Is Cursed Child actually any good?

really

froote said: "Production yes, script not really.



"That script hurt my soul.

The writing is incredibly disappointing. I still think that a prequel would have made better subject matter and that a better playwright could have made it a truly great play to match a truly great production.

Just saw Jack Thorne's adaptation of Woyzeck in London. It turns out Cursed Child is not an exception of his bad writing.

It's fairly incredible if you don't go in expecting to see a groundbreaking piece of theatre. The staging, effects, lighting, acting, and just about everything that isn't to do with the script is absolutely top notch.

As I recall, the published one is a rehearsal draft and they recently announced they were going to release a paperback of the performance script. I haven't seen or read it, so I couldn't tell you how different it is. I would guess not too much though.

Wow -- surprised by these reactions. I was under the impression this was a huge hit by the theatrical world *and* the Potter fandom.

HUGE Potter fan -- and I found the script to be wonderful.

If there was anything I was disappointed by, it was that the HEAVILY implied romantic undertones were completely axed in the final pages. *grumble* Otherwise -- I loved it and can't wait to see it next spring on Broadway.

I feel like Cursed Child is a packaged deal, like many other shows.



Is the script that greatest? No. Not by a longshot but I wouldn't call it terrible.



John Tiffany had given some wonderful direction to give meat to scenes that don't necessarily stand out in the script.



The OLC (I haven't seen the new one) definitely brought nuances to their characters that came across flat in the script.



The rest of the package... the set, the lighting, the sound, the costumes, the magic illusions, the movement/choreography... really mesh well together, too.



So, to answer the OP's question, in my opinion (as someone who read the books, seen the films, read the script & seen the production): it's good... I found it enjoyable. It's not going to win a Pulitzer but it was a fun day at the theatre.

It was a great experience to see it, but between it and Fantastic Beasts it really made me realize Rowling cannot write dialogue.

As a huge, obsessed Harry Potter fan, I was incredibly disappointed in the text of Cursed Child. It was one of those classic examples of something needing to be seen live with a great director and skilled actors rather than read. I'm also used to reading plays that deal with weighty themes that are actually about something with scenes that are useful in promoting the themes and character studies. I found Cursed Child attempted to do that on a very shallow level, but got lost in the fan service and "fun" magical scenes. I also had a huge problem with the characterization of Ron and how he was used, but that's more of a criticism of play rather than whether the play was well-written or "good". I probably would have appreciated it if JK Rowling actually had a heavier hand in this play...just going by the text.

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "As a huge, obsessed Harry Potter fan, I was incredibly disappointed in the text of Cursed Child. It was one of those classic examples of something needing to be seen live with a great director and skilled actors rather than read. I'm also used to reading plays that deal with weighty themes that are actually about something with scenes that are useful in promoting the themes and character studies. I found Cursed Child attempted to do that on a very shallow level, but got lost in the fan service and "fun" magical scenes. I also had a huge problem with the characterization of Ron and how he was used, but that's more of a criticism of play rather than whether the play was well-written or "good". I probably would have appreciated it if JK Rowling actually had a heavier hand in this play...just going by the text."



I've heard this criticism on how he comes across on the page, but on stage (at least with Paul Thornley), the character had more depth and not just used as a comic relief. And that was a combination of Tiffany's direction and what Thornley brought to the character. For example, even the way he walked in one of the AU showed an aspect that didn't come out in the script.



And for someone who asked above if the script/book is what is performed on stage... yes and no. About 90% of what's in the "rehearsal" script is what's on stage. However, the OLC did change or omitted some lines that have now been put back in with the new cast (or so I've heard) so who knows what's in the "final" script version.

Saw Cursed Child a couple weeks ago and, sad to say, I found it to be pretty dreadful.

Yeah, there are some good effects, but the plot is nonsense and the script is horrible. Dialogue rarely rises above the most basic "Oh, look!" level, and there is no complexity to the characters at all. In fact, much of the play (which is far too long) seems to have no interest in doing anything but triggering fan reactions -- Hagrid! Floo powder! Trolley witch! Dumbledore! -- that are painfully cobbled onto the plot.

I've read all the books and seen the movies several times, and am quite surprised that some fans actually like this mess, as it distorts and violates several canonical aspects of the HP Universe. (Am even more surprised that J.K. Rowling signed off on it.)

A huge disappointment.

P.S. After seeing Cursed Child, I digitally checked the play out of my local library. I didn't find any significant difference between that "rehearsal script" and what was presented on stage. There may have been an altered line here or there, but nothing struck me as being particularly significant. Overall, I'd say that what I read was what I saw.