then and moved on to become enormously successful. Nobody else associated with that show comes anywhere close to touching their wealth. Some people may not like them, and maybe those folks are pissed off because Suzanne and Alan's actions hurt a show they like, but you have to admire them. They have guts, they have smarts, they have resilience, and they have more money and fame than they would have had if they had spent the rest of their careers just playing nice and "knowing their place" like the rest of the cast. Nice guys finish last, as the saying goes. I'm a nice guy, which I guess is why I'm not rich.

[JackJanetChrissy]

Originally Posted by LittleRickyII

They have guts, they have smarts, they have resilience, and they have more money and fame than they would have if they had spent the rest of their careers just playing nice and "knowing their place" like the rest of the cast.

I agree with you. I admire Suzanne for her chutzpah over the years. I think she's truly worked her buns off to get to where she is, and she is the master of her destiny. She's been an actor, a poet, a writer, a singer, a stage performer, an entrepreneur....she's really done a little of everything over the years.

I'm always amazed at the vitriol people have toward her because she left Three's Company. Some of the names she's been called are unreal. But you're right, Suzanne never hid the fact that she was more of a business person, whereas Joyce DeWitt was all about the actual work and artistic integrity. I think that's hard for some people to accept.

Men don't get nearly as much hatred when they have demanded more money---they're seen as being "good businessmen" or "cutthroat" (as a good thing). I guess some of the hateful fan reactions are proof of the sexism Suzanne (and later DeWitt) claimed existed in television at the time.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by LittleRickyII

I think of Suzanne Somers as more of a business person than a performer. Performing was more of a means to and end: she wanted to be rich and famous and she used performing to get there. And now she's very famous and very, VERY rich. People who succeed in business have to know how to play the game, and business is about risks and rewards. The bigger the risk, the possible return. Sometimes you take a risk in business and don't get the results you want, which is what happened in 1980. But sometimes those risks result in a big payday. I'm assuming Suzanne and Alan have taken many other risks since 1980 and overall the payoff has been tremendous for them. Some of these products she's endorsed over the years many actors would be hesitant to get behind, but she's done it and survived it and cashed out big time.

It kind of amuses me that people paint Suzanne Somers as a failure because of a single incident in her very long career. But she has accomplished in life what SHE set out to accomplish, which is not necessarily what the fans wanted. I'm guessing that Suzanne and Alan see the events of 1980 are more of a learning experience than a mistake. They took the lessons they learned then and moved on to become enormously successful. Nobody else associated with that show comes anywhere close to touching their wealth. Some people may not like them, and maybe those folks are pissed off because Suzanne and Alan's actions hurt a show they like, but you have to admire them. They have guts, they have smarts, they have resilience, and they have more money and fame than they would have if they had spent the rest of their careers just playing nice and "knowing their place" like the rest of the cast. Nice guys finish last, as the saying goes. I'm a nice guy, which I guess is why I'm not rich.

A politician should hire you to write speeches for him/her. You know how to state things in a very meaningful way.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by JSP

A politician should hire you to write speeches for him/her. You know how to state things in a very meaningful way.

Oh wow, thanks! Can I use you as a reference on my resume? Your comment inspired me to re-read what I wrote and -- ugh! -- I need to learn to proofread what I write. Wrong words, missing words. I just now did some edits so maybe it reads a little better now.

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

Men don't get nearly as much hatred when they have demanded more money---they're seen as being "good businessmen" or "cutthroat" (as a good thing). I guess some of the hateful fan reactions are proof of the sexism Suzanne (and later DeWitt) claimed existed in television at the time.

The fact that those comments are still being made suggests to me that perhaps the sexism is still with us. You see it in politics. Female politicians have to act a certain way: smile and show their soft side. If a female politician talked to people the way Chris Christie does, her career would be over in an instant. Imagine a female politician telling a citizen asking a tough question to "sit down and shut up." But he's applauded for it. But back in the day, Carroll O'Connor made huge salary demands and stormed off the set for several weeks. In the end, he got what he wanted. Suzanne also made huge demands, and perhaps they were a bit ridiculous, but that's what you do to start a negotiation. But instead of an honest negotiation, the other side made an equally ridiculous counter-offer, and when she said no, instead of continuing the discussion they fired her. If Suzanne and Alan made a mistake, it was grossly underestimating the sexism and greed of the producers.

[Mr. Television]

Finally some pro Suzanne comments on this board. It is a refreshing change from years ago.

[JackJanetChrissy]

I found this list interesting. LittleRicky is right, Suzanne was not the first or last person to walk off a set to protest salary issues, so why does everyone paint her as the antichrist or, my favorite, "unprofessional"? Apparently not showing up for shooting is pretty standard. How else will they get the attention of people in charge?

Interesting that for Dukes of Hazzard and Dallas they paid the boys to come back, but Suzanne and Valerie Harper got screwed. (Harper was the TITLE CHARACTER of "Valerie" and they fired her. Unbelievable!)

7 TV Salary Disputes
http://mentalfloss.com/article/26118...alary-disputes