Yeah, Bill Levinson is who did drunk drug addict Tiffany and her suicide attempt. Labine is who reunited them after that story and did the who killed Jessica story where Ryan set it up to look like they'd killed her. That was right after she got there.

Besides that, I think the first stuff Labine did was Lucy trying to expose Katherine, the beginning of Ned & Lois, Karen the stripper, and then Luke & Laura returning.

Labine.was.around.the time I started seeing GH with my Mom

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by cassadine1991

Karen & Sonny story was started by the hW b4 Labine. She said she got there & changed it by giving Karen her power back. She also developed Sonny past the strip joint owner. Sonny was originally short term

It has always irrationally angered me that TG's vision of Luke pissing on the L&L legacy never really married up with mine! He loved Guza's vision for GH and I despised it. I kind of lost respect for him after that.

However, I give him props in this interview for speaking his truth. No matter who it pisses off, TG says what he thinks and while I loved the Labine-Riche era, I can see why he wasn't in love with her take on Luke (although at the time he seemed to praise Labine enough).

He's entitled to his opinion and I can't really argue with his rationale. But damn, he clearly can't stand Genie Francis -- his inner bitch girl came right out when Logan asked about L&L reuniting.

Karen & Sonny story was started by the hW b4 Labine. She said she got there & changed it by giving Karen her power back. She also developed Sonny past the strip joint owner. Sonny was originally short term

Yes. Labine said in her We Love Soaps interview a few years ago how much she hated that story when she first got there, so she specifically wrote a scene where Karen threw her pills in Sonny's face as a way of fighting back.

I lost respect for AG years ago when he came out saying he was happy that Luke had an affair with Holly & he had another kid. Then he also loved that Luke was the one that ran over Jake. sorry Its only my opinion but he should retire

I agree. It's bad enough that he brought down Luke & Laura with him, but with Ethan Spencer, he brought down Holly, the love story of Robert & Holly and the bromance of Robert & Luke. But TG didn't care. He was too busy waxing poetic how Luke and Ethan shared the "same dreams and demons". The funny thing is this was NEVER onscreen. It's all in Geary's head of how he would like things to be. Meanwhile, huge historic relationships were torn asunder so he could be "challenged". GMAB. He's a condescending, egotistical, overrated actor. Nothing more.

On the one hand, I appreciate TG crediting Douglas Marland (along with Gloria Monty) for the creation of Luke. He says he has struggled to keep Luke true to their initial intentions, and I believe him. But -- I don't know -- I feel as if TG is even more stuck in the past than the most die-hard L&L fans.

You can't expect any character to remain as he was thirty-five years ago. It's unrealistic, and even worse, it's boring for the audience. I'm not saying Claire Labine and Wendy Riche's take on Luke was appropriate. However, part of the reason why -- heck, maybe the ONLY reason why -- America fell in love with L&L was due to how Laura's love had reformed Luke and brought to the surface qualities within his character that he had never expressed before (his bond with sister Bobbie and aunt Ruby notwithstanding).

TG says Luke has regressed to the kind of man he was before he met Laura (which I don't entirely buy -- Luke might have been amoral and misanthropic before Laura, but I doubt he was the kind to kill a child with his car and then be so cavalier about it) but he doesn't understand, or WANT to understand, that that's precisely why some fans continue to clamor for a true, full-fledged L&L reunion. To this day, their love remains a touchstone for characters and audiences alike, the one constant they're supposed to count on in an increasingly dangerous and cynical world.

Show us a Luke Spencer who can be a "good" man without Laura's constant, physical presence, I believe, and audiences can adjust to, if not altogether accept, the story of L&L without the "happily ever after." But if you show us a Luke who regresses to his former self (or worse) once Laura is gone, then of course, audiences will expect and even demand that Laura come back into his life and make everything right again.

I am sorry the network and others haven't always done right by Luke or respected TG's need to be challenged artistically on a regular basis. Whatever else I might feel about this particular actor, I would be dumb to deny how much he still brings to the screen. (Pairing Luke with Jane Elliot's Tracy WAS an inspired move, even if I'm not particularly keen on them as a long-term romantic duo.) But he kids himself in the worst way if he believes GH fans as a whole will ever accept Luke Spencer as he is at the present, Laura or no Laura.

One more thing: I realize TG likes to perpetuate the theory that L&L were some grand lie and that viewers were foolish ever to buy into it...but give the fans some benefit of the doubt, okay, Tony? I doubt anyone ever said that all they wanted for L&L was to see them feeding strawberries to each other and pretending they were Ward and June Cleaver (although I believe Luke wanted that fantasy for himself, but that's beside the point).

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by Khan

This interview along with other things about TG makes me wish a ballsy HW/EP team would come on and just kill Luke off. The character has a one-trick pony and pointless.

Tony Geary was more diplomatic about his dislike for Labine/Riche in the 90's than he is now. Back then he said he had a lot of respect for Clarie and her writing and waht she was able to do with GH, but felt she didn't understand Luke at all.

Well, that respect clearly seems to have gone away. Especially that jab about taking her brand of "fine writing" to another soap, which I assume was OLTL.

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

On the one hand, I appreciate TG crediting Douglas Marland (along with Gloria Monty) for the creation of Luke. He says he has struggled to keep Luke true to their initial intentions, and I believe him. But -- I don't know -- I feel as if TG is even more stuck in the past than the most die-hard L&L fans.

You can't expect any character to remain as he was thirty-five years ago. It's unrealistic, and even worse, it's boring for the audience. I'm not saying Claire Labine and Wendy Riche's take on Luke was appropriate. However, part of the reason why -- heck, maybe the ONLY reason why -- America fell in love with L&L was due to how Laura's love had reformed Luke and brought to the surface qualities within his character that he had never expressed before (his bond with sister Bobbie and aunt Ruby notwithstanding).

TG says Luke has regressed to the kind of man he was before he met Laura (which I don't entirely buy -- Luke might have been amoral and misanthropic before Laura, but I doubt he was the kind to kill a child with his car and then be so cavalier about it) but he doesn't understand, or WANT to understand, that that's precisely why some fans continue to clamor for a true, full-fledged L&L reunion. To this day, their love remains a touchstone for characters and audiences alike, the one constant they're supposed to count on in an increasingly dangerous and cynical world.

Show us a Luke Spencer who can be a "good" man without Laura's constant, physical presence, I believe, and audiences can adjust to, if not altogether accept, the story of L&L without the "happily ever after." But if you show us a Luke who regresses to his former self (or worse) once Laura is gone, then of course, audiences will expect and even demand that Laura come back into his life and make everything right again.

I am sorry the network and others haven't always done right by Luke or respected TG's need to be challenged artistically on a regular basis. Whatever else I might feel about this particular actor, I would be dumb to deny how much he still brings to the screen. (Pairing Luke with Jane Elliot's Tracy WAS an inspired move, even if I'm not particularly keen on them as a long-term romantic duo.) But he kids himself in the worst way if he believes GH fans as a whole will ever accept Luke Spencer as he is at the present, Laura or no Laura.

One more thing: I realize TG likes to perpetuate the theory that L&L were some grand lie and that viewers were foolish ever to buy into it...but give the fans some benefit of the doubt, okay, Tony? I doubt anyone ever said that all they wanted for L&L was to see them feeding strawberries to each other and pretending they were Ward and June Cleaver (although I believe Luke wanted that fantasy for himself, but that's beside the point).

Beautifully said (written). Bravo. Yours is a very even-handed analysis of his interview.

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by Cat

Tony Geary was more diplomatic about his dislike for Labine/Riche in the 90's than he is now. Back then he said he had a lot of respect for Clarie and her writing and waht she was able to do with GH, but felt she didn't understand Luke at all.

Well, that respect clearly seems to have gone away. Especially that jab about taking her brand of "fine writing" to another soap, which I assume was OLTL.

I dunno. TG can be really bitchy in a backhanded way, but I read that as Tony actually *thinking* he was throwing Labine a complement... Though it sure doesn't sound like one, I agree.

Khan, I am not one of the big GH fans, but I agree with your take very much.

I think that Era was great from what I have seen because it managed to blend the Monty Era with the original premise. I think that GH should add elements of all the Era's into one. Social Issues, Medical Drama, and Action/Adventure.

I strongly suspect that RC and FV feel that's exactly what they're doing right now lol

Great article. I like his direct/honest talk. Labine is so overrated on RH and her time on GH. Geary isn't all over Cartini either. And it's clear that ABC continues to be invested in his character but not Laura. He also reveals that he and Irene Suver wrote the 90s Luke/Laura come home story.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/General-Hospital-Anthony-Geary-1071852.aspx

Geary is a great actor, but he is also a little full of himself.

Great article. I like his direct/honest talk. Labine is so overrated on RH and her time on GH. Geary isn't all over Cartini either. And it's clear that ABC continues to be invested in his character but not Laura. He also reveals that he and Irene Suver wrote the 90s Luke/Laura come home story.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/General-Hospital-Anthony-Geary-1071852.aspx

Couldn't disagree more about Labine. She's an elegant writer who writes with great heart and passion. Her "Ryan's Hope" won more WGA writing awards than any soap ever, so it's hard to see how she's overrated. I doubt she was particularly thrilled writing a character like Luke that has so few redeeming qualities. He's never shown much growth over the years. He's pretty much the same Luke. If TG wasn't interested in exploring another side of the character, then I can see why he'd have problems with her tenure. BUt GH was never better than when Labine was at the helm. Rich, emotionally moving drama that touched the heart. The likes of which we'll never see under Cartini.

http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/topic/49162-gh-tony-geary-interview/