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

even though they aren't

Well yes, that's why I put a LOL in my post.

This interview along with other things about TG makes me wish a ballsy HW/EP team would come on and just kill Luke off.

Same. As I've said, I don't see today's Luke to be in keeping with Gloria Monty and Douglas Marland's shared vision for the character, let alone the man he became once Laura entered the picture (and his heart). You couldn't sell me now on a redemption arc for Luke OR a reunion between him and Laura no matter how hard you tried. (In fact, you couldn't sell me even on a reunion between Laura and Scott -- talk about ships sailing. Laura would be better off finding a completely new love interest, as would Scotty.)

Stefan should be brought back for Laura IMO. And I always preferred Scotty with Lucy anyways (sorry Kevin fans) or Bobbie. Heck, I think he'd be better opposite Tracy more than Luke.

Again, Luke can go perish in a corner for all I care.

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by Nothin'ButAttitude

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).

I absolutely agree with all of this. Very well said.

Khan says it all.

I think Luke of 1978, who at least had some code of ethics, would be repulsed by today's Luke.

I think Geary projects a lot of himself onto the character and passes this off as respecting history.

I love the Labine era, but I think Luke was more like the adult version of the original character during the early Guza/Riche years. Wounded, in love deeply with Laura, dangerous, loyal. Laura was also more interesting during those couple of early Guza years. Everyone else in town was not though lol, with the exception of that one great car bomb that Guza coasted on for a decade.

Labine did great work on the characters of the whole town, but not so much with Luke. But I would still take that era over most of the other runs on the show.

Stefan should be brought back for Laura IMO. And I always preferred Scotty with Lucy anyways (sorry Kevin fans) or Bobbie. Heck, I think he'd be better opposite Tracy more than Luke.

Again, Luke can go perish in a corner for all I care.

oh Stefan, I certainly miss him

Stefan would probably get five minutes of story and then be sidelined, or go psycho.

I haven't ever really seen Genie have chemistry with any men.

I thought she had great chemistry with Peter Bergman. The story was just crap. She had good chemistry with Drake Hogestyn from clips I've seen of her on DAYS.

I thought she and Stefan had great chemistry. And she did have good chemistry with Tony and had a sweet chemistry with Kin in clips I have seen of them when they were younger. She also had a kind of interesting chemistry with Sonny during the Labine era.

What she usually brings to Laura is a lot if heart though, not heat.

I'm not seeing the big fuss here. To me, Tony reads as well-spoken, rational, and honest. I don't think he's disrespecting Claire at all, merely disagreeing with her vision of his character. My mind immediately went to Claire's Emmy tribute in the mid-'90s where Tony spoke of her work very respectfully in spite of what he may have been feeling personally in regards to Luke. I think he is more than entitled to his opinions as an actor who was cast in a role that has defined his career. When he dies, "Luke" will be in the first line of his obit, so it's only natural that he has strong opinions about the character that has given him a name, a career, and a lifestyle that he enjoys (and that I envy... his life in Amsterdam sounds pretty damn great). Whether you agree with Tony's vision of Luke or not, it's Tony, not any of us, who has to embody this character and have him permanently etched to our personas and his personal investment shouldn't be so easily dismissed as the pissy whims of a petulant actor.

My issue with him is that he has said this so many times over the years, and his behavior also helps create a bad atmosphere onset (ask Greg Vaughan).

I thought she had great chemistry with Peter Bergman. The story was just crap. She had good chemistry with Drake Hogestyn from clips I've seen of her on DAYS.

a lot of people thought she would return to Days as Diana Coville.. I wouldn't mind seeing her there

I concede that I do not like the things I have read about his disdain for the Lucky recasts. My guess is that his strong opinions stem from the fact that he and his writing partner "created" Lucky and he probably disagreed with any diversion from his concept of his onscreen son.