Khan

I agree. Maybe Bill Bell had a mistake when he decided to kill off Phillip. Nevertheless, we saw Phillip die; and I have always believed that if we see the character die, then they should stay dead. I think the part of the story that I never will understand the most is Phillip's assertion that he faked his death, because he believed that neither Kay nor Jill would have accepted his coming out. God knows I am not the foremost expert on all things Y&R, but I think I know that that is not necessarily true. Jill might have denied it at first, because she always wanted her son to have the "perfect" life. However, I think she would have come around, realizing that his father would have wanted her to love their son and accept him for who he was and not for who they wanted him to be. Personally, I think Y&R made a mistake in reuniting Nina with her first child (Ronan). The fact that Nina had had that baby as a teenager and then had it stolen from her was, IMO, the event that defined her life most. It informed many of the choices that she would go on to make. Take that away, and I think you take away a lot of Nina's essence and drive.

FV seems to have deteriorated physically in the past several years. He is not as boyishly handsome as he was when he took over GH. Something tells me the stress of the gig is beginning to get to him.

I could see Bill Bell penning a similar tale for Y&R, but his take would be much slower, more complex and far less exploitative.

Stephanie should have been arrested, tried and convicted for facilitating the rape.

I don't recall whether Cleveland Amory ever liked anything, lol.

Perhaps it was one of those situations where people were reluctant to take the HW'ing position?

Every time I even think about that storyline, I just get mad all over again. I cannot stand what Megan McTavish did to that beautiful show.

In retrospect, GF should have held out indefinitely. Then, when TG's contract was up, they could have written out/killed off Bill and let him go.

Such a lovely photo of the two. It makes me wish all the more that more early ATWT episodes was available somewhere.

Someone should have asked him whether he was stoned.

I think it was a little of both. In my wildest dreams, Bill Eckert returns with a new face, and the actor portraying him is actually more successful in the part than TG was, lol.

I agree. @Vee said it a long time ago: TG never could get over the fact that Bill Eckert failed, even after 1250 character resets. He resented that he had to go back to playing Luke, so he did whatever he could to sabotage the character and his relationships with everyone, shitting on viewers' memories and goodwill toward him in the process. AFAIC, I am fine with Luke remaining dead and buried.

Life comes at you hard on the Street. I would love to see Kate Collins again on any soap.

I am sure even TG would not want the headlines to read: "Anthony Geary, Who Once Co-Starred With Fat Boys In 'Disorderlies,' Dies At Age --."

Christine: "Here, Danny, I bought you this garment worn by a real musician!" Danny: "Uh...rock on...?" Best part: It came from Lauren's "vintage collection," because that is just what Cricket should have done: buy a Christmas gift for her ex from his other ex. Somewhere, Traci Abbott is yelling, "Girl, what is WRONG with you??"

I was so sure he was going to give her a Danny Romalotti ornament that plays "Rock On" when you press the button.

Actually, @OpportunisticSlut, I would say that "honor" goes to the "LOVING Murders." As much as I detest watching serial killer storylines on soaps, I think James Harmon Brown and Barbara Esensten laid out the clues and foreshadowing pretty well. And that denouement! Such a brauva piece of acting and writing! As a writer, Megan McTavish's mantra was not so much "Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait," as it was, "Make 'em shudder, make 'em scream in terror, make 'em [!@#$%^&*] their pants in the dark of night."

The thing is, if not for "sparking" with GF, Luke and TG would have been history after 1979; and instead of spending his final days as a multiple Emmy-winning actor in his beloved Amsterdam, he would be wasting away as yet another, former "character actor" from a bunch of old TV shows at some home in Pasadena. GF saved his fugly, scrawny ass from obscurity and dinner theaters. You will have to DM me, @Vee, because I am Googling and coming up empty-handed. Good for Ms. Riche.

I agree. Here is what I have been able to surmise: Douglas Marland planned for Luke to provide an obstacle between Scotty and Laura. Did that obstacle include sexual assault? Possibly. In one print interview that I have read, Marland revealed that, in his original projections, Luke's was supposed to have been a "tragic" story. It is possible, therefore, that Marland's plan was to have Luke assault Laura and then be killed sometime thereafter by Frank Smith's henchmen. Of course, as we all know by now, Gloria Monty altered those plans once she saw the chemistry between TG and GF. As I've said before, she allowed the rape to go on as planned, but instead of killing off Luke, Roy DiLucca met his demise and Luke and Laura were eventually paired off for their first "on the run" story, which was the beginning of the whole L&L phenomenon. Now, I think - and as always, this is just what I think - Monty, in tandem with Pat Falken Smith, hoped that the incident between Luke and Laura at the Campus Disco would be more ambiguous than it actually appeared on television. Laura loved Scotty too much to give herself willingly to another man - especially so soon after their wedding - but Luke still needed to provide that obstacle for her and Scotty in order to move their story forward. Laura would go through with reporting her rape to the police, attending therapy sessions, etc., but the question would linger: Was it really rape? Unfortunately, when you watch the sequence of events, there is no denying what occurred: it was rape, pure and simple. If the show's goal was ambiguity on the matter, then the writing, direction and editing of the actual incident blew that goal to proverbial kingdom come. Realizing the error in judgement that they had made, and fearing the inevitable backlash that would arise even back then from certain groups, that is when Monty and her team resolved to label the rape as a "seduction" instead, in the hopes of sidestepping what would have been some very pointed questions (which GH was able to do without much difficulty until '98). In no way do I condone sexual assault as a means to seduction or to courtship. I maintain that the best way to have handled that situation would have been either to go through with the original plan (Luke rapes Laura; Luke dies) or to leave the rape out entirely. (An illicit kiss between Luke and Laura could have accomplished the same goal of driving a wedge between her and Scotty). So, as much as I respect that millions of viewers fell in love with watching Luke and Laura fall in love, and as much as I believe that TG and GF share a unique chemistry that neither will ever be able to replicate with anyone else, I also am convinced that the fallout from Liz's rape rang, or rang again, a bell that cannot be unrung. To put it simply: no amount of work that any HW puts into redeeming Luke and reuniting him and Laura, either now or in the future, will ever leave less than a sour taste in my mouth. GH made a mess by allowing the rape to happen, and then they made an even bigger mess when they decided to re-address it nineteen years after the fact. Hoping that it still could end someday with the two riding off into the sunset together is...just...wrong. I [!@#$%^&*] love what "Grace Under Fire"'s last EP, Tom Straw, allegedly told Brett Butler after she threw a Coke can toward his head: "Pull it together, we have a show to do - and by the way, you missed." Yeah, I thought the Max/Luna relationship was dumb, too.

I would have pushed back if I had been HW. After all, what was the worst that he, the producer(s) or the network could have done to me? Fire me? Please. Unlike some other hacks that I know, I have no problem with going back home and selling Amway for a living, lol. And if TG had laid even one finger on me like he did on Richard Culliton (allegedly!), you better believe I would have sued his ass, too. If I can survive a suicide attempt, I can survive an effeminate soap star with a bad perm.

I am so terribly sorry, @janea4old. Please allow me to echo @carolineg's thanks for your input.

Between social media and the MeToo movement and its' fallout? More people than you would think, lol.

I literally said the same thing as I was wrapping up that post, @carolineg, lol. And I hope I am not offending anyone here with my admittedly strong opinions on Luke and Laura and the rape revisit. It would be one thing if Gloria Monty had discovered the chemistry between Tony and Genie only after the assault. You could say, "Well, that was just a miscalculation of epic proportions." By all accounts, however, TPTB had changed their minds about killing off Luke when they saw how well Tony and Genie worked together. Yet, the rape was allowed to go on as scheduled. Therefore, I think there was plenty of time for someone - Tony, Genie, Gloria, Pat, Jackie Smith, but someone - to say, "Whoa, let's turn this from an assault into something that is consensual." If they had, things would be a whole lot different. There is a part of me who will never, ever, ever want Sonny reunited with anyone, let alone with Brenda. If you love Brenda Barrett like you and I do, @carolineg, you would not want her to spend the rest of her life with scum like Sonny Corinthos.

I enjoyed Luke and Sonny's friendship, too, as long as TG adhered to Claire Labine's vision of Luke as a reformed husband and father who had not entirely lost his "street sense." I think that version of the Luke/Sonny relationship was more interesting and appealing than it what became later on: the pitiful barfly and the "coffee exporter" with control issues. That is what happens when you grant any actor the right to change anything in the script as they see fit. You give an actor an inch, and they will not think twice about taking the rest of the mile. Wendy Riche and ABC did a lot of great things for GH in the '90's and '00's. That was not one of them. As I see it, Luke and Laura are a conundrum that never quits. They should be endgame. Nothing else makes sense. Yet, because we have acknowledged openly that Luke, indeed, raped Laura, reuniting them at any point will look offensive, especially to real-life victims of sexual assault. Again: that is why I never wanted the rape officially acknowledged as a rape. I do not think Gloria Monty and Pat Falken Smith should have acknowledged it initially as a rape in '79, when they had it in mind already to keep TG on the show and with GF; and I do not think Wendy Riche and Bob Guza/Michele Val Jean should have acknowledged it as a rape in '98 either. Because, when it was acknowledged as a rape, I knew that something like this would happen. I knew GH would reach that point when neither reuniting L&L nor allowing them to grow out of their relationship with each other and into new ones would satisfy. I am sorry, Ms. Val Jean, for the trauma you suffered as a rape victim; and I understand how much it offended you personally to see Luke and Laura happily together given their dark past, but what you did in the name of rectifying that just made it so much worse.

How GH went from being a soap that featured some of the most complex female characters in daytime history to one where a mobster could shoot his pregnant wife in the head (as she is giving birth!) with no consequences is a story for the ages.