Harry Potter and the Cursed Child Discussion (Spoilers)
- Thread starter Gryffindorian
- Start date
Maybe he had her with Nagini. Eww.
I think there was a suitable gap as IIRC she doesn't show up between her visit to Snape's house at the start of 'Half-Blood Prince' and the flight from Privet Drive at the start of 'Deathly Hallows'. That's a solid 12 months.
I tend to agree though, it seems a bit out of character for Voldermort. I mean obviously Belatrix would be totally into it but I can't see him having that kind of interest in *anyone*. Can't really make sense of it in terms of establishing a legacy either since he was so determined to live forever.
Maybe he wanted to create a dynasty of progeny to act as the new ruling class to serve under him? Compatible spare bodies for when his new one fails? Self replicating horcruxes? Either way it's pretty twisted.
Last edited:
^While I never really cared whether or not Hermione ended up with Ron or someone else (never been much of a shipper) I did appreciate that she and Harry had a very close platonic relationship, which is rare for this kind of set-up.
I do see the argument though as I always felt that while Harry was Ron's best friend and visa-versa, Hermione considered Harry to be her closest friend. That always seemed to overshadow her supposed attraction to Ron as I can't recall if there was ever a situation where she was torn in her loyalties between the two that she ever came down on Ron's side.
I do see the argument though as I always felt that while Harry was Ron's best friend and visa-versa, Hermione considered Harry to be her closest friend. That always seemed to overshadow her supposed attraction to Ron as I can't recall if there was ever a situation where she was torn in her loyalties between the two that she ever came down on Ron's side.
<<Rowling recently announced that pairing Hermione up with Ron (as opposed to Harry) may have been an error on her part. So I have a spoilerish question, Mr. Light....
Is it true (as one review seemed to hint) that Hermione thinks as Rowling does, within this play?>>
Is it true (as one review seemed to hint) that Hermione thinks as Rowling does, within this play?>>
Quite the opposite. We meet alternate timeline versions of Ron and Hermoine who are not together, but always secretly pined for each other, and when they learn they're married in the real world it's like everything falls into place for them. The play clearly shows that Ron and Hermoine were destined to be together.
Finished the script in a few sittings. Fast read, but that's the nature of scripts. Reading the script made me more regretful that I just moved away from Europe and won't have the opportunity to see the play in person anytime soon.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but I agree that it felt rather fan fictional. All of the familiar characters felt real in their adult (or older adult) versions and most of the new characters were fun and engaging, especially Scorpius (and somehow I didn't once conjure up the the image of Farscape's Scorpius).
One reoccurring nitpick I have is the editing of the script itself. There were several times when the it lacked necessary stage directions to indicate when a character had left or arrived on stage and I found that very jarring as someone who use to work in theater (albeit everything but acting). Plus, unless I missed it, there's a rather crucial stage direction that's missing during the climax:
Since the announcement that the play would be presented in two parts, I thought the decision to split it was an odd choice. After reading the script, it still seems odd. Perhaps the running time is longer in presentation, but the four-act play read long.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but I agree that it felt rather fan fictional. All of the familiar characters felt real in their adult (or older adult) versions and most of the new characters were fun and engaging, especially Scorpius (and somehow I didn't once conjure up the the image of Farscape's Scorpius).
One reoccurring nitpick I have is the editing of the script itself. There were several times when the it lacked necessary stage directions to indicate when a character had left or arrived on stage and I found that very jarring as someone who use to work in theater (albeit everything but acting). Plus, unless I missed it, there's a rather crucial stage direction that's missing during the climax:
During Harry's confrontation with Delphi, she disarms him (p. 290), but on the next page when she's trying to kill him, "he fires a bolt back." How did he get his wand back? Did he have another one? If so, there's no stage direction to indicate where he got it.
Since the announcement that the play would be presented in two parts, I thought the decision to split it was an odd choice. After reading the script, it still seems odd. Perhaps the running time is longer in presentation, but the four-act play read long.
While it was fun to see alternate timeline in the Harry Potter universe, particularly one where Voldemort wins, I didn't like how footloose and fancy free it felt with time travel. I'm also not sure how it jives with the rules that were established for Time Turners in The Prisoners of Azkaban, but I sensed something was off there. Sure, the play was grave about the dire consequences of time travel, but that the fixes to Albus' mistakes felt too easy to course correct the alternations. That especially stood out considering the story's suggestion that affecting small elements to Cedric's life could have such effects on the war with Voldemort and the nature of Ron and Hermione's relationship. Further, the implication that Hermione went with Viktor to the Yule Ball was a driving (or even the most important) force to their future relationship seems rather simple-minded.
I guessed pretty early on that there was more going on with Delphi than meet's the eye, especially considering her strong emotional interest in Albus and how she could easily show up at Hogwarts, yet never studied there. I figured she (and maybe Amos) were involved in the Dark Arts but I hadn't expected she would be Voldemort's spawn (and of course it was with Bellatrix), although it shouldn't have been much of a surprise considering the rumors about Scorpius.
With that in mind, while I enjoyed Delphi as a character (and loved her oracle-invoking name), I would have preferred a story that was Voldemort-less, even as an impending doom as oppose to an actual stage presence. The idea that 23 years later, he still has Dark Arts supporters in the world is a believable and interesting story possibility, but bringing in the real possible idea that he could return (in the most convoluted way or not) felt unnecessary. As did seeing James and Lily die yet again.
Maybe it was just me, but I teared up when Snape showed up in the story. Not because of his sacrifice, but because Alan Rickman's death is still so recent. Every line of the script, I heard Rickman's voice, especially Snape's "Less wanted" in dryly response to Ron's assurance that he's a wanted man.
This is a minor nitpick, but the fact that Scorpius was in the Augurery future for three days (as referenced by Umbridge) but somehow how never realized that Snape was alive and at Hogwarts bothered the hell out of me.
I guessed pretty early on that there was more going on with Delphi than meet's the eye, especially considering her strong emotional interest in Albus and how she could easily show up at Hogwarts, yet never studied there. I figured she (and maybe Amos) were involved in the Dark Arts but I hadn't expected she would be Voldemort's spawn (and of course it was with Bellatrix), although it shouldn't have been much of a surprise considering the rumors about Scorpius.
With that in mind, while I enjoyed Delphi as a character (and loved her oracle-invoking name), I would have preferred a story that was Voldemort-less, even as an impending doom as oppose to an actual stage presence. The idea that 23 years later, he still has Dark Arts supporters in the world is a believable and interesting story possibility, but bringing in the real possible idea that he could return (in the most convoluted way or not) felt unnecessary. As did seeing James and Lily die yet again.
Maybe it was just me, but I teared up when Snape showed up in the story. Not because of his sacrifice, but because Alan Rickman's death is still so recent. Every line of the script, I heard Rickman's voice, especially Snape's "Less wanted" in dryly response to Ron's assurance that he's a wanted man.
This is a minor nitpick, but the fact that Scorpius was in the Augurery future for three days (as referenced by Umbridge) but somehow how never realized that Snape was alive and at Hogwarts bothered the hell out of me.
Further, in the Augurey future, Hermione declares " Ron. I love you and I always have."
Last edited:
I noticed that bit about Harry using magic without a wand as well. I just assumed he was so powerful at that point in his life, that like Voldy, he could perform powerful spells without the use of a wand, just like SPOILER could fly without a broomstick the same way Voldy did.
Surely a 40 year old Harry Potter is insanely over powered?
Surely a 40 year old Harry Potter is insanely over powered?
What I find egregious about the entire thing is the fact it is being presented in two parts. Anyone who has been to a London show recently knows that you are looking at a £30-£70 ticket price per show - IF you are still able to purchase tickets at face value. Taking ones family to the cinema is tough enough these days, but this surely must be for the hardcore elite alone
There could be actual bloody wizards firing off at each other on stage, turning each other into fruit or dragons and you would not get me to pay up twice to see the whole story. You can tell a decent HP story on film in under 2.5 hours, but can't tell one on stage under 5?
But, that's all by the by really, given most of the recently released tickets are on StubHub up for between £150 to £400 a Part.
I truly hope that most of those tickets fail to sell and the horrors that bought them just to dump on secondary sale sites lose their "investment".
Hugo
There could be actual bloody wizards firing off at each other on stage, turning each other into fruit or dragons and you would not get me to pay up twice to see the whole story. You can tell a decent HP story on film in under 2.5 hours, but can't tell one on stage under 5?
But, that's all by the by really, given most of the recently released tickets are on StubHub up for between £150 to £400 a Part.
I truly hope that most of those tickets fail to sell and the horrors that bought them just to dump on secondary sale sites lose their "investment".
Hugo
I was earlier concerned about the creative fallout of splitting the play into two parts in presentation, but I hadn't considered the financial implications. The cost for some shows cost even more than £30-£70, so it certainly is outrageous to split it up, especially considering the primary target audience: families. Again, it doesn't make any sense to me to split the play up since it's relatively short on its own (certainly in comparison to the likes of Hamlet).
I've always thought that while Harry and Hermione had a great platonic friendship, I never could see them as friends. Frankly, I thought the pair of them as husband and wife would make a rather quiet and intense marriage. Not very balanced.
I don't quite follow. How can they have a close friendship and not actually be friends? That sounds like an oxymoron.
Without being a strong "shipper", I always thought that Harry and Hermione could've worked as a couple quite easily. Pairing her with Ron was the obvious opposites attract route that many stories take. It's not necessarily a bad thing, though, so it never bothered me that she ended up with Ron.
The movies, however, are a totally different kettle of fish. Movie Harry & Hermione had way more chemistry than Hermione and Ron, and they gave us more scenes with them together (both created by the screenwriters and from the books). It's been a decade since I've read the books so my memory may be faulty, but I don't remember book Hermione saying "Why can't we just stay here, Harry? Grow old," when they're in the forest on the run from Death Eaters in "The Deathly Hallows part 1". And I know that the screenwriter added that scene where they danced and nearly crossed "the line." Plus there were little things sprinkled throughout the movies that made it very ambiguous. It displayed a strong friendship, yes, but also easily could've been more. The Ron/Hermione stuff was mostly handled offscreen.
So if I imagine the movie characters 20 years older, I can totally see them married.
With regard to The Cursed Child, I liked how they had a close relationship even though Hermione was Harry's boss.
The movies, however, are a totally different kettle of fish. Movie Harry & Hermione had way more chemistry than Hermione and Ron, and they gave us more scenes with them together (both created by the screenwriters and from the books). It's been a decade since I've read the books so my memory may be faulty, but I don't remember book Hermione saying "Why can't we just stay here, Harry? Grow old," when they're in the forest on the run from Death Eaters in "The Deathly Hallows part 1". And I know that the screenwriter added that scene where they danced and nearly crossed "the line." Plus there were little things sprinkled throughout the movies that made it very ambiguous. It displayed a strong friendship, yes, but also easily could've been more. The Ron/Hermione stuff was mostly handled offscreen.
So if I imagine the movie characters 20 years older, I can totally see them married.
With regard to The Cursed Child, I liked how they had a close relationship even though Hermione was Harry's boss.
She was an Alphs.Hermione was *always* Harry's boss, no?
Harry had to be tricked or dragged into situations a lot of times, she prepared and took the initiative
Similar threads
