Cursed Child Discussion

RoRoWeasley

New member
Hi there! Pretty much all the fanfiction I'm writing right now is all Cursed Child. I saw the play in London back in November 2018 and fell in love!! Harry Potter has been a massive part of my life and to have another medium added in the form of theatre is amazing! The play is a masterpiece and I love writing and exploring the characters in that universe more :D
 

JMilz

Head of Ravenclaw House
I just recently began reading TCC. At first, it felt like a poorly-written fanfiction but I'll admit I'm now enjoying it immensely. Love the alternate universes but I do wish that it was longer as it feels like scenes are quite rushed.
 

Haley Riddle

New member
I've read the book at least 5 times. I want to see the play but I'm afraid the actors will be different for America. Let me know how good you think it was.:)
 

Blue Kat

Member
I saw it in London in 2016 with the original cast. The stagecraft is absolutely incredible--it's like you're watching real magic. The acting was quite good--Ron and Scorpius were my favorites. When we were leaving, we happened to pass the stage door, so I also was able to get my playbill signed by the original cast and that was incredible.

That said, there were definitely elements of it where my reaction was "I definitely have read this trope in a fanfic" which wasn't necessarily something I was expecting. I kind of think of Cursed Child as its own separate thing because it's so different from the books, both in terms of the fact that it's a play and not a book and because some of the characters went in very different directions than what I expected. It's canon but a more optional kind of canon, if that makes sense.
 

PH71

New member
I've seen the play and thought the cast were all pretty good and the "magic" of it is great.

It's just a real shame that it is overshadowed by the horrendous writing. The whole plot is horrendously written fan-fiction. It's the sort of stuff that's so outlandishly crazy fan-fiction that you'd stop reading after a few chapters, but this is actually canon!

I think the time travel thing came about as they were too scared to go with all original or Next Gen characters, or perhaps just couldn't come up with any half-decent original villain without them being Voldemort's offspring.

If that was the case they should have just done a Marauders play, which would have been awesome if done right. It's a shame that there just isn't much being done right by Rowling with regards to the franchise anymore.
 

PH71

New member
Are you trying to say that Fantastic Beasts is not done right?
I liked the first movie and thought it would've been great as a one-off standalone into the life of Newt Scamander (could've cut out the Grindelwald reveal at the end).

What JK Rowling seems to have planned (which I say very loosely) is a 5 part movie series that for all intensive purposes centres around Dumbledore and Grindelwald, but it's not really centred around them all that much - and even when it is, Jude Law and Johnny Depp to me feel like they were both hired for their star power rather than suitably for the respective roles. When I see young Dumbledore I don't really see any of either Harris or Gambon in him, I see Jude Law in a 1930's suit. Grindelwald is just Johnny Depp over-acting and his Tim Burton character "costume" looks outlandishly cartoon villain in the gritty, DC-esque realistic world they've gone for.

Dumbledore/Grindelwald is actually an interesting story to tell, but having Newt as the main character of the series (whilst he is a great character/actor) does not work for me. It's almost like if Half Blood Prince was told from the perspective of Luna Lovegood - a great and interesting character in her own right, but she's the eccentric friend, not the protagonist of the story.

I think Ezra Miller is great too, but the Creedence story-line is terrible. That Dumbledore reveal, even if revealed to be fake, is awful and reeks of a lack of ideas if that's the best they could come up with.

I also hate to be cynical but I think JK Rowling wrote herself into a corner with these prequels when she came out and revealed Dumbledore was gay. A lot of people criticise her and say it was something she added in to make the series more diverse - and now that she actually has the chance to have a gay main character and a gay relationship/dynamic play a prevalent role in a movie, she's completely bottled it and it is barely mentioned. Newt Scamander's past history with his brother's fiancee (can't remember either of those characters names off the top of my head) gets more screen-time than the Dumbledore/Grindewald backstory.

Look at the dynamic of Scorpius and Albus in Cursed Child too. JK heavily teases the idea of a ground-breaking gay relationship as a big part of the story, but again seems to bottle it and randomly pairs off Scorpius with Rose just so everyone knows they definitely weren't gay and were just super good friends.

I think it's kind of the George Lucas effect where JK Rowling is so rich and successful that nobody involved in these projects is brave enough to criticise anything - and they all just sort of assume that it will be a big success because it's Harry Potter, but I think whilst Cursed Child is saved somewhat by the magic of the theatre - there was no saving Crimes of Grindelwald and it was pretty universally panned as being dull, boring and the worst movie of the franchise by a long distance.

I hope the 3rd movie is really great, but I won't hold my breathe.
 

Kamiccola

Member
I liked the first movie and thought it would've been great as a one-off standalone into the life of Newt Scamander (could've cut out the Grindelwald reveal at the end).
I think the problem with the movies is that there's too much going on and they don't explore any of the plot points in depth. You pointed out well that Dumbledore/Grindewald relationship is only hinted at and I wish they had allowed them more time. Hopefully, the new movies will let these characters shine.

I like Jude Law as a young Dumbledore. I don't mind that he's not like the Dumbledore we know. People do change.

I never realized the similarity of Grindewald to DC supervillains but now that you mentioned it, I won't be able to see him any differently.

We don't have Batman, we have Newt and I must defend him. He's an awesome protagonist. Besides, we don't know what role he'll play in the coming movies. I have a feeling (read: hope) that he'll be the one that sways the whole story and makes the defeat of the Wizardman possible. (I'm not good at making up villain names - help?).
 

PH71

New member
I think the problem with the movies is that there's too much going on and they don't explore any of the plot points in depth. You pointed out well that Dumbledore/Grindewald relationship is only hinted at and I wish they had allowed them more time. Hopefully, the new movies will let these characters shine.

I like Jude Law as a young Dumbledore. I don't mind that he's not like the Dumbledore we know. People do change.

I never realized the similarity of Grindewald to DC supervillains but now that you mentioned it, I won't be able to see him any differently.

We don't have Batman, we have Newt and I must defend him. He's an awesome protagonist. Besides, we don't know what role he'll play in the coming movies. I have a feeling (read: hope) that he'll be the one that sways the whole story and makes the defeat of the Wizardman possible. (I'm not good at making up villain names - help?).
I do agree that Newt is a great character, helped along by Eddie Redmayne who adds a lot to the role. I think they should've explored his backstory a bit more in the movie if they insist on keeping him as the main protagonist. Have some real conflict between him and his brother, maybe Newt loved the girl and his brother stole her off of him. They hate each other, but eventually throughout the movie Newt comes to terms that the girl is happier with his brother and his brother loves her etc, then at the end Grindelwald goes on a rampage and kills the girl and then his brother sacrifices himself to save Newt or something. Newt realises he has to take a side in the war and has more motivation to go after Grindelwald.

I dunno what they eventually went with was kind of like a watered down version of that. Like it's kind of implied him and the girl were sort of a thing and that there's some tension with his brother, but not really and it's just kind of a bit unclear. Might as well have completely cut the backstory with Newt and the girl if nothing was going to come of it. His brother being in the movie didn't really have any relevance to the overall narrative or plot either, he might as well have not been in the movie at all. The Lestrange twist didn't go anywhere either so you could've quite easily cut the girl from the movie too and you don't really lose that much aside from 20-30 minutes of ultimately pointless narrative that adds nothing to the overall story really.
 
Top