http://www.welovesoaps.net/2012/09/luke-laura-love-story-revealed.html
More Luke and Laura
Showing posts with label Luke Spencer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke Spencer. Show all posts
Friday, November 16, 2012
We Love Soaps: Today in Soap Opera History (November 16)
http://www.welovesoaps.net/2012/11/history-november-16.html
Luke and Laura Anniversary - 30 million viewers!
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
Screencappy Happy: GH - 7/16/12
| Capped by Eavesdroppist |
| Clips credited to SimplyGH |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BE HEARD! LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW by CLICKING COMMENTS!
Tweet
Friday, July 13, 2012
Mini Screencap Session FRIDAY THE 13th
Vidder: SimplyGH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BE HEARD! LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW by CLICKING COMMENTS!
Tweet
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
This Week on General Hospital! - General Hospital - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ecG6-mRXic&feature=player_embedded
New Promo: McBam, CarJohn, Starr and Michael, and Liason - plus Luke and Heather.
New Promo: McBam, CarJohn, Starr and Michael, and Liason - plus Luke and Heather.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Tweet from MIchael Fairman (MichaelFairman) Tony Geary Article
Geary, Jackson & Parsons Talk Unfinished Business for GH's Spencer Clan & Their Daytime Emmy Noms!: [...] http://bit.ly/NNVCx5
https://twitter.com/#!/MichaelFairman/status/210760820362190849
https://twitter.com/#!/MichaelFairman/status/210760820362190849
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Clip of the Day, March 12, 2011 (184)
Welcome to another edition of Clip of the Day! Thanks Juju for the work!
I LOVE this....when Todd is crying, and Sarah runs in and says "Don't CROY Ali, don't CROY!" and hugs him. One of my FAVORITE MOMENTS of the GENIE. I absolutely adore that moment, and we're kind of lead to believe he's crying about Rebecca, but I always thought he was crying about his own life, what he had become and how hurt he was inside.
"It's over, I lost all my magic powers."
Uh, not from this angle, Mr. H.
"No one would love a Genie like me."
"We still love you."
I echo that sentiment!
He is so adorable with these children. And again, after not watching him for a few days, or even hours, I go back and say, whoa. Right now, he's up against Tony Geary in my head, because I have been watching Luke and Laura from day one, and am at the Beecher's Corners part. Tony was SUCH A NATURAL. It was so automatic and you can tell he is ad libbing as well, throughout. But...I am sorry....Roger's better. He's just got a different, deep, dark edge that pulls me in the right direction. He won over the audience with his depth. Luke had his deepness at times, but in reality, Roger has the range that I can't see anywhere else in daytime television. His acting ability reminds me of some of the bigger movie stars. He seems to be able to do just about anything. No matter how enthralled I am with other performers' work, I still return astounded to The Man, every time. I see acting as an art form that I love to view, and he's at the pinnacle of creation. Over the years, I am sure comparisons have been made between these two, because they were both rapists turned romantic anti-hero......and I can see why; however, it's clear to me that Roger outshines Tony about 95% of the time. And I DO LOVE TONY'S WORK, don't get me wrong. It's just that Roger is more believable to me and has a greater range. Your comments on this would be welcome.
Oh have I mentioned that I love Cord's role in this storyline?
FAIL: I am sickened by Powell. He just makes me wanna....fart. I can't explain....! YUCK.
I LOVE this....when Todd is crying, and Sarah runs in and says "Don't CROY Ali, don't CROY!" and hugs him. One of my FAVORITE MOMENTS of the GENIE. I absolutely adore that moment, and we're kind of lead to believe he's crying about Rebecca, but I always thought he was crying about his own life, what he had become and how hurt he was inside.
"It's over, I lost all my magic powers."
Uh, not from this angle, Mr. H.
"No one would love a Genie like me."
"We still love you."
I echo that sentiment!
He is so adorable with these children. And again, after not watching him for a few days, or even hours, I go back and say, whoa. Right now, he's up against Tony Geary in my head, because I have been watching Luke and Laura from day one, and am at the Beecher's Corners part. Tony was SUCH A NATURAL. It was so automatic and you can tell he is ad libbing as well, throughout. But...I am sorry....Roger's better. He's just got a different, deep, dark edge that pulls me in the right direction. He won over the audience with his depth. Luke had his deepness at times, but in reality, Roger has the range that I can't see anywhere else in daytime television. His acting ability reminds me of some of the bigger movie stars. He seems to be able to do just about anything. No matter how enthralled I am with other performers' work, I still return astounded to The Man, every time. I see acting as an art form that I love to view, and he's at the pinnacle of creation. Over the years, I am sure comparisons have been made between these two, because they were both rapists turned romantic anti-hero......and I can see why; however, it's clear to me that Roger outshines Tony about 95% of the time. And I DO LOVE TONY'S WORK, don't get me wrong. It's just that Roger is more believable to me and has a greater range. Your comments on this would be welcome.
Oh have I mentioned that I love Cord's role in this storyline?
FAIL: I am sickened by Powell. He just makes me wanna....fart. I can't explain....! YUCK.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Does ATTRACTIVENESS matter? | [Archive] - boards.soapcentral.com
http://boards.soapcentral.com/archive/index.php/t-673734.html
"Considering the success of Tony Geary (Luke on GH) and Roger Howarth (as Todd on OLTL) it proves that audiences are much more interested in talent versus sex-appeal. Neither of these Emmy award-winning leading men were hired for their looks but won over audiences with their acting chops. I do think these actors have become more attractive over time but their popularity has waned as their story lines became less interesting (RH has been off the air since ATWT's demise.) "
uh, what are they, nuts? How can they not find Roger attractive? But I guess he gets more attractive as you watch him act! What do YOU think?
"Considering the success of Tony Geary (Luke on GH) and Roger Howarth (as Todd on OLTL) it proves that audiences are much more interested in talent versus sex-appeal. Neither of these Emmy award-winning leading men were hired for their looks but won over audiences with their acting chops. I do think these actors have become more attractive over time but their popularity has waned as their story lines became less interesting (RH has been off the air since ATWT's demise.) "
uh, what are they, nuts? How can they not find Roger attractive? But I guess he gets more attractive as you watch him act! What do YOU think?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
What is going to happen to our soaps?
Lately, with all the complaining and ruckuss about RH and TSJ, and OLTL, and the loss of ATWT, I've been thinking more and more about the demise of soaps, as we know and love them. There are a few articles out there about this syndrome, namely The Death of Soaps (2007), The Future of Daytime Soaps (2008), in which OLTL is not even mentioned, 2009 Cancellation of ATWT Speaks to Soap Opera Future (2009) in which OLTL is named as the next casualty, and Is There Still a Future for Soap Operas? (2009), and I am sure this issue is not far from the heads of TPTB of the remaining shows. Something is happening, and it's happening relatively fast.
Of course, television marketing specialists and people such as this are contemplating, conjecturing and studying the ratings. I can answer it simply. Two things are at play. The first is the lack of character-driven, well-written stories with powerful acting at the hull. I don't care WHAT story they were shoving down our throats throughout my life as a soap viewer, we accepted it because it was written to work - it wasn't too superhero, because Tristan Rogers could carry it; we endured foolishness because Erika Slezak made everything seem real; we suspended disbelief because Roger Howarth made us love a demented nut; we accepted some terrible truths because Tony Geary and Genie Francis made it seem ok. CHARACTER-DRIVEN.
I don't remember saying, "I have to watch tomorrow because I want to see who has the Aztec Treasure." It was, "I have to watch tomorrow to see what happens to Frisco and Felicia" or "I can't wait to see Anna and Duke get married." Not the events, the people, created by the actors who really carry soaps, along with the writing, which has to be fantastic and more exciting than real life, but not too-far-gone. (I can't even think of what is too far gone, however, when you have an actress like Erika Slezak or Susan Lucci. Telling bear to leave because you're Erica Kane, or going back in time to the Old West come to mind.) Any way you look at it, It's a combination of great stories and even greater actors and actresses that YOU DON'T REPLACE on a whim. It's almost as if writers cannot be creative, so they latch on to the past for an easy sell.
The second issue I believe is the popularity of the internet. Why watch soaps when you can watch and be part of real life drama on Facebook? I am a FB user, and spend most of my FB time on games or posting to family members. But the trends online reflect this "real time" sort of excitement, where the players in the dramas are people you know. If the soaps don't have people you have come to know and love over time, then why bother when you can just watch the drama of real people you know???
Soaps should stop pandering to younger viewers. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THEM. First, they have SCHOOL and WORK during soap hours, and when they get home, they are on the internet, using Oovoo, Facebook, My Space, You Tube and Formspring. They are not worried about Todd Manning. And who is? US. US the "older folks?" I cannot believe I am even saying it, but I'd say the people who really care about Soaps being preserved and about Todd Manning are not teens. And the trends are for kids to get more and more away from television and more and more into internet-based activities in free time. I can say this speaking from experience - I've seen the trend myself over the last few years in working with hundreds of teenagers as a teacher. Most kids don't even know what One Life to Live is. And, if TPTB keep going in the direction they have, no kids ever will know what it is, because it will be gone. The writers and producers need to respect the past of soaps, and get into the stories we love with our characters, to keep us happy, and not work so hard on getting new blood. My son got into OLTL because I was a long-time viewer and I wanted to watch again to see the return of Susan Haskell. Ok, he started to get into the Starr and Cole story, but he really got into John McBain and David Vickers' stories more. But BOTH OF US lost interest within a year and have given it up. There's no meat, the acting among the "featured players" is subpar, and the stories are just flat.
Soap creators, please try and realize that you are pissing us off. Every time you rewrite history, we're annoyed, not impressed, because you have some stupid reason or poor actor there to carry your story out. And STOP recasting our favorites, that really makes us angry and shows a lack of creativity and invention on your part. When your cast is made up of more than 50% new characters, or you relegate veterans to day-player status, you are NOT MAKING US HAPPY. You are making us aggravated. We don't turn on the shows to see new 20 year olds every week, we're sitting, watching, to be loyal to Viki, to Erika, to whomever we've grown to love over the years soaps have been part of our lives. Let's just say, if you all want soaps to become a thing of the past, you're certainly headed there.
Of course, television marketing specialists and people such as this are contemplating, conjecturing and studying the ratings. I can answer it simply. Two things are at play. The first is the lack of character-driven, well-written stories with powerful acting at the hull. I don't care WHAT story they were shoving down our throats throughout my life as a soap viewer, we accepted it because it was written to work - it wasn't too superhero, because Tristan Rogers could carry it; we endured foolishness because Erika Slezak made everything seem real; we suspended disbelief because Roger Howarth made us love a demented nut; we accepted some terrible truths because Tony Geary and Genie Francis made it seem ok. CHARACTER-DRIVEN.
I don't remember saying, "I have to watch tomorrow because I want to see who has the Aztec Treasure." It was, "I have to watch tomorrow to see what happens to Frisco and Felicia" or "I can't wait to see Anna and Duke get married." Not the events, the people, created by the actors who really carry soaps, along with the writing, which has to be fantastic and more exciting than real life, but not too-far-gone. (I can't even think of what is too far gone, however, when you have an actress like Erika Slezak or Susan Lucci. Telling bear to leave because you're Erica Kane, or going back in time to the Old West come to mind.) Any way you look at it, It's a combination of great stories and even greater actors and actresses that YOU DON'T REPLACE on a whim. It's almost as if writers cannot be creative, so they latch on to the past for an easy sell.
The second issue I believe is the popularity of the internet. Why watch soaps when you can watch and be part of real life drama on Facebook? I am a FB user, and spend most of my FB time on games or posting to family members. But the trends online reflect this "real time" sort of excitement, where the players in the dramas are people you know. If the soaps don't have people you have come to know and love over time, then why bother when you can just watch the drama of real people you know???
Soaps should stop pandering to younger viewers. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THEM. First, they have SCHOOL and WORK during soap hours, and when they get home, they are on the internet, using Oovoo, Facebook, My Space, You Tube and Formspring. They are not worried about Todd Manning. And who is? US. US the "older folks?" I cannot believe I am even saying it, but I'd say the people who really care about Soaps being preserved and about Todd Manning are not teens. And the trends are for kids to get more and more away from television and more and more into internet-based activities in free time. I can say this speaking from experience - I've seen the trend myself over the last few years in working with hundreds of teenagers as a teacher. Most kids don't even know what One Life to Live is. And, if TPTB keep going in the direction they have, no kids ever will know what it is, because it will be gone. The writers and producers need to respect the past of soaps, and get into the stories we love with our characters, to keep us happy, and not work so hard on getting new blood. My son got into OLTL because I was a long-time viewer and I wanted to watch again to see the return of Susan Haskell. Ok, he started to get into the Starr and Cole story, but he really got into John McBain and David Vickers' stories more. But BOTH OF US lost interest within a year and have given it up. There's no meat, the acting among the "featured players" is subpar, and the stories are just flat.
Soap creators, please try and realize that you are pissing us off. Every time you rewrite history, we're annoyed, not impressed, because you have some stupid reason or poor actor there to carry your story out. And STOP recasting our favorites, that really makes us angry and shows a lack of creativity and invention on your part. When your cast is made up of more than 50% new characters, or you relegate veterans to day-player status, you are NOT MAKING US HAPPY. You are making us aggravated. We don't turn on the shows to see new 20 year olds every week, we're sitting, watching, to be loyal to Viki, to Erika, to whomever we've grown to love over the years soaps have been part of our lives. Let's just say, if you all want soaps to become a thing of the past, you're certainly headed there.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Ellenbay, guest blogger, on Manning vs. Spencer
What comes to my mind when I think of the similarities of these two characters is not only that they are both rapists. As children, they were both beaten by their fathers. In Todd’s case, it was his adoptive father. The similarities stop here.
Luke went on to be raised by his Aunt Ruby. She was a madam and his sister became a prostitute, but Aunt Ruby loved Bobbie and Luke. Todd’s adoptive mother tried to protect him, but never could. Peter Manning was brutal towards Todd as a boy. T odd grew up to be a tortured-soul. Luke had his demons and more when his character was new on GH, but as time went on, he became more of the adventurous hero. Todd was no hero, and RH wouldn’t permit his character to become one. Luke was tortured by his passion for Laura, who was married to Scotty. When he couldn’t have her, he raped her. Todd raped two women; Carol Swift and Marty. I don’t know the history between Carol and Todd, but I do know that Marty rejected Todd after they had slept together once. He instigated the awful gang rape of Marty.
In many ways both these men were like children who couldn’t get their way, but took what they wanted anyway. RH was on OLTL on and off for 10 years, and this incredible actor’s integrity was the backbone behind the audience never forgetting Todd was a rapist. He did not want to ever be considered a leading man. On the other hand, AG became quite the leading man on GH. I am not putting down AG’s integrity….I am just making a point about RH’s. Not until TSJ took over the role of Todd did this character become a leading man. Luke Spencer became a leading man after he and Laura ended up together and many times after Genie Frances left GH, he played opposite many different leading ladies. Luke was, and still is, a passionate and flirtatious man with the ladies. Todd (our Todd) had deep-seeded intimacy issues. He only loved two women, Blair & Tea, but his intimacy issues were never resolved. They were part of who he was part of what made him so tortured. Luke used to be somewhat of an intense character, but he developed more into an adventurous, free spirited type. When I think of Luke Spencer, I think of him as almost cartoon-like.
Roger’s Todd was and always will be intense and tormented. Both of these men can act. I don’t see the greatness in AG that I see in RH, though. Even though AG won six Outstanding Leading Actor Awards, I just never got it. I always liked Luke a lot, but never loved him. On the other hand, RH only won once for Outstanding Younger Actor. He should have won many Outstanding Actor awards for his role as Todd Manning for years following, but did not.
What do you all make of this and what are your thoughts on these two?
Ellenbay is a bookkeeper who runs her husband's mobile dog grooming business in California. She is a 30+ year fan of ABC soaps.
Luke went on to be raised by his Aunt Ruby. She was a madam and his sister became a prostitute, but Aunt Ruby loved Bobbie and Luke. Todd’s adoptive mother tried to protect him, but never could. Peter Manning was brutal towards Todd as a boy. T odd grew up to be a tortured-soul. Luke had his demons and more when his character was new on GH, but as time went on, he became more of the adventurous hero. Todd was no hero, and RH wouldn’t permit his character to become one. Luke was tortured by his passion for Laura, who was married to Scotty. When he couldn’t have her, he raped her. Todd raped two women; Carol Swift and Marty. I don’t know the history between Carol and Todd, but I do know that Marty rejected Todd after they had slept together once. He instigated the awful gang rape of Marty.
In many ways both these men were like children who couldn’t get their way, but took what they wanted anyway. RH was on OLTL on and off for 10 years, and this incredible actor’s integrity was the backbone behind the audience never forgetting Todd was a rapist. He did not want to ever be considered a leading man. On the other hand, AG became quite the leading man on GH. I am not putting down AG’s integrity….I am just making a point about RH’s. Not until TSJ took over the role of Todd did this character become a leading man. Luke Spencer became a leading man after he and Laura ended up together and many times after Genie Frances left GH, he played opposite many different leading ladies. Luke was, and still is, a passionate and flirtatious man with the ladies. Todd (our Todd) had deep-seeded intimacy issues. He only loved two women, Blair & Tea, but his intimacy issues were never resolved. They were part of who he was part of what made him so tortured. Luke used to be somewhat of an intense character, but he developed more into an adventurous, free spirited type. When I think of Luke Spencer, I think of him as almost cartoon-like.
Roger’s Todd was and always will be intense and tormented. Both of these men can act. I don’t see the greatness in AG that I see in RH, though. Even though AG won six Outstanding Leading Actor Awards, I just never got it. I always liked Luke a lot, but never loved him. On the other hand, RH only won once for Outstanding Younger Actor. He should have won many Outstanding Actor awards for his role as Todd Manning for years following, but did not.
What do you all make of this and what are your thoughts on these two?
Ellenbay is a bookkeeper who runs her husband's mobile dog grooming business in California. She is a 30+ year fan of ABC soaps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)