|
|
Post by tommy123 on May 21, 2017 12:13:33 GMT
So, seeing as it's the original London's cast last day, thought I'd start this thread.
Due to open in April 2018. Do we reckon any of the London cast will travel with it - and do we think there will be any changes to the show?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 16:05:23 GMT
Changes, no. That slew of 5 star reviews means it's pretty perfect.
Cast, possibly. The main trio and possibly Sam Clemmett and Anthony Boyle also, but it would be another year long commitment so who knows!
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 21, 2017 16:20:57 GMT
I think Anthony Boyle has to go and I really liked Sam Clemmett's acting. Yes it could do with some changes, but it probably won't get them. I loved the actor who played Ron but I think it's probably the easiest role to recast.
I was wondering about London and Broadway, whether they'll review it every few years and try and update/change the magic as the techniques/possibilities increase around the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 16:38:18 GMT
Hmm, it's not perfect. The script has definitely received its fair share of criticisms, although unsurprisingly these problems were largely ignored by British critics, although I doubt they will be by the Americans. But no I don't think they'll make any changes, the technical aspects are so well done that the show will still get good/great reviews and even if it didn't, it really doesn't matter at this point. The show is a success and will continue to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 21, 2017 21:29:29 GMT
Hmm, it's not perfect. The script has definitely received its fair share of criticisms, although unsurprisingly these problems were largely ignored by British critics, although I doubt they will be by the Americans. But no I don't think they'll make any changes, the technical aspects are so well done that the show will still get good/great reviews and even if it didn't, it really doesn't matter at this point. The show is a success and will continue to be. The script criticism comes from mainly those that have read the published script and either haven't seen it performed or have seen it since reading it. The critics based their reviews on the stage show, and weren't swayed by reading it alone at home. My only script criticism is reading it myself I find it a tab boring - but it comes alive on stage, it really does. Other than that, I don't understand the plot or characterisation criticism - the plot I think is complex enough to give her novels a run for their money and the characters are 19 to 22 years older: they aren't going to be the same. I don't think anything major will change when it reaches Broadway, but I wouldn't be surprised if the direction has subtle changes - when Wicked started opening up around the world, new ideas on characterisation were input and incorporated into existing versions. I certainly don't agree. I saw it for the first time on stage without having gone near the script and I don't think it's that great. It's certainly not awful but there is quite a lot I would think about changing if I was involved. Obviously I can't mention any specifics here. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 21:30:15 GMT
Hmm, it's not perfect. The script has definitely received its fair share of criticisms, although unsurprisingly these problems were largely ignored by British critics, although I doubt they will be by the Americans. But no I don't think they'll make any changes, the technical aspects are so well done that the show will still get good/great reviews and even if it didn't, it really doesn't matter at this point. The show is a success and will continue to be. The script criticism comes from mainly those that have read the published script and either haven't seen it performed or have seen it since reading it. The critics based their reviews on the stage show, and weren't swayed by reading it alone at home. My only script criticism is reading it myself I find it a tab boring - but it comes alive on stage, it really does. Other than that, I don't understand the plot or characterisation criticism - the plot I think is complex enough to give her novels a run for their money and the characters are 19 to 22 years older: they aren't going to be the same. I would put an edit to that, I think most of the play criticism comes from those that have only read the script but I've spoken to multiple people who have seen the show and whilst they acknowledge that it's a great piece of theatre in many ways, they have issues with the plot. A 'perfect' play (if there is such a thing) would stand up to being read away from having seen the show, in the way that those plays that students have to examine in English Literature do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 8:05:03 GMT
The thing is the plot reads like fanfiction. And not even the good fanfiction that stands out and brings new life and colour and vantage points to the original property, but the boring fanfiction that doesn't really have anything new to say so just revisits aspects from the original property with slight twists. If you've never dipped your toe into fanfiction, I suppose I can see why you might be absolutely fine with the script, but I've done my time in fandom and found the play fairly clichéd and predictable. It works beautifully as a piece of theatre because theatre is more than just the script, but as a piece of writing it's pretty disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 8:15:01 GMT
There's also an element of 'if it ain't broke'- they know it works/sells on stage even with a slightly bland play, so why put effort into re-writes etc when they can just transplant? There will likely be direction tweaks, for the new space and cast, and just general tightening up (it might even do what some of the big musicals have done over the years and work any bigger tweaks into the London production) But I really doubt there'll be any big re-writes.
I also disagree that the only reason it's criticised is not seeing it on stage. I haven't read it, I deliberately avoided any spoilers before seeing it, and it still felt weak in parts. It was actually better than I hoped for various reasons I won't say here for spoiler reasons. And I loved the nostalgia/fan service elements of it. But overall it's not an amazing piece of writing. It does the job it needs to, and the whole package is great, but the writing alone isn't.
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 22, 2017 8:57:05 GMT
I would agree that the script could have been better, though I don't have immediate suggestions as to how (and certainly none that wouldn't go into spoiler territory). @baemax - what kind of ideas would you have had for a fresh unexpected take on the Potter stuff? I'm genuinely curious because I just can't think of anything and I'm usually pretty good at fanfiction stuff.
Personally I think (don't kill me) that the original books were far from perfect either, especially the latter books. The first three books were cute charming stories about a young wizard at boarding school, mixing classic Enid Blyton-boarding-school-shenanigans with a dash of fantasy and magic and typical teenage woes. But from around the fourth book and the Triwizard Tourney things just got darker and gloomier. I remember all the furore in those days about people fretting all over the world who would die (next) when a new book came out. I also remember JK Rowling insisting that she had planned for the dark stuff, that older children could take it and so on. Yes, they could, heck, I could as an adult, but looking back now, I think there was a lot of unneessary dark stuff in it and too many convoluted by-roads that took away from the original fun Hogwarts/boarding school setting into deep dark stuff in London (have forgotten what that house was called where Harry's adult friends hung out.
So I dunno, I don't get the sense that this is an imperfect play following a perfect series of books, it's to me more like most Harry Potter - very good, but far from perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 8:59:53 GMT
I don't know what I *would* have done, for I am not a creative writing type and don't have a lot of ideas of my own, but I absolutely would not (and this is MASSIVE SPOILERS so REALLY DON'T CLICK if you don't already know the plays) have used a damn Time Turner as my major plot device, basing my entire plot off revisiting things that have already been well covered in the books, nor would I have had Voldemort's surprise secret daughter as my bad guy. I also wouldn't have brought Snape back, but if I had been pressured to do so, I'd've made him much bitterer. He ultimately functioned as a hero but was still a really horrible person who bullied children, and in the dark future timeline, there's no way he wouldn't have been even more unpleasant. That whole section smacked of fanservice without any real understanding of Snape's character and it just really jarred. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 9:03:47 GMT
Oh heck yes viserys the early books in particular are great 'stories' in that the ideas are lovely and charming and exciting (particularly for the age group aimed at which was originally what 10 ish? Harry's age?) but they aren't the best written work in the world. As the books went on JK's writing gets better (though the stories get more all over the shop) They're great, and JK certainly has some gems in there, and the world created is brilliant etc. But on a purely critique of the writing way, I also don't think it's fair to the plays to imagine they're being compared to the best work of literature ever. In that sense they do the same job- a good story and a magical world brought to life- and that's what I want from it. On the fanfiction pov (I never read any HP Fanfic though I'm well versed in the genre generally) I don't know either. I feel the plot of Cursed Child is likely one done in fanfic a lot? or variations therefore. BUT I'd also argue that fanfic has the luxury of infinite number of words and space to tell the story, and imagination, that the theatre version doesn't. So I don't know, could it be better written? Sure. Is it BAD? defiantly not. And it serves the medium/purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 9:06:20 GMT
Just as a warning to anyone not seeing it that spoiler above is MAJOR spoilers so do try and resist if you are seeing it without reading  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 9:07:30 GMT
Just as a warning to anyone not seeing it that spoiler above is MAJOR spoilers so do try and resist if you are seeing it without reading Good point, I'll add a bit more warning.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 9:09:48 GMT
Just as a warning to anyone not seeing it that spoiler above is MAJOR spoilers so do try and resist if you are seeing it without reading Good point, I'll add a bit more warning. hehe I just know that I might have been tempted to 'push the big red button' and then regretted it! |
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 22, 2017 9:40:07 GMT
I don't know what I *would* have done, for I am not a creative writing type and don't have a lot of ideas of my own, but I absolutely would not (and this is MASSIVE SPOILERS so REALLY DON'T CLICK if you don't already know the plays) have used a damn Time Turner as my major plot device, basing my entire plot off revisiting things that have already been well covered in the books, nor would I have had Voldemort's surprise secret daughter as my bad guy. I also wouldn't have brought Snape back, but if I had been pressured to do so, I'd've made him much bitterer. He ultimately functioned as a hero but was still a really horrible person who bullied children, and in the dark future timeline, there's no way he wouldn't have been even more unpleasant. That whole section smacked of fanservice without any real understanding of Snape's character and it just really jarred. Haha, okay, I won't quote you because of the spoilers, but I get most of what you are saying, even though I'd only agree with one out of three of those things. {Spoiler - click to view}
The time travelling was doing my head in at times and I had preferred a straightforward story. But I didn't mind Delphi (if only she had been better written/had more of a fleshed-out background) and I loved seeing Snape, as I know it was pure fan service. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 22, 2017 12:33:29 GMT
I agree. As a piece of stand-alone drama it isn't great. As a piece of fan-service it's a lot of fun. Pretty sure the audience will be predominantly fans and - especially as the script is published - I can't see them changing it now. Clearly it was designed to work within the set parameters of the existing Potter universe, instead of expanding it significantly. Possibly deliberately, since there'll be lots of fans who never make it to the theatre to see it, and they are not really missing out on significant *story* developments by not doing so.
(I don't *think* I need spoiler tags for that.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 12:49:14 GMT
kathryn I'd say you're good spoiler wise there. And I agree. As it's not a widely accessible piece in the 'flesh' then it would be unfair (and I'd imagine this would be JK's thinking) to have something that wildly changed the known universe. Instead it's a sweet add on that gives a lot of nods to fans and allows for some pretty cool theatre magic!
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on May 22, 2017 13:21:52 GMT
I completely agree with @baemax. I would much rather have had a straight forward story involving Harry etc. A new villain (preferably with no relation to Voldemort) I didn't want to see any of the characters of the past. I think @emicardiff has got it right though as to why the story is how it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 13:30:07 GMT
I won't quote as it always seems to kill spoiler tags, but I would too, although I enjoy the nostalgia. But as above I also kinda get why did did what it did.
Christ this is getting like in Friends "But they don't know that we know they know"
|
|
194 posts
|
Post by thebearofwestend on May 23, 2017 7:10:22 GMT
I seriously doubt that any HP would care what the script is.It will get the same raves.
|
|
194 posts
|
Post by thebearofwestend on May 23, 2017 7:10:45 GMT
I say this because the NYT loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 7:42:38 GMT
Much less spoilery but I've still hidden it all for the people who've managed to avoid everything so far and wish to continue doing so. Honestly, I don't see why there had to really be a big epic plot in the first place. A well-written family drama would have slotted SO neatly into existing theatrical canon (Albus standing proudly alongside Hamlet and Prince Hal with all their daddy issues), or even just a Hogwarts-based school story with ups and downs and character-based drama would have worked. JK Rowling's strength has always been in the world-building and character creation, and a much less epic story could have been told just as interestingly with just as many magical effects. People would have paid to see it. People would have enjoyed it. People pay to see character-based drama all the time, and the desire of many to just get back to Hogwarts would have been sated no matter what. I very much like what y'all have said about how this play does and should fit into the Harry Potter canon though, it certainly made me think differently about my reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 7:53:31 GMT
I say this because the NYT loved it. This really means nothing. The NYT loved Groundhog Day when they reviewed it in London too yet when it went to NYC the reviews were much more mixed. Ben Brantley may be the most important name in Broadway criticism, but that doesn't mean the consensus always goes along with him. |
|
194 posts
|
Post by thebearofwestend on May 24, 2017 5:30:40 GMT
I say this because the NYT loved it. This really means nothing. The NYT loved Groundhog Day when they reviewed it in London too yet when it went to NYC the reviews were much more mixed. Ben Brantley may be the most important name in Broadway criticism, but that doesn't mean the consensus always goes along with him. No but he tends to get musicals those noms |
|
114 posts
|
Post by showbizkid on Jun 11, 2017 23:18:32 GMT
Will just British actors be used on Broadway??
|
|
