4 minutes ago, Dion said:

Wasn't Daniel J Travati also on General Hospital as Spence Andrews in 1979 - not sure of the exact storyline, think he may have been a "temptation" for Lesley but she chose to stay faithful to Rick (this was in the months before she found out about Rick and Monica and Rick supposedly being AJ's father)

Oh you're right - he was in that therapy story, wasn't he.  

5 hours ago, titan1978 said:

I believe that is what was stated onscreen when they came back.  They had a couple of years running around having their own adventures when Frank started his vendetta against them and they started living under false identities and moving around.  They had been kind of settled for a period of time in Canada when they were discovered and went back on the run to PC.

6 hours ago, Vee said:

Yeah, don't quote me but IIRC they were living happily for a time in the '80s and then had to start running and traversing the globe because Frank Smith's people set after them again, which led to many offscreen capers (including Luke's alleged renewed fling with Holly). I believe that was the only life Lucky had known until they attempted to settle at the diner in Canada(?), which also didn't last. Luke has always had plenty of secret cash, but for years much of it was used to keep them running.

Bobbie got a card from "Luke, Laura and baby" on the day she married Jake in 1986. According to the Curlyqgrl summaries, Bobbie went to visit them in Texas in October 1989, just before she married Tony in Puerto Rico. Bobbie also apparently tried to notify Luke and Laura about Robert's "death" in January 1990. And, of course, Luke was also mentioned in 1991 to let us know that the new guy in town was actually Bill Eckert.

So, I think it goes like this:

December 1983-October 1984: World traveling, including the Himalayas, Europe and Bangkok.

October 1984-January 1990: Texas

January 1990 or therabouts-no later than October 1993: On the run (with a two-year window for Luke and Holly to fool around, assuming she didn't find him in Texas)

October 1993: Canada, followed by the return to Port Charles

Edited August 21, 20223 yr by Franko

2 hours ago, Franko said:

So, I think it goes like this:

December 1983-October 1984: World traveling, including the Himalayas, Europe and Bangkok.

October 1984-January 1990: Texas

January 1990 or therabouts-no later than October 1993: On the run (with a two-year window for Luke and Holly to fool around, assuming she didn't find him in Texas)

October 1993: Canada, followed by the return to Port Charles

That's a good timeline but I think Luke and Holly's ONS is supposed to have happened during the Mr Big storyline, when Robert was in Port Charles between September 1986 and January 1987. That is why there was always just enough ambiguity for Robert to have been suspected as Ethan's father and for Robert to initially believe Luke when Luke told him that he was Ethan's father in order to give Robert enough will to live when Robin was presumed dead.

That said, the ONS took place in Singapore while Luke was on a caper and found Holly there, so it's not too much of a stretch for your timeline to say that Luke left Laura in Texas, did the caper (and the deed with Holly lol) and returned.

 

Ah, thank you, Dion, about that info regarding the ONS/Ethan's conception.

Did Guza or anyone from the show besides Tony give a reason why they gave Luke a son with Holly.  Aside from TG wanting Ethan to be his, is there a reason or thought behind it?   If anything was a story that wrote itself it would be Ethan being Robert and Holly's lol.

1 hour ago, carolineg said:

Did Guza or anyone from the show besides Tony give a reason why they gave Luke a son with Holly.  Aside from TG wanting Ethan to be his, is there a reason or thought behind it? 

Zero. I suspect the show intended for it to be Robert until TG stepped in, enamored of Nathan Parsons in a way that definitely was not at all creepy onscreen. I suspect Tony did it twice, too - Ron Carlivati seemed revved up to finally reveal Ethan was Robert's on NP's way out the door early in '12 when Tristan Rogers first returned, only for the show to swiftly reset back to TG's preference. (Ron had also tried to handle and do away with Luke's alcoholism, until Tony began improvising drinking at the Q mansion and they just gave up.)

9 hours ago, Dion said:

That said, the ONS took place in Singapore while Luke was on a caper and found Holly there, so it's not too much of a stretch for your timeline to say that Luke left Laura in Texas, did the caper (and the deed with Holly lol) and returned.

I don't think the timeline from the occasional '80s mentions of L&L can necessarily be relied upon based on what we now know of Luke and Laura's family life from the copious mentions of backstory since they all came back. I just assumed they were back on the run sometime from the mid-late '80s onward, and led to many overseas capers, some of them together, some of them separated (hence Luke's quietly tolerated dalliances with Holly and allegedly other women, if you listen to Tony Geary which I don't much).

Edited August 21, 20223 yr by Vee

10 minutes ago, Vee said:

Zero. I suspect the show intended for it to be Robert until TG stepped in, enamored of Nathan Parsons in a way that definitely was not at all creepy onscreen. I suspect Tony did it twice, too - Ron Carlivati seemed revved up to finally reveal Ethan was Robert's on NP's way out the door early in '12 when Tristan Rogers first returned, only for the show to swiftly reset back to TG's preference. (Ron had also tried to handle and do away with Luke's alcoholism, until Tony began improvising drinking at the Q mansion and they just gave up.)

Thanks! I always thought it would eventually be righted and Robert would be his father in the end, but I wondered if there was a spin Guza or whoever had that made Luke the more exciting option to them. 

I..have some issues with Luke's alcoholism as well.  The lead up wasn't very good nor was the intervention anything but emmy bait.  I can see TG not liking it because I don't think it did actually make a whole lot of sense, but once you establish it-it's not something you can backtrack on.  I guess I will never know why Tony had so much power on GH especially when most things he wanted were awful and character damaging.  But at least we will never want Luke/Laura again.

3 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I..have some issues with Luke's alcoholism as well.  The lead up wasn't very good nor was the intervention anything but emmy bait.  I can see TG not liking it because I don't think it did actually make a whole lot of sense, but once you establish it-it's not something you can backtrack on.  I guess I will never know why Tony had so much power on GH especially when most things he wanted were awful and character damaging.  But at least we will never want Luke/Laura again.

I think if it had been up to the show, both in 2010-2011 or 2012, Luke would have stopped drinking. But TG had an incredible amount of power to wield at GH because of who he was, so you got a half-assed cartoon intervention where Luke keeps drinking and Tony is still allowed to give ridiculous interviews to Michael Logan or whoever insisting that Luke is not an alcoholic, he can handle his drinking even when he gets drunk and kills people. That was such nonsense he spouted, and he used to be so insightful in his interviews re: Luke's psyche and backstory (the Bill Eckert-era interviews are a journey too, let me tell you). Even his exit interview, while self-serving, had a lot of insight.

It was very clearly Ron Carlivati's intent from Day 1 to reunite Luke and Laura. That was the holy grail. He canonizes it by having Starr Manning and Cole from OLTL drive into town raving about the legend of Luke and Laura, IIRC. But he never got to do it, and ultimately that clash and other big mistakes on his part are likely a part of what cost him his job.

Edited August 21, 20223 yr by Vee

4 hours ago, Vee said:

It was very clearly Ron Carlivati's intent from Day 1 to reunite Luke and Laura. That was the holy grail. He canonizes it by having Starr Manning and Cole from OLTL drive into town raving about the legend of Luke and Laura, IIRC. But he never got to do it, and ultimately that clash and other big mistakes on his part are likely a part of what cost him his job.

What would you say  the other mistakes were?

1 minute ago, DRW50 said:

What would you say  the other mistakes were?

How long have you got? 

1 minute ago, Vee said:

How long have you got? 

Oh there were so many, I was just curious how fans felt about what the critical moments were, and how many were down to him (like if it was him or Valentini who needed to keep bringing back Howarth and Easton).

I think some things were Frank's preference or pressure from within (like from Tony Geary or even occasionally ABC re: Sonny and the mob), but I think Ron mostly dug his own grave. I think the fatal moment was 2013 and the OLTL 3 coming back which really started a slide from their prior rise to glory (after a year full of ugly storylines and bad mistakes as well as good things), but there's a lot of lowlights.

I mean, his exit story for Tony involved Frank Smith still being alive only to be killed off again.  Even TG said something like Frank Smith was old back then, how could he still be kicking it now?  Luke also having DID was just so stupid.  AJ being resurrected then just dropped and killed again…

Tony had too much say, and I agree with the poster here who said Luke slowly morphed into Bill.  He really did.  The bastard TG wanted to play had not been Luke since the campus disco.  And I get losing Laura really destroying him, but to then also play that Laura was no big deal to him because the actor didn’t want it to be that way the longer time went on was ridiculous.

Also- I think Ethan was always intended to be Luke’s.  Guza did not write major story around recurring characters like they do now.  And Tony didn’t like Lucky being a cop.  He wanted to play scam artist father and son.

46 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

I mean, his exit story for Tony involved Frank Smith still being alive only to be killed off again.  Even TG said something like Frank Smith was old back then, how could he still be kicking it now?  Luke also having DID was just so stupid.  AJ being resurrected then just dropped and killed again…

Tony had too much say, and I agree with the poster here who said Luke slowly morphed into Bill.  He really did.  The bastard TG wanted to play had not been Luke since the campus disco.  And I get losing Laura really destroying him, but to then also play that Laura was no big deal to him because the actor didn’t want it to be that way the longer time went on was ridiculous.

It was so low-rent, the whole storyline. It was poorly-budgeted, scripted and plotted. I assume whatever Ron had intended for Luke and Laura at one point got scrapped and this is what he threw together instead, and that part is mostly his own fault. But yes, Geary was right about Frank in an iron lung or whatever. And the A.J. mess was personal pettiness IMO from Frank and Ron, with them openly mocking Sean Kanan's body in the scripts.

But the Fluke/DID debacle should never have been attempted, and based on Geary's own comments I am 99% it was Ron's own spiteful rewrite. Early on in that story, Tony told press he re-signed because of a story Ron pitched him which he agreed to immediately upon hearing the pitch - he didn't say what it was at the time. Then the "Fluke" saga began. Soon TG's medical leave took over and the story got delayed and extended. But early in the Fluke story, as we've said here before, there were many, many hints that it was Bill Eckert; stuff that would only be said or done by Bill himself.

Tony Geary still adores Bill Eckert. His interviews about the character, both when he played the role and when he exited the role, are rhapsodic, passionate and later embittered. There's an infamous interview he gave E!'s soap opera talk show in late '93, as Luke and Laura were returning to great fanfare - I think it's no longer on YT - where he glowers at the camera and monologues about how poorly treated and misunderstood Bill was by the audience, and how he's still angry. As many of us have said before and you have again, Geary ultimately tried to reverse-engineer Luke into a different version of Bill. The problem was, too many fans figured out that Fluke was Bill. Ron Carlivati does not like being questioned by fans and he does not like being found out. He also had at least 6-7 months to string the story along until Geary could finish it. So what did he do? He rewrote it (which TG has confirmed at least, though not as to how) to give Luke DID instead IMO, and it shows onscreen. The final story does not make sense, is very rushed in its climax, and its embarrassing finale (with TG playing the drunken Bill Spencer howling 'come join Daddy in hell, Luke!') became gold on The Soup just before Ron's firing.

We don't agree about Ethan, but that's fair enough. I do think regardless of paternity they definitely intended to slot him into a "Lucky-like" role due to Parsons' chemistry with TG, and due to GV's Lucky being a staid vanilla B-lead. Once Jonathan returned though, Ethan was excess baggage.

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by Vee

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

What would you say  the other mistakes were?

Not to insert myself and answer for @Vee.  But Connie's DID?  The whole recast and idea was supposed to be amazing.  But KSu is still 15 years too young at least and it was awful.  The acting, the misogyny, etc. etc..  I would say it's his biggest flop IMO.