Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Soap Opera Network Community

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

  • Member
7 minutes ago, Planet Soap said:

Again, I've never quite understood his aversion to playing the character that made him a household name.

I can understand some of it, given all that came with it and all he wanted to do as an actor. And for many many years, he was the loyal keeper of the flame in the mags re: Luke and Laura and their family. It was only in the mid-2000s when his tone really changed in print and his behavior with it. He has talked about clashing with Riche and Labine, etc. (as have both of them, I think) but in those actual years, onscreen or in the press, I can only ever remember him being a devoted hype man for the stories.

I'll tag @dc11786 as they've had so many wonderful thoughts on this era, and I'd be curious on their take re: Geary's response in the video on the last page.

Edited by Vee

  • Replies 7.9k
  • Views 1.6m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Member

More of the post-Bill interview. Tony does admit "I was not cast well as Bill Eckert."

Edited by Vee

  • Member
18 minutes ago, Vee said:

I can understand some of it, given all that came with it and all he wanted to do as an actor. And for many many years, he was the loyal keeper of the flame in the mags re: Luke and Laura and their family. It was only in the mid-2000s when his tone really changed in print and his behavior with it. He has talked about clashing with Riche and Labine, etc. (as have both of them, I think) but in those actual years, onscreen or in the press, I can only ever remember him being a devoted hype man for the stories.

I'll tag @dc11786 as they've had so many wonderful thoughts on this era, and I'd be curious on their take re: Geary's response in the video on the last page.

3 minutes ago, Vee said:

More of the post-Bill interview. Tony does admit "I was not cast well as Bill Eckert."

From that POV it's understandable.

Always thought Bill had better haircuts and dressed slightly better as Luke. Luke look really great around 1998 when he rocked the shaved head.

  • Member

One of the scenes they clip briefly here with Sly and Bill, where Sly challenges his father's nihilistic worldview, I remember being really excellent. I think it was from September or October of '93 and I was fairly convinced it was Labine, but I don't think her name was on the show at the time so I may be wrong about it. (Or it was her tinkering before her official first date)

Edited by Vee

  • Member
17 minutes ago, Planet Soap said:

Again, I've never quite understood his aversion to playing the character that made him a household name.

7 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Isn't that a common story with many actors/ singers? - the very thing you wished for becomes a burden. Tony probably hoped that his success with Luke would translate into other roles that were varied, more prestigious etc and when that didn't happen there was a certain resentment. Then not to have the Bill character be well received also meant that if he wanted that kind of income and what it brought him, he would have to go back to playing Luke.

I agree. Of course, understanding Geary's dissatisfaction is difficult when there are so many who would've gladly traded places with him. (Like Abby Ewing says, "Go talk to someone who lays tar all day for minimum wage, and then tell me how difficult your job is for you," lol). Geary used his clout to force TPTB to rewrite Luke's history and temperament as he saw fit - even demanding the right to rewrite his own dialogue, which I would've quit over, had I been in the HW's chair - and there's a part of me that always will resent him for that. But I get it.

  • Member
Just now, Khan said:

even demanding the right to rewrite his own dialogue, which I would've quit over, had I been in the HW's chair - and there's a part of me that always will resent him for that. But I get it.

It wasn't necessarily always a huge issue until the Carlivati era, where he began actively playing against their plans for Luke (addressing his alcoholism, reuniting Luke and Laura). But no one made Guza II put all that dialogue in other actors' mouths dissing Luke and Laura; that was the writing team.

I will say I think Tony and Jonathan did a beautiful job rewriting their last scenes, which were probably typically functional RC hackwork, in 2015. The final scenes were just way above the level of the rest of the dialogue on the show at that point. The legacy of Tony and Luke has always been complicated, good and bad. (Also, Erika Slezak was known to rewrite elements of her scenes on the fly in the mornings with permission from OLTL brass, and would also massage her scene partners' dialogue for them. She and her costars like Jerry VerDorn, Mark Derwin, etc. have talked about it in a complimentary way.)

Edited by Vee

  • Member

Thanks @Vee

Geary was absolutely seething. You can see all his resentment laid bare for Luke's return, and likely the Labines, that would fester later on.

I think they were right to not have a shot with the two Gearys together. It added to the power to just go from one to another. I can see where he might have felt Bill was underserved, but no one gave a damn about Bill.

Logan was, as always, carrying water for his soap friends in that bit about how Bill struggled due to so many different writers. No, Bill just stunk as a character.

Edited by DRW50

  • Member
9 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Geary was absolutely seething. You can see all his resentment laid bare for Luke's return, and likely the Labines, that would fester later on.

The fan on the street reaction still cracks me up.

I will again say, I think Tony sold LNL's return 100% at the same time as this discussion (and he is equally fulsome about them in those same E! interviews in other clips) and for many years in public and onscreen. But I think the Bill stuff festered, especially come the mid-2000s. He was also never horribly insulting or dismissive re: Claire Labine, as he could be about Culliton or Carlivati (who he enthusiastically compliments in the Fluke reveal article before roasting him a few months later in the exit interview).

Edited by Vee

  • Member
23 minutes ago, Vee said:

Tony does admit "I was not cast well as Bill Eckert."

You were not cast well in a role that was created expressly for you? Make that make sense for me, Mr. Geary!

Now, I'll admit that TG couldn't have returned at a worse time for GH. The show was in freefall; and unfortunately, his new character, like so many other things going on at that time, fell through the proverbial cracks. If GH itself had been more stable, who knows? Maybe there wouldn't have been a need to "kill Bill," as it were, and bring back Luke and Laura. But that's hindsight.

The fact is, for whatever reason, Bill Eckert just didn't click with the audience, who wanted TG back as Luke and only Luke. So, either count your blessings (not to mention, your paychecks) and shut up, or tell TPTB to shove off and, I dunno, go back to Utah or whatever. (Ugh. Utah. I don't know about anyone else, but I know that would be more than enough for me to never complain about playing Luke Spencer).

  • Member
2 minutes ago, Khan said:

You were not cast well in a role that was created expressly for you? Make that make sense for me, Mr. Geary!

No, I think he's right. Others in here have discussed before the what-ifs re: Monty casting someone, anyone else (like Stephen Nichols). Her alleged inspiration was Eastenders which she thought was the wave of the future for the '90s, getting away from big '80s excess to more grounded people. She had a good point, but she botched the idea spectacularly.

  • Member
7 minutes ago, Vee said:

The fan on the street reaction still cracks me up.

I will again say, I think Tony sold LNL's return 100% at the same time as this discussion (and he is equally fulsome about them in those same E! interviews in other clips) and for many years in public and onscreen. But I think the Bill stuff festered, especially come the mid-2000s. He was also never horribly insulting or dismissive re: Claire Labine, as he could be about Culliton or Carlivati (who he enthusiastically compliments in the Fluke reveal article before roasting him a few months later in the exit interview).

I can see why he at least had some basic respect for Claire but not for them.

Pure Soap was a great show, at least for a while, and treated viewers with intelligence. Thanks for reminding us.

  • Member
7 minutes ago, Khan said:

You were not cast well in a role that was created expressly for you? Make that make sense for me, Mr. Geary!

Now, I'll admit that TG couldn't have returned at a worse time for GH. The show was in freefall; and unfortunately, his new character, like so many other things going on at that time, fell through the proverbial cracks. If GH itself had been more stable, who knows? Maybe there wouldn't have been a need to "kill Bill," as it were, and bring back Luke and Laura. But that's hindsight.

The fact is, for whatever reason, Bill Eckert just didn't click with the audience, who wanted TG back as Luke and only Luke. So, either count your blessings (not to mention, your paychecks) and shut up, or tell TPTB to shove off and, I dunno, go back to Utah or whatever. (Ugh. Utah. I don't know about anyone else, but I know that would be more than enough for me to never complain about playing Luke Spencer).

THIS!

In doing the math since Tony died, he was about 31 and Genie was 16/17 at the start of Luke and Laura in 1978 😬. It was a different time but yikes.

  • Member
16 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Logan was, as always, carrying water for his soap friends in that bit about how Bill struggled due to so many different writers. No, Bill just stunk as a character.

Yep, lol.

23 minutes ago, Vee said:

But no one made Guza II put all that dialogue in other actors' mouths dissing Luke and Laura; that was the writing team.

True. Guza and his team seemed fond of pissing on the very couple that made GH a juggernaut and changed (for better or for worse) the genre forever. Which was their right, I guess, except, to me, it seemed as if they were shaming their own audience for ever loving Luke and Laura. Now, maybe America was messed up to fall in love with a love story between a rapist and his teenaged victim, but I'm certainly not gonna go out of my way to make them feel bad about it.

  • Member

I am not sure it ever would have matter how stable GH was. If Tony wanted to play a different character like Bill I assume other soaps would have snapped him up. This was always destined to fail on GH where he played Luke! The writing nor the characterization were good, and I do agree the editing in the final scene was kind of crappy lol. I don't think I get the deep seeded resentment due to the fact he was immediately welcome back with open arms as Luke. Perhaps it hurt his ego, but it's not like too many people remember the flop anyway.

  • Member
10 minutes ago, Vee said:

Her alleged inspiration was Eastenders which she thought was the wave of the future for the '90s, getting away from big '80s excess to more grounded people. She had a good point, but she botched the idea spectacularly.

True - and like I said, if GH had been in better shape when Monty and Geary returned, things might have progressed more smoothly for them and for Bill Eckert (not to mention, the rest of the Eckert clan, which was also DOA, IMO).

7 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Pure Soap was a great show, at least for a while, and treated viewers with intelligence.

I wish they had treated Shelley Taylor Morgan the same way. I mean, why did they always dress her like an extra in a New Jack Swing video?

7 minutes ago, Planet Soap said:

In doing the math since Tony died, he was about 31 and Genie was 16/17 at the start of Luke and Laura in 1978 😬.

Which might explain why GF and TG apparently weren't very close BTS. Because, other than being one-half of a fictitious couple on a daytime soap opera, what could you possibly have in common with someone 14 years your senior (and vice-verse for Geary)?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.