Harry Potter and The Cursed Child

[Jack Shalom]

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/ ... ce-theatre

[Jack Shalom]

In a pictorial sidebar to the left of the main review, there's a picture with this caption:

"With the help of the production’s in-house illusionist, Jamie Harrison, spooky effects are conjured up on stage – including the dreaded Dementors "

Anyone got tix or know more about Harrison and the illusions?

[Steve Bryant]

The obvious starting point is Randy Pitchford's article on the subject in the August 2016 Genii. So jealous!

[erdnasephile]

"The five-hour total running time could easily be trimmed"

Five hours? Yikes!

[Jack Shalom]

The obvious starting point is Randy Pitchford's article on the subject in the August 2016 Genii. So jealous!

Ack!! So sorry--I haven't gotten my August issue yet. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Tom Moore]

It is VERY well done.

It has also upped the game quite significantly - it makes virtually every other magic show in the country look low budget, outdated and under-resourced; they also get praise for properly integrating magic across all departments with lighting, sound, choreography, projection and automation all working together to support genuine moments of wow. It's worth noting they spent more on the handful of magic/effect sequences in this show (i'd say there's about 20mins of actual magic across the 5 hour story) than other "west end" magic shows spend on their entire production.

[Richard Kaufman]

We contacted the magic consultant and had an interview set up before the production company stepped in and stopped it. Controlling buggers.

[Ted M]

"The five-hour total running time could easily be trimmed"

Five hours? Yikes!

I think the Genii article noted that it's split into two parts, performed on consecutive nights.

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, two parts. They can be viewed in one day (afternoon and evening) or on different days.

[erdnasephile]

Even at two parts, that's a bit long for me. (Even Gone with the Wind with intermission took less time)

I'm probably in the minority here, but despite being a huge Potter fan, I found the latter novels in the series to be rather turgid and greatly in need of an editor.

[Chris Aguilar]

Seems nicely set up for them to milk at least two movies out of the play.

[Steve Bryant]

Just finished reading the Harry Potter play. It's a nice tight story, and it was fun to try to link Randy's article to the magic in the lines and stage directions. Love to see this play! (Perhaps Stan will surprise us by flying the cast over for MAGIC Live.)

[Richard Kaufman]

If Stan had 10 million dollars, that wouldn't be sufficient.

[Chris Aguilar]

Seems nicely set up for them to milk at least two movies out of the play.

Well, I almost nailed it.

They're thinking going full on "cash cow" with a trilogy.

[Richard Kaufman]

That rumor has been denied. And, as was pointed out in something I read, Daniel Radcliffe wouldn't be old enough to play the role for another decade.

[Chris Aguilar]

That rumor has been denied. And, as was pointed out in something I read, Daniel Radcliffe wouldn't be old enough to play the role for another decade.

Radcliffe or no, do you really doubt that they'll try to squeeze at least a few movies from the play? They've already re-cast for the play, why not for a movie?

[Jack Shalom]

Easier to age up than down.

I think it was Radcliffe who said he wouldn't be interested for a few years.

[Bill Mullins]

Easier to age up than down.

Yes. When 57 year old Anthony Hopkins was playing college-aged Richard Nixon in the movie Nixon, any suspension of disbelief was shattered.

[Richard Kaufman]

Recasting is unlikely. This particular group of actors carried 7 or 8 movies, during which we watched them grow up.

The constant recasting of James Bond has more often been a catastrophe than not.

The constant recasting of Batman has more often been a catastrophe than not. (And I won't even go into the stupidity in the recasting of Superman.)

I don't think a movie-going audience would accept anyone else playing these roles (and theatrical productions are not at all the same as films and the comparison of recasting is non-existent).

None of the three principal actors from the Harry Potter films have had breakout film careers with big hits. Emma Watson may be the first with Beauty and the Beast next year. That means Warner Brothers will have to pony up the most money for her, and thus raise the salaries of her two costars. I bet you'll see negotiations start in about 5 years after they've milked the play for a while. And, given the time to turn the two plays (total 5 hours) into three two-hour films--another two years of screenwriting--I'd say that a release of the first of the three new films will occur just about when Daniel Radcliffe said he would consider playing the part again: in 10 years.