Granger-Weasley's

Does anyone else think there is a severe lack of GINGER in these photos??



https://www.broadwayworld.com/westend/article/Photo-Flash-Hermione-Ron-and-Rose-From-HARRY-POTTER-AND-THE-CURSED-CHILD-20160601

There is, they could have at least given the Ron actor a ginger wig I think... But I'm very glad they cast a black girl as Rose, so at least they are staying somewhat consistent with casting a black Hermione (and they couldn't possibly limit their casting choices to mixed-race kids, of course, so I'd rather have it that way). It bothers me when they color-blind cast things inconsistent within a family. If you make a choice like that, commit to it all the way and cast the whole family in that race (wether afro-american, asian or whatever)

Some gingers get less ginger overtime. I depends on the type of red they are. Those with darker (more auburn) hair may go towards the brown side, some with lighter (closer to a strawberry blonde) may turn into a dirty blonde/blonde. Others retain the color until they go blonde/gray, then white. It really depends on the person.



Other factors include light. Especially with those whose hair is not the literal color of a carrot, lighting, what colors the person is wearing, what season it is, etc. can really affect what the outward perception of their hair color. Source: my own head (and those of my brother and grandfather)



All this said, I remember the books saying he was ginger, but not a specific shade. And in all things, if J.K. Rowling approved it, then who are we to decide that it is wrong. They're her characters after all.

This cast, particularly the chosen, are too old. Harry's son is supposed to be 11, and Rose Weasley (if memory serves) is supposed to be 10. The adults are only supposed to be in their mid-thirties, but look like they are in their forties. Hope they do better she when/should this transfer to Broaday.

Fosse76 said: "This cast, particularly the chosen, are too old. Harry's son is supposed to be 11, and Rose Weasley (if memory serves) is supposed to be 10. The adults are only supposed to be in their mid-thirties, but look like they are in their forties."



But do we know know when exactly the play is supposed to take place? The ages you mention would be correct if we assume that it takes place in the same year as the epilogue of Deathly Hallows, but do we know if that's the case? It's very possible that have been told that, and I just haven't seen it. If so, I'd love a link.

was the epilogue 19 years later? that's when I read this play is set.

I thought I'd read that the show also covers a span of a few years as well though? Plus, Jamie Parker is actually 36 and I really don't think the actors for Ron and Hermione look any older than him. As for the children, if they'd have cast them young they'd be dealing with multiple child actors instead of one for each role.

I am really happy to see these pictures. When I saw photos of the actors a few months ago, I went crazy in a negative way, because I didn't think the actors playing Ron and Harry looked like the book descriptions. Now that I've seen them made up, I think they look a LOT closer.

Hermione was a different matter, because we don't know what she looked like in the book, at least after her horsey teeth got repaired. Still, I was unhappy at that time that the actor chosen doesn't look at all like Emma Watson. However, now that Ron, Harry, and Ginny look like they're supposed to (in my view, of course), I'm perfectly happy to have Hermione look different than I imagined her.

One question: Does anyone know whether the location of Harry's scar matches the books or the movies? I'm just curious.

Audrey

JBroadway said: "Gotcha. Thanks for the info, guys. Does anyone happen to have a link to the article/announcement that says that? I'm not doubting the truth of what you said, just curious to see it. "

The home page of the official website states at the top of the page: "The eighth story. Nineteen years later."