Okay, so I admit that I might have jumped the gun too early on the last preview thread, but today is the day of the 1st preview. The NY Times is live Facebook streaming right now outside of the theater. Hopefully one of us is there tonight and others will be seeing it soon so they can share their thoughts. However, I do think once the show gets closer to opening night we will know more about the play.
Fosse76 said: "Shouldn't this be on the West End board? This is not on Broadway.
"
This is true; however, people have discussed regional and West End productions many times on this board. I don't recall many complaints when topics about the West End productions of Funny Girl or Gypsy were being discussed here.
Part 2 isn't until tomorrow. People who saw it seemed to generally like it- at least based on what I've read on tumblr/twitter. One person said she liked about 30%- the actors and sets and effects. One person said they loved it, then went home and thought about the material and didn't like it so much. I haven't seen it, but I have read spoilers.
You'll read the play. It's like Shakespeare, he wrote no books but he did write some amazing plays. Therefore you read the play.
I appoligise for any spelling mistakes. I may be on my mobile. Clumsy fingers and small little touchscreen keys don't mixx. I try to spellcheck, but I may miss something.
willep said: "Well, no. It will be a published play
Otherwise known as a book. This isn't subtle or recondite literary terminology we're dealing with here. We're talking about books. You know, those things with front and back covers and pages in between? It's a pretty universal, all-encompassing word.
Is the show any good or just banking on the Harry Potter name ? Is it a good book? Good plot etc? Or is it just a show that puts a name and sells that rather than something good? The Little Mermaid comes to mind.
Updated On: 7/13/16 at 04:16 AM
Is the show any good or just banking on the Harry Potter name ? Is it a good book? Good plot etc? Or is it just a show that puts a name and sells that rather than something good? The Little Mermaid comes to mind."
Yes. But since this is a BROADWAY message board and the play is NOT a Broadway show, reviews for it HERE are few and far between. It's still in previews. And word of mouth is very positive.
I have seen this production. Based on the audience response, the general consensus seems to be that the Potter fans--and I will include myself in that category--are extremely enthusiastic to revisit this world and continue to follow such beloved characters. Overall the production does not disappoint; the technical/magical moments and movement/choreography are easily the most winning components of this show. The story, however, seemed a little lackluster. I don't wish to divulge too much information for fear of exposing plot points, but I will say the new story heavily relies on old material. As for the length, which, if you choose to see both parts, you are signing up for 5 hours of theatre, could use some trimming. I understand the appeal of plays and movies in two parts, but this story could have easily been a three-hour production, or less, and the effect would have been the same.
Noma Dumezweni as Hermione is easily the standout performance of the production; she is intense, vulnerable, and emotionally honest. The other actors range in quality from broad to good, but each of them are making the noble effort of making the roles their own rather than attempting to recreate performances from the films.