So...is Harry Potter better in part 2? — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 8:48am

mikem said: "(spoiler request)

Nicole 10 (or anyone else who wants to pipe in), can you clarify what you think the characters do that is out of character for them? I saw the show and liked it (but did not love it aside from the special effects). I am only a casual fan of Harry Potter, so I don't know the characters as in depth as you do."

I only read the books once, but I didn’t think Malfoy and Ron were good adaptations Ron in CC seemed more like his goofy twin brothers. Malfoy’s mom lied to help Harry in part 2, so I didn’t think the strong distrust was realistic. I hope that makes sense no haven’t had my coffee yet, lol

#27

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 9:58am

Yeah it's annoying how they choose to portray Ron as the comic relief he's in the movies rather than how he is in the books.

#28

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 10:21am

Nicole 10 said: "Honestly, I'm on the same boat. I've been a real dedicated fan since being a kid and was massively disappointed when I saw the play. What I always tell people is if you simply LIKE Harry Potter then you will enjoy the play. However, if you LOVE Harry Potter you can't help but dislike it.

Even putting the fanfic plot aside, the essence is all wrong too. If you are familiar with the characters, you will be delighted to see them make appearances. However, if you know them like you know your own friends, the choices they make in the play will baffle you. I understand that they're fictional characters and not real people, but JKR really fleshed these characters out over the course of thousands of pages and to see these beautiful characters reduced to one dimensional caricatures acting completely out of character is quite upsetting..."

While I do agree that some of the characters do out-of-character things, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with the bolded. That may be true for you, but it's absolutely the opposite with everyone I know personally. I and my HP obsessed friends have all seen the show multiple times (I personally have seen it 2.5 times, the only reason I didn't see it again was because I was invited to other plans and decided to sell my ticket to a friend who was desperate to see it). Also personally I always loved reading fanfiction, so that may have played a part, but certain friends who hated all sorts of fanfiction loved the show as well.

imeldasturn said: Yeah it's annoying how they choose to portray Ron as the comic relief he's in the movies rather than how he is in the books.

It kind of felt like they adapted Ron the same way the movies adapted him, I do wish his stage appearance was a little more book-accurate rather than bumbling comic relief with no real purpose. Book!Ron was such a great character, he really got the short end of the stick.

#29

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 10:45am

the special effects are amazing. the story is boring as hell

#30

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 11:27am

ilysespieces said: "Nicole 10 said: "Honestly, I'm on the same boat. I've been a real dedicated fan since being a kid and was massively disappointed when I saw the play. What I always tell people is if you simply LIKE Harry Potter then you will enjoy the play. However, if you LOVE Harry Potter you can't help but dislike it.

Even putting the fanfic plot aside, the essence is all wrong too. If you are familiar with the characters, you will be delighted to see them make appearances. However, if you know them like you know your own friends, the choices they make in the play will baffle you. I understand that they're fictional characters and not real people, but JKR really fleshed these characters out over the course of thousands of pages and to see these beautiful characters reduced to one dimensional caricatures acting completely out of character is quite upsetting..."While I do agree that some of the characters do out-of-character things, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with the bolded. That may be true for you, but it's absolutely the opposite with everyone I know personally. I and my HP obsessed friends have all seen the show multiple times (I personally have seen it 2.5 times, the only reason I didn't see it again was because I was invited to other plans and decided to sell my ticket to a friend who was desperate to see it). Also personally I always loved reading fanfiction, so that may have played a part, but certain friends who hated all sorts of fanfiction loved the show as well.imeldasturn said:Yeah it's annoying how they choose to portray Ron as the comic relief he's in the movies rather than how he is in the books.It kind of felt like they adapted Ron the same way the movies adapted him, I do wish his stage appearance was a little more book-accurate rather than bumbling comic relief with no real purpose. Book!Ron was such a great character, he really got the short end of the stick."

Agreed. I religiously read the books, went to conventions, etc.. Personally I find their characterizations more accurate than the movies. Even Ron, who is used as comic relief in the play as well, is far more accurate in the play. In the movies they make him a flat out bully a lot of the time.
Is everything in line with what /I/ imagine is in character for a certain character? No. But at the end of the day They arent my characters. Even if J.K. had the least amount of input (which I doubt is the case), she wouldnt let her characters stray too far from what she had in mind. Even if its all about the money, she couldve easily gone with one of the other 10000s of proposals Im sure she gets.

I also will admit that the main plot can drag, but the sub plot and imo the true plot is touching. There are a lot of strong themes.

Also not gonna spoil cause keep the secrets and all that but the ending truly has me feeling emotions that I hadnt felt since the first time I read DH.

I actually feel like this board is the surprisingly minority tbh. I know a lot of people who werent fans of the script to say the least but most people I know who actually get to see the play come out feeling a lot different, especially with the original cast. Everything from the stage craft to the characters to even the ushers all dressed in their house colors is magical. Im sorry that OP didnt feel it

That said everyone is entitled to their own opinion! And not everyone is going to like it. But I 100% disagree that only those who LIKE Harry Potter will enjoy it, because Ive found kinda the opposite to be true.

If anything, I think the shows biggest flaw is its inaccessibility. 90% or potential fans are priced out or simply live too far, and theres no way this show is ever touring with all the traps and renovations required

Updated On: 2/21/19 at 11:27 AM

#31

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 11:30am

This is where I think my expectations really got skewed. There were a few effects that I thought were excellent, but for the most part, I wasnt wowed.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

#32

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 12:31pm

Nicole 10 said: "If you are familiar with the characters, you will be delighted to see them make appearances. However, if you know them like you know your own friends, the choices they make in the play will baffle you."

I do agree that the books are MUCH better written than the play (the play has many strengths, but I wouldn't say the script is one of them). However, I didn't necessarily take issue with anyone being out of character. To be fair, the story takes place nineteen years after the last book, and I don't know anyone in my daily life that acts the same today as they did nineteen years ago. I know I sure don't.

#33

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 1:09pm

My husband and I own all the books and all the movies and we've read/watched them all multiple times. We consider ourselves fans and we paid top dollar (center aisle orchestra, about 5th row) for our tickets last July. We were not disappointed, and we both talked about seeing it again immediately afterwards. I'm currently contemplating first row mezz tickets for my June trip, to see it from another perspective. To each their own.

==> this board is a nest of vipers <==
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene"
- Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage

#34

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 1:22pm

Lot666 said: "My husband and I own all the books and all the movies and we've read/watched them all multiple times. We consider ourselves fans and we paid top dollar (center aisle orchestra, about 5th row) for ourtickets last July. We were not disappointed, and we both talked about seeing it again immediately afterwards. I'm currently contemplating first row mezz tickets for my June trip, to see it from another perspective. To each their own."

I definitely recommend mezz at least once! My first experience was in mezz and it’s magical up there. The magic looks great regardless but from mezz it’s even better as there’s a distance to the illusions. That said front orechestra is amazing because you get to be right in the middle of all the emotion

#35

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 1:32pm

I can understand being disappointed by the plot itself, but I though they did a great job with the characters, and were flawless on everything else. I throughly enjoyed this production, and I believe this cast does an amazing job portraying these iconic characters. I never expected it to be perfect, and it wasn't plot wise, but man. So. Much. Magic. At the end of part 1 I couldn't get my jaw off the floor.

#36

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 1:47pm

swingmode said: "Lot666 said: "My husband and I own all the books and all the movies and we've read/watched them all multiple times. We consider ourselves fans and we paid top dollar (center aisle orchestra, about 5th row) for ourtickets last July. We were not disappointed, and we both talked about seeing it again immediately afterwards. I'm currently contemplating first row mezz tickets for my June trip, to see it from another perspective. To each their own."

I definitely recommend mezz at least once! My first experience was in mezz and it’s magical up there. The magic looks great regardless but from mezz it’s even better as there’s a distance to the illusions. That said front orechestra is amazing because you get to be right in the middle of all the emotion"

We figured the Dementors would be amazing from first row mezz.

==> this board is a nest of vipers <==
"Michael Riedel...The Perez Hilton of the New York Theatre scene"
- Craig Hepworth, What's On Stage

#37

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 2:48pm

I always recommend people to see the show from the front mezz, having sat in every section of the Lyric Theater.

#38

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 3:29pm

I was about 4 rows from the back of the house upstairs to the left and had a perfect view. For a few things I was really glad I say up there to experience certain effects that used the whole theater. Especially near the end.

Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder

#39

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 3:54pm

It’s entirely possible to enjoy a show, and still recognize that it has flaws. I wouldn’t have seen it more than once if I hadn’t enjoyed the experience, with that said, the story just isn’t good. It’s a missed opportunity on so many levels.

Also, yes, front mezzanine is by far the best way to experience the show. Better than front orchestra in my opinion.

#40

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 3:55pm

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

For me, the biggest problem with the show is the whole "Voldemort had a child" thing at the center. The books make it very clear that in his quest to achieve immortality, Voldemort never believed the traditional notion that having a child carry on your legacy is a valid pursuit because he was so ashamed of his own parentage. And then the amount of coverup--Bellatrix would have been pregnant during the entirety of the sixth book, and the fact that nobody noticed or mentioned that just makes this whole thing feel like an afterthought.

Then there's the issue of the time-turners. Where Prisoner of Azkaban makes such careful choices in how it approaches time travel so as not to upset any rules, this one throws all that careful planning out the window and presents a cliche, pulpy genre story. Rowling said that she destroyed all of the time turners in the battle at the Department of Mysteries so that time travel wouldn't be a tool that could be used later on. Cursed Child's quick explanation of "new technological advances" shows sloppy world building and opens a much bigger can of worms than the one it cares to explore. The careful plotting and meticulous world building are huge parts of what makes the books so remarkable, and these qualities are lacking in Cursed Child.

And then there's Albus's journey... in the epilogue of Deathly Hallows (also the first scene of Cursed Child), Harry reassures Albus that if he is really afraid of being in Slytherin, he can just choose to be a part of Gryffindor, like Harry did. This moment reinforces one of the books' central themes, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." The concept of free will always persists, and Voldemort's adherence to a prophecy is what initially causes his downfall. When Albus is sorted into Slytherin despite his wishes not to, Cursed Child ruins the emotional impact of the final moment of a several-thousand-page series.

The thing is, all of the above problems I have with the play exist in the details. If you're a casual fan, you probably don't remember those things, and that's fine. But Rowling's original seven books always strived to excite the most attentive and engaged reader. For me, Jack Thorne's play works well enough as a piece of mass-market genre fiction, but as a Harry Potter fan who's read each of the books at least ten times, Cursed Child doesn't hold up to the same standard.

#41

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 5:36pm

I won the Friday 40 and took a HP stan friend of mine and he loved every minute of it and immediately went home and spent a fortune on the best seat in the house to go back.

#42

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 10:29pm

I saw Harry Potter last summer and I could not even begin to tell you what the heck it was about, but I can tell you that the stagecraft was imaginative and worth every penny. Just enjoy Act 2 of part 2 or whatever they called the two separate shows and enjoy the spectacle. And it’s also something that can never truly tour in any way close to what they do on Broadway.

#43

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/21/19 at 10:29pm

(spoiler request)

Nicole 10 (or anyone else who wants to pipe in), can you clarify what you think the characters do that is out of character for them? I saw the show and liked it (but did not love it aside from the special effects). I am only a casual fan of Harry Potter, so I don't know the characters as in depth as you do.

I know a lot of people disagree with my opinion that a lot of the characters were acting in ways that they wouldn't in the book, so I'll specify a few of the things that stood out for me:

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

My biggest issue was with Hermione. In the play, when Albus and Scorpius change the past and end up in an alternate future, they come back to a world where Ron and Hermione never ended up together. In that reality where Hermione's love wasn't returned by Ron, she never goes on to become minister of magic. Instead, she becomes a bitter old teacher who is arguably as mean a bully to students as Snape was. In this reality she is stone cold. In bringing up Ron's name in Hermione's presence in this reality, it also becomes very clear that she still holds on to the severe bitterness of what happened between her and Ron. The book Hermione would never let something like that dictate the rest of her life. She may have been upset, as she was many times throughout the books but she is way stronger than allowing it to dismantle her life and career prospects.

Harry- as an abused child who's only wish in life when looking into the mirror of erised was to have a family, Harry would never say "(seeing red): Well, there are times I wish you weren't my son". Yes he is an imperfect character, but his core values are very firmly established to be about family, loyalty, and love. And I don't believe for a second that he would come to a point where he would say such a thing.

Ron- yes, he is a goofy character and comedic relief in the books as well, but they've really reduced his character into a bumbling fool in the play. Biggest disappointment for me was that he mentions being too drunk at his own wedding and he doesn't remember anything about getting married to Hermione.

And there are smaller instances but I don't want to drag out the post!

Updated On: 2/21/19 at 10:29 PM

#44

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/22/19 at 9:49am

Nicole 10 said: "(spoiler request)Nicole 10 (or anyone else who wants to pipe in), can you clarify what you think the characters do that is out of character for them? I saw the show and liked it (but did not love it aside from the special effects). I am only a casual fan of Harry Potter, so I don't know the characters as in depth as you do.I know a lot of people disagree with my opinion that a lot of the characters were acting in ways that they wouldn't in the book, so I'll specify a few of the things that stood out for me:

And there are smaller instances but I don't want to drag out the post!

"

I agree with the Ron part, and sort of the hermione part (although to be fair even in the play its kind of au)

However I know a lot of people take issue with Harry and Ill forever disagree. Thats the exact type of thing someone who was abused and had a troubled past would say. Cycle of abuse. And book Harry put his foot in his mouth quite a few times.

In the script I can see why some might be troubled by it but imo Jamie Parker plays all those scenes incredibly well and you can see the absolute immediate regret, and it almost haunts him afterword.

At the end of the day I do understand the frustration people have when it comes to characters not acting in a way that WE think they should. But its hard to say a character WOULDNT act that way - especially 20+ years later - when the person who created the characters is signing off on it.

Also, in play Rons defense, there are parts I dont like but also parts where I think book Ron shines through. On mobile so cant spoiler, but without getting too spoilery he always is very quick to defend, support, and stick up for everyone. And thats more than I say for movie Ron tbh.

I dont think the play is perfect, but I also dont think they can only cater only to die-hard book fans, because it is a broadway show not a book

#45

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/22/19 at 12:16pm

The poster who said if you simply "like" Harry Potter or don't know much about it, then you'll like the play, but if you "LOVE" Harry Potter, then you won't like the play at all was so right. That's the perfect way to describe it.

#46

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/22/19 at 12:48pm

If anyone has any insight to how they did the time change effect I'd love to hear about it in a pm or spoiler note. That was truly the only effect I have no idea how it was done.

And what the hell happened to little James and Lily???????

#47

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/22/19 at 1:23pm

I could not agree more with Ravenclaw as to criticisms about the script. I am deep enough in the fandom to have been a guest lecturer at harry potter conventions and honestly I couldn't do CC. At some point you say "this frustrates me I'm not dealing with it."

"This is not where I wanted the story to go and I'm grumpy because I like my version better" is a good reason not to see it but not a particularly valid criticism.

"Based on previous books the choices in this story are not well supported, don't make sense, and/or contradict previous things from the books" is a perfectly valid criticism.

Cursed child, for me, is the latter. Not invested in theorizing for after the series ended so I had no preconceived expectations to disappoint, but it trampled a lot of things I like from the books.

Shoutout for diverse casting though. And for all the HP fans who did love it. Good for them, but it's not for me

#48

So...is Harry Potter better in part 2?

Posted: 2/22/19 at 2:43pm

dramamama611 said: "If anyone has any insight to how they did the time change effect I'd love to hear about it in a pm or spoiler note. That was truly the only effect I have no idea how it was done.

And what the hell happened to little James and Lily???????"

The disappearance of little James and Lily bothers me tremendously. Also, what’s up with Hagrid? We only see him through dream sequences or in the past. Is he dead? Alive? Weird that there’s not even a mention of him in the present time.

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I believe the time change effect is done through projections, they just add movement on top of what’s there and it works perfectly. I could be wrong, but I believe someone mentioned this in another thread.

Also, for anyone on mobile, the way to get the spoiler box is, post a message and then edit the message. The option to do a spoiler box will then be available, as well as making your links clickable!

Updated On: 2/22/19 at 02:43 PM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95