Harry Potter and the Cursed Child - One Part? — Page 2

yankeefan7 said: "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 form the Palace Theater. Everybody really liked both parts of the play and I don't think they should change it to one part."



I agree with you. I saw it here in NYC and enjoyed every moment of it.

Who knows, the show may have done much better had it come out sooner after the final book and movie. I have been wanting to read the books for a third time. My copies are in storage so tried late last year to borrow them from the library. Still a waiting list. on most of the books, so people are still reading them, but it is interesting that the show is not doing better. It seems that it being a two parter is the factor even with such a popular property.

I was planning to see it again with all of the discounts that came out back in March. Had decided that it would be the first thing I saw when Broadway re-opened (If it re-opened). Now I am thinking twice because of those tweets. I may just do it as I am an Imogen Heap fan. Hearing that music in the theater was thrilling and a big reason that I want to return to see it again. I just wish Rowling would issue a believable apology to make me feel better about going again! Just my random thoughts.

Fosse76 said: "SouthernCakes said: "Can you explain what makes the change over so elaborate? Really curious about it! "

Having seen the show enough times to be in that Repeat Attenders documentary, it looks like the rigging used for the Part 1 finale is "removed" before part 2. I recall one day looking the ceiling before part 1 started and seeing it, but it was totally gone by part 2. Aside from that, I can't imagine anything else being intensive."


The rigging is always in place (details) -

Updated On: 7/22/20 at 02:05 PM

quizking101 said: "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."

I think the problem with THE INHERITANCE was that it was a primarily unknown entity with unknown actors riding in on a good wave of London press. Where they shot themselves in the foot severely was 1) the ridiculously high initialprice the tickets were being sold for and 2) creating an uneven performance schedule and not bothering to offer any sort of discount or incentive to buy both parts at the same time (like Harry Potter or AIA). They got cocky and closed earlier than intended (though COVID was what ultimately put it out of it’s misery)."

COVID didn't close The Inheritence - they weren't selling long before Covid was a thing and announced closing a month before Broadway shut down. Terrible marketing, a mediocre play, and arrogant producers closed The Inheritence.

Cursed Child is so fast-paced and already races through plot at the great expense of character that I truly can't see how it could be condensed to one part. The only things that could conceivably be cut--the subplots with the adult characters and the big special effects sequences--are the reasons people buy tickets to the show.

I am the target audience for this show--I am deep in the HP fandom, and I am an avid theatre goer, but I have yet to see the show because I have read the script and hated it. And most of my fellow Potterheads feel the same way--the most positive reactions I've heard within the fan community are "Even though the script is disappointing, the visuals are amazing and make up for that," which is not winning praise.

If they condense it to one part, I suppose that would lower a barrier for entry, but it wouldn't solve the real problem--the rabid fanbase of Harry Potter, the people who should be paying hundreds of dollars to book seats several months in advance, aren't interested in a poorly-written piece of fan fiction that doesn't even bother to follow the canon of the original books.

When Solo: A Star Wars Story failed to live up to box office expectations, there was all this speculation from executives about how it was released too close to another Star Wars film, or that the marketing was wrong. You heard every explanation except that it was a bad movie.

If Cursed Child were as great a piece of writing as the original books, the two-part thing wouldn't be such a problem. You can't blame The Inheritance's failure on its two-part structure when it got such middling reviews and word-of-mouth over here. It failed to live up to the expectations of its target audience. The people I know who love Cursed Child the most are the people who went in with the least knowledge about the books. Which is fine, I'm glad people do enjoy it, but that's a much tougher crowd to market to than the millions of people who visit the theme parks and the studio tour every year.

Hey, while they're at it, why don't they bring in a better writer to replace Jack Thorne?

quizking101 said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "quizking101 said: "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."

I think the problem with THE INHERITANCE was that it was a primarily unknown entity with unknown actors riding in on a good wave of London press. Where they shot themselves in the foot severely was 1) the ridiculously high initialprice the tickets were being sold for and 2) creating an uneven performance schedule and not bothering to offer any sort of discount or incentive to buy both parts at the same time (like Harry Potter or AIA). They got cocky and closed earlier than intended (though COVID was what ultimately put it out of it’s misery)."

COVID didn't close The Inheritence - they weren't selling long before Covid was a thing and announced closing a month before Broadway shut down. Terrible marketing, a mediocre play, and arrogant producers closed The Inheritence."

They announced closing for March 15th, 2020, though their last performance was a few days prior because COVID shut down all the theaters."

But they announced the closing on Feb 20th, and it was clear to everyone in the industry long before that. Their grosses were low and they were looking for priority loans. I don't think COVID had anything to do with it.

Fosse76 said: "They do it with Shakespeare all the time, and Cursed Child is no Shakespearean play."



Haha, I was thinking the same thing. Nobody cares if you cut Fortinbras from Hamlet, so why not the Trolly Witch from the Harry Potter Play?

Having said that, I've reflected on this a bit more, and I actually don't necessarily think this would be the best thing for the play artistically.

I don't have any objection to making drastic cuts to established plays. In fact, I think a lot of established plays would really benefit from major cuts, if only the authors and their estates would allows it. Hork, your comparison to Angels in America is interesting to me, because I actually think Kushner is incredibly rambling, and often self-indulgent. I think Angels has a lot of those qualities as well, and I think there's actually a lot of stuff in Angels that could be cut without harming the story.

HOWEVER, I like Angels anyway for 2 main reasons (1) while I think some of it is unnecessary, most of it is brilliant, and (2) the fact that he goes to SUCH an extreme with it - 8 hours of material - makes the fat more forgivable. Because like I said before, it becomes an epic experience, and the audience is along for the ride. If it were just as rambling, and indulgent, but only lasted 3 hours, I don't think it would feel nearly as good. And in a way, I think the same is true of Harry Potter. Because while a lot of it is easily cuttable, the main issues with the play, for me, are not in the length or the extra fat. For me, it really just comes down to shoddy dialogue and poor treatment of the canon. And I just don't think that would be fixed by cutting it down to 3 hours.

So if you made all those cuts, the script still might suck, and maybe it would suck even more; and in the probess you've now also robbed the text of (IMO) its main positive attribute: which is the sense of being on a grand, epic adventure with these characters.

Dollypop said: "I have a friend in the cast and he hasn't volunteered any information about the show being streamlined into one part."

That's because they will literally be the last ones to know that info.

JBroadway said: "Hey, while they're at it, why don't they bring in a better writer to replace Jack Thorne?"

That's the thing, isn't it? He must be a really kind person because he isn't getting all the work he's getting based on the quality of his writing. Multiple times now have I seen something so embarrassingly poorly written that I had to google who wrote it only to find Mr. Thorne's name and think "ah, that explains it." Even when adapting beloved properties (Harry Potter, His Dark Materials, Let the Right One In) he fails to create characters that resemble human beings, reducing them to plot devices, often while finding the cheapest laughs possible.

Even so, I can't put all the blame on Thorne's shoulders. Whatever input Rowling did or did not exercise, she did have story credit on that mess, and the story is ultimately where it's broken. Instead of moving the story forward, it re-litigates the events of the novels and, in doing so, contradicts many of the driving themes of the original work while betraying the integrity of its characters.

When it was announced that John Tiffany would direct a play set in the world of Harry Potter under J K Rowling's supervision, I was excited beyond words. If I had any positive feelings toward the script, I would have paid so much money that I couldn't afford to get myself to London to see the show in its first year. I would have paid top-dollar to see it on Broadway several times by now. But once I read the script, I suddenly felt all the desire to see it drain from me completely. And I know an astounding number of people who feel the same way. And that wouldn't change if it were only in one part. When the bones are broken, a band-aid won't fix it.

VotePeron said: "Fosse76 said: "SouthernCakes said: "Can you explain what makes the change over so elaborate? Really curious about it! "

Having seen the show enough times to be in that Repeat Attenders documentary, it looks like the rigging used for the Part 1 finale is "removed" before part 2. I recall one day looking the ceiling before part 1 started and seeing it, but it was totally gone by part 2. Aside from that, I can't imagine anything else being intensive."


The rigging is always in place (details)-

"

I never said it wasn't (it's why I put "removed" in quotes). But it goes from being visible during part 1 to not visible in part 2. It doesn't do that on it's own. And I was there enough times to not be misremembering.