Harry Potter and the Cursed Child - One Part?

The show needs work. I felt the first part was more impressive and fun from an effects-perspective, but at the end of the day, the story just needs work and should be brought back into the HP universe and the rules that were set-up there, in my opinion.

TotallyEffed said: "As much as I enjoyed the production, it was clear that this wasn’t from JK Rowling herself."

The sad thing is...it WAS from her. She wrote the outline for the story, and even the things she didn't write, she gave it all the OK, and slapped her name on it. Her approval says as much about her artistic standards as if she had written it herself. If she thought she could do it better, she would have (as the Fantastic Beasts series proves).

As Lushy said, the “rules” from the books were totally disregarded and solutions to unsolvable problems magically appeared when necessary (granted, JK is guilty of that in the books a couple of times herself lol).

More than a couple times. She did this ALL the time in the main series.

I know some people who don’t even consider it canon and think of it as something closer to fan-fiction.

yes, I've heard that from a lot of people. It definitely reads like fan fiction, and considering it as such is an elegant method of trying to ignore it. Understandable. But her majesty says it's canon, so it is. Just like "Hogwarts students used to sh*t on the floor and use magic to make it disappear" is now a canon fact.

And yes, I have zero interest in ever giving this woman money again. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt for a while but this is clearly the hill she is determined to die on. These tweets will be a stain on her career forever. Pretty sad all around."

Totally agree!

Updated On: 7/21/20 at 05:58 PM

As we have seen from shows like The Inheritance, the two part model is just not popular anymore. I love them personally, but I understand why this show asked people those things, I don't know a thing about anything Harry Potter related, but I'm sure people would feel fine with it being just a one part play.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why a play based on a dumb fantasy book for middle schoolers needs to be 2 evenings long. Unless you're an Angels in America or a Kentucky Cycle, and you have a reason to justify every minute of your presence, make the play one part.

VotePeron said: "Lots of thoughts on this. But isn't a 3.5 hour, 2 intermission play also a hard sell? Each part as-is runs about 2:35/45, so there would need to be serious cuts to get this to 2:45 overall. We'll see - anything's possible."

One long play is much more accessible for audiences, both financially and in terms of time. A family from out-of-town could still see it on a day trip to the city. Someone walking by the theatre at 6:45 could still get the full story in one evening.

Sutton Ross said: "As we have seen from shows like The Inheritance, the two part model is just not popular anymore. I love them personally, but I understand why this show asked people those things, I don't know a thing about anything Harry Potter related, but I'm sure people would feel fine with it being just a one part play."

The two-part format was never that popular, with the exception of the original production of Nicholas Nickleby, which was an event before its transfer to NYC was announced. It was also a limited engagement that did not extend a day. When it was represented a year or two later, it never really caught on, a key reason being that it was no longer an event.

Shortly after it ran, maybe a season or two, The Kentucky Cycle -- having already won the Pulitzer Prize -- was presented and never caught on. Half a dozen years ago, Wolf Hall opened, got some excellent reviews, and never caught on. The original Angels in America opening was only the Millenium Approaches portion, with Perestroika appearing in the next season. Re the revival, I remember lots of postings on this board opining that the key reason it was not a bigger hit was probably because it was a two-parter that required a significant investment of time and money.

I did not see The Inheritance because it did not work for my calendar (it began previews right after I passed through NYC on the way South for the winter). Had it been in previews, I probably would have debated getting tickets because it required 2 of my limited slots (we only had time for 5 'slots' that visit).

Harry Potter has run as long as it has, despite being two parts, because of the phenomenon that is Harry Potter. That it could not sustain its initial demand is certainly impacted by the fact that it is two parts. I have not seen the show thus far because I was initially unable to get tickets; and then, when I focused on their cost, I was unwilling to pay the high prices twice. By the time I had concluded that I was ready to buy two sets of tickets -- due to pretty good discounts and availability -- the Pandemic hit. I suspect that I would be ready to purchase discounted tickets post-Pandemic; but I have to admit that I would have already seen it if it were only one part; and, generally limited to some number of performances each visit, I would be much more anxious if it were one part. Based on everything I have read, it is an extremely well produced production, build on a modest play. For me, that does not scream 'must see' when I have to sit through two parts. Get it to a 4 hour play and I am there.

Bottom line IMO: with the exception of Harry Potter and the initial limited engagement of Nicholas Nickelby, both viewed as major events from the outset, 2-part productions have never been successful.

Updated On: 7/21/20 at 09:17 PM

VotePeron said: "- The idea that seeing both parts of Cursed Child is too expensive is a myth - it’s average ticket price has been lower than most shows on Broadway for over a year. Cursed Child tickets from $40-$60/per part have been readily available for the entirety of Year 2 (March ‘19-March ‘20). This includes the week of the shows, you’ve been able to get front orchestra seats for both parts for less than $100 total. And thats public-facing on Ticketmaster. I think families (and apparently seasoned theater goers alike) just assume it’s sold out/impossible to get tickets, so they don’t try. The show does a ton of same-day ticket sales because of this."



Everything you said here is true. Including the part about people just assuming they can't get tickets. But ticket price is not the primary issue (at least not anymore). The issue is time commitment.

A family of Harry Potter fans could plan this into their schedule without much trouble. But casual fans who come to NY without planning out their Broadway shows have a really hard time fitting this is, I think. Unless they've planned it out ahead of time, people don't want to spend a full day, or commit two full evenings, to seeing a single Broadway show. By the time they get to NY, they've already planned things during that time, or they feel nervous about making a commitment like that and blocking off their limited time.

So the production struggles to capture that same-week/same-day market, which is a big market, especially for a show that otherwise would have mass tourist appeal.

Alex Kulak2 said: "There is absolutely no reason on earth why a play based on a dumb fantasy book for middle schoolers needs to be 2 evenings long. Unless you're anAngels in Americaor aKentucky Cycle, and you have a reason to justify every minute of your presence, make the play one part."

The films themselves averaged about 2 hours and 30 some minutes, and generally a musical or play has a longer running time than a film so, it's not surprising that the play would be very long. It may be "Dumb" to you, but is a franchise that has been exceptionally popular for 20 years.

That said, trimming could be done. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was still longer than the average play or musical, given the length of its source material.

I saw both parts in London at the end of 2018 with my entire family. My wife and two daughters are big "Harry Potter" fans and I was a casual fan. We had had no problem seeing both parts in one day, planned our day in London around it. Went to a few places in London in the morning before the afternoon show and we made reservation to eat at nice place called "The Cambridge" after Part 1. The restaurant was right across the street from the Palace Theater. Everybody really liked both parts of the play and I don't think they should change it to one part.

Updated On: 7/22/20 at 11:13 AM

Scarlet Leigh said: "Can the play be trimmed down from one part to two? That's not as easy to do. It would basically mean totally overhauling the entire production and having to put it back into tech rehearsals."

This is true, but we should also remember that they're in a unique place where, regardless of whether or not they cut the show down, they're still going to have to re-rehearse and re-tech should they decide to reopen. Reducing the show to a single part would certainly make this process more laborious and more expensive, but I'm not surprised to hear that the producers are using this time to evaluate ways they can better position themselves if/when they decide to reopen.