Jump to content

GH:: Tony Geary Interview


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

It has always irrationally angered me that TG's vision of Luke pissing on the L&L legacy never really married up with mine! :lol: 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • My thoughts exactly! Fantastic find @DRW50!  
    • That was interesting; thanks. Courtney looks tired and/or bored AF, LOL!
    • 5-12   Lord have mercy.   I'm not sure how I feel about it. Perhaps what I said last week or the week before last. If the highlight of a soap is what people are wearing and not the writing, that's not a good thing. And that was how I was feeling watching this. There was not anyone that I was interested in seeing in the episode outside of Daniel and Sally tbh. Because Daniel continues to be the only thing that humanizes Phyllis for me.    I could care less for the Billy/Sally scenes where he's woe is me. I could care less about Kyle/Claire since the writers took all the drama right out of the pairing. Humanized or not, I could care less for Giggly Heffa.    I barely care for Teriah. But for me, it's nice to see something going on with them. Though it seems so horribly contrived.    I liked the costume designer appears to be trying to find individual styles for some of the characters. For me, Tessa's with the boots stood out given her indie musician history. It seems like Claire's style is coming into its own with block colors. I like Kyle's wardrobe is loosening up somewhat. I even loved the striped dress that Phyllis had on.    But again...where is the writing?
    • It was reported that Jane Wyman absence in the final season was due to health (it's documented that Jane was diabetic) but I believe her episodes being cut was a budget mode move. Similar move Dallas pulled in 1990, it was reported that Barbara Bel Geddes retired due to health (it's documented that Barbara had a heart condition) but I say salary dump. Jane Wyman only acted once after Falcon Crest, a 1993 episode of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, but she lived another 14 years after that. Barbara Bel Geddes did not act again after her last episode of Dallas in 1990 but she lived another 15 years after that. The trifecta of suck at Lorimar was Les Moonves, Leonard Katzman, and Michael Filerman. It was a pattern across all three CBS primetime soaps in the off the rails plus budget mode era to salary dump the long-time female cast members and bring on sweet young things hired on the cheap. 
    • To be fair, more than half of them are dead now. 
    • Kat may be a privileged elitist but that's not entirely true.  Kat first met Eva when Eva was snooping at Nicole's desk, so Kat's first impression of Eva wasn't very good.  Plus, Kat's instinct to not trust Eva was 100% right.  Kat's attitude toward Eva had nothing to do with Eva not "bowing" down to Kat, and her feelings toward her half-sister is very justified......minus the making fun of Eva's clothes of course. 
    • They said that this has metastasized to his bones, but the type of "aggressive" prostate cancer he has is actually very common and is treatable, or at least manageable. So the headline is misleading.   Apparently this type of cancer is hormonal which makes it somewhat treatable? But still, of course, sad.  Thinking of him and his loved ones.
    • Kat is a spoiled brat princess and Silk Press Sheila called her out on it.  Silk Press Sheila is someone not to mess with. I was actually scared for Kat when she was alone with Silk Press Sheila and recording their conversation.
    • It is funny that Stephanie and Philip still hide/blush/get embarrassed at the sight of each other.  Meanwhile, Kate's pouring coffee for Rafe at the pub as if they're only casual acquaintances.  Although, if Kate blushed every time she saw one of her former lovers, she'd be permanently red.
    • Great thought.  I mostly forgot about Kate's cancer.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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