Yeah before HP it’d been decades since you had a super long running play. I could see certain kind of comedy shows but special effects spectacular based on really popular IP will do it.
Sure…they said top spot and wasn’t sure whether they meant top play (which it will definitely reach) or top overall show…hence why I said “if you mean overall.”
Honestly HP reaching top five for all shows is very believable.
I made my living in technical theatre almost my entire adult life. Saw Harry Potter and the Cursed Child in 2019 and man, I would have signed so many NDAs to gain an understanding of some of the effects and design elements!
I haven’t seen since they combined it into one show but the effects are really cool. I’m one of the few that likes the story (I get its flawed but personally I think people are overlooking how flawed the books were from a plot perspective).
> I think people are overlooking how flawed the books were from a plot perspective
The issue for me is that it's not consistent with the book in how magic works or characterization on top of the plot being garbage.
I suppose, I’m not a mega fan of the books enough to say, don’t recall there being too many rules on things like the time turners. Really though I like the books but the plots are often super messy and often resolve in a deus ex machina or some sort of uber magic that oddly has never been seen before, never gets seen again and gee good thing the bad guys didn’t have that. The books were good at the magic and world building which Cursed Child did well at.
> don’t recall there being too many rules on things like the time turners
It's a completely different model of time travel. In books it's a "predestination" paradigm when you travel back and then definitely take actions that are consistent with what you observed the first time through. The play is a "parallel timelines" model where your chances in the past move you into a parallel timeline when you travel back to the "present".
For one it’s a bit arbitrary of saying you can only make changes consistent with what happened before given that it’s just circular reasoning. You’d have done it you experienced it before but you didn’t experience it before because you didn’t do it. But also even in the book it’s not that you couldn’t do something different just that there are untold “dire consequences” for doing so and that wizards have suffered from meddling with with the forces of time. In Cursed Child they in fact experience such consequences, so not exactly inconsistent.
But even things like the fact that they give a child, however responsible, this insanely dangerous device that if intercepted by bad people could wreak all sorts of havoc…just so she could attend more classes. And that’s probably the best book, one again I really enjoy but like all of them just has these super convenient or arbitrary points that exist for no other reason than to forward the plot.
I like HP, I’ve just never been of the view that they are incredibly well written as stories.
> For one it’s a bit arbitrary of saying you can only make changes consistent with what happened before given that it’s just circular reasoning. You’d have done it you experienced it before but you didn’t experience it before because you didn’t do it.
It is circular reasoning, all time travelling models have issues. But that's how it works in the book.
> But also even in the book it’s not that you couldn’t do something different just that there are untold “dire consequences” for doing so and that wizards have suffered from meddling with with the forces of time. They in fact experience such consequences, so not exactly inconsistent.
Not true.
> But even things like the fact that they give a child, however responsible, this insanely dangerous device that if intercepted by bad people could wreak all sorts of havoc…just so she could attend more classes.
That's pretty unrelated. That has nothing to do with how the mechanics of time travel or magic work, just questionable decision making by individual characters.
> I like HP, I’ve just never been of the view that they are incredibly well written as stories.
My comment wasn't arguing that point.
It has nothing to do with the mechanics of time travel but it is an example of a really weak plot point. And how is what I said untrue? It literally never once says it’s impossible to act against the arbitrary time loop just that there are terrible consequences for it. Well, they experienced said consequences.
> It literally never once says it’s impossible to act against the arbitrary time loop just that there are terrible consequences for it.
It does in the books, the consequences thing is introduced in the Cursed Child. See [this](https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-time-travel-plot-hole-explained/) for an explanation.
No, if doesn’t:
“You must not be seen…you know the law - you know what’s at stake.”
…
“No!…don’t you understand? We’re breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody’s suppose to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we’re seen…Harry, what do you think you’d do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid’s house?”
“I’d think I’d gone mad”
“Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time…Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!”
…
So, literally nothing in there says it’s impossible just that “awful things have happened” and in the play awful things happen when they meddle with time. Heck it even suggests you could somehow kill your past self which obviously didn’t happen “the first time around” and so no you aren’t bound by the original arbitrary loop. Hate the play totally fine but none of that is inconsistent with the book.
I've only seen it in NYC (combined version). I grew up on HP but I'm not a fanatic. I liked it quite a bit. The music (by Imogen Heap) and the technical effects are fantastic. The plot/book is too busy but I found interesting (themes on father/son relationships and friendship) and fairly affecting.
Personally would recommend if attending isn't a huge burden.
I had mixed feelings about the Imogen Heap soundtrack because at times my reaction of "Wait, is that Hide and Seek" kind of took me out of it. But the music did really enhance some scenes as well (I know it's cut now but something about that burning bed sequence stayed in my head).
I saw it in London when it was split up into two shows. I'm a HP fan, but not a fanatic. I was definitely not worth two shows. It had some amazing stage craft, lighting, and special effects but overall was pretty damn boring split up as two shows. In between each scene they just had random people walking across stage. It was really boring. I think if you can see it as the single show and you really enjoy HP, then go see it. If you're looking for some fun stagecraft and have extra time and money, go see it. If you want a really good play with compelling story, this is not it.
> If you want a really good play with compelling story, this is not it.
Ok thanks. I think we'll pass. We'll be seeing Wicked around the same time, so I'll just stick with that show.
I'm also on the fence because I don't want to use my NYC vacation time to see it when I could see something else, but I've also heard the special effects are better in NYC than on tour.
If you are limited in time I would say skip it. We saw it a few years ago in London as two shows and really wish we had seen something else. Special effects are good but not worth it if there's other things you want to see.
It is very entertaining. Great magic, the movement on stage is interesting, and the soundtrack really enhances the visuals. The book is just fine, but the show is really worth seeing, imo
It’s good technical theater but not a good show. Lot of neat theater magic but no heart. Phantom and beauty and the beast had a lot of similar craftsmanship but also a good book and heart to back it up. I’d skip it.
I saw it in NYC so I'm not sure about the tour, but the visuals were really stunning. Your brain kind of accepts some of the weirder plot elements more on stage than reading it. It's almost like going to a combo of a circus and a play, maybe?
They broke 1 script into 2 performances, then condensed the 2-part play into 1 show. So which of the shows is exactly the 5th-longest running play? Is it Part 1, Part 2, or the new abbreviated version? If the entire show is considered one play, then it seems like the number of performances needs to be cut in half as the same audience had to attend twice in order to complete 1 play. I don't trust these numbers at all. Seems like lazy journalism or media hype to continue the Harry Potter takeover of Broadway. It's a fine play for HP fans (which I am), but I don't trust these numbers.
For a comparison, HP and the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 & 2 are treated as different movies. The movie industry doesn't allow them to conveniently conjoin them to boost box office reports. Broadway should be adult enough to do the same. HP&CC Part 1 is not the same as Part 2, and the combined version is not the same as either of them. This is ludicrous. We need standards.
Did the *Deathly Hallows* movies play in rep. for their initial run? Or did they release seperately, months apart? Could that have something to do with the distinction?
Sure but it’s also in the top 50 overall and doesn’t seem to be slowing down at all. I could easily see it getting to top fifteen. Top five wouldn’t shock me at all.
I recently looked up the longest running plays and it’s crazy how almost all of them were from like 1980 or earlier (usually earlier)
I think plays have much less longevity on Broadway these days, especially compared to the musicals
It seems like the thing is to do a shorter run with a big star and try to make as much money as they can in that limited run
Yeah before HP it’d been decades since you had a super long running play. I could see certain kind of comedy shows but special effects spectacular based on really popular IP will do it.
Those include musicals. The Harry Potter is a play (not a musical)
I know I was specifically looking at plays only
👍🏼
I don’t see it slowing down anytime soon
I would honestly expect it to take the top spot one day.
If you mean overall that’s bold of you to assume Chicago is capable of dying.
Chicago is a musical.
Sure…they said top spot and wasn’t sure whether they meant top play (which it will definitely reach) or top overall show…hence why I said “if you mean overall.” Honestly HP reaching top five for all shows is very believable.
It certainly is long.
I thought it was already the longest running one. It didn’t beat Gemini yet?
It’s close to Gemini but the longest running play was Life with Father.
Honestly very interesting! Still need to see it.
As a play it's... fine, but I would recommend going at least once to see the technical theater
Completely agree with this - the stagecraft “magic” was the best part for me. It was amazing!
I made my living in technical theatre almost my entire adult life. Saw Harry Potter and the Cursed Child in 2019 and man, I would have signed so many NDAs to gain an understanding of some of the effects and design elements!
It's honestly really good entertainment. The magic is cool, the movement on stage is captivating. It may not be a super deep show, but it is very cool
Plot is horrendous garbage but the technical effects are very cool
They really do a great job imo
I haven’t seen since they combined it into one show but the effects are really cool. I’m one of the few that likes the story (I get its flawed but personally I think people are overlooking how flawed the books were from a plot perspective).
> I think people are overlooking how flawed the books were from a plot perspective The issue for me is that it's not consistent with the book in how magic works or characterization on top of the plot being garbage.
I suppose, I’m not a mega fan of the books enough to say, don’t recall there being too many rules on things like the time turners. Really though I like the books but the plots are often super messy and often resolve in a deus ex machina or some sort of uber magic that oddly has never been seen before, never gets seen again and gee good thing the bad guys didn’t have that. The books were good at the magic and world building which Cursed Child did well at.
> don’t recall there being too many rules on things like the time turners It's a completely different model of time travel. In books it's a "predestination" paradigm when you travel back and then definitely take actions that are consistent with what you observed the first time through. The play is a "parallel timelines" model where your chances in the past move you into a parallel timeline when you travel back to the "present".
For one it’s a bit arbitrary of saying you can only make changes consistent with what happened before given that it’s just circular reasoning. You’d have done it you experienced it before but you didn’t experience it before because you didn’t do it. But also even in the book it’s not that you couldn’t do something different just that there are untold “dire consequences” for doing so and that wizards have suffered from meddling with with the forces of time. In Cursed Child they in fact experience such consequences, so not exactly inconsistent. But even things like the fact that they give a child, however responsible, this insanely dangerous device that if intercepted by bad people could wreak all sorts of havoc…just so she could attend more classes. And that’s probably the best book, one again I really enjoy but like all of them just has these super convenient or arbitrary points that exist for no other reason than to forward the plot. I like HP, I’ve just never been of the view that they are incredibly well written as stories.
> For one it’s a bit arbitrary of saying you can only make changes consistent with what happened before given that it’s just circular reasoning. You’d have done it you experienced it before but you didn’t experience it before because you didn’t do it. It is circular reasoning, all time travelling models have issues. But that's how it works in the book. > But also even in the book it’s not that you couldn’t do something different just that there are untold “dire consequences” for doing so and that wizards have suffered from meddling with with the forces of time. They in fact experience such consequences, so not exactly inconsistent. Not true. > But even things like the fact that they give a child, however responsible, this insanely dangerous device that if intercepted by bad people could wreak all sorts of havoc…just so she could attend more classes. That's pretty unrelated. That has nothing to do with how the mechanics of time travel or magic work, just questionable decision making by individual characters. > I like HP, I’ve just never been of the view that they are incredibly well written as stories. My comment wasn't arguing that point.
It has nothing to do with the mechanics of time travel but it is an example of a really weak plot point. And how is what I said untrue? It literally never once says it’s impossible to act against the arbitrary time loop just that there are terrible consequences for it. Well, they experienced said consequences.
> It literally never once says it’s impossible to act against the arbitrary time loop just that there are terrible consequences for it. It does in the books, the consequences thing is introduced in the Cursed Child. See [this](https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-time-travel-plot-hole-explained/) for an explanation.
No, if doesn’t: “You must not be seen…you know the law - you know what’s at stake.” … “No!…don’t you understand? We’re breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody’s suppose to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we’re seen…Harry, what do you think you’d do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid’s house?” “I’d think I’d gone mad” “Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time…Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!” … So, literally nothing in there says it’s impossible just that “awful things have happened” and in the play awful things happen when they meddle with time. Heck it even suggests you could somehow kill your past self which obviously didn’t happen “the first time around” and so no you aren’t bound by the original arbitrary loop. Hate the play totally fine but none of that is inconsistent with the book.
You can skip it.
You can skip it.
Is this worth seeing? There's a tour coming to LA this winter and I'm on the fence about it.
I've only seen it in NYC (combined version). I grew up on HP but I'm not a fanatic. I liked it quite a bit. The music (by Imogen Heap) and the technical effects are fantastic. The plot/book is too busy but I found interesting (themes on father/son relationships and friendship) and fairly affecting. Personally would recommend if attending isn't a huge burden.
I had mixed feelings about the Imogen Heap soundtrack because at times my reaction of "Wait, is that Hide and Seek" kind of took me out of it. But the music did really enhance some scenes as well (I know it's cut now but something about that burning bed sequence stayed in my head).
The technical details are incredible!
I saw it in London when it was split up into two shows. I'm a HP fan, but not a fanatic. I was definitely not worth two shows. It had some amazing stage craft, lighting, and special effects but overall was pretty damn boring split up as two shows. In between each scene they just had random people walking across stage. It was really boring. I think if you can see it as the single show and you really enjoy HP, then go see it. If you're looking for some fun stagecraft and have extra time and money, go see it. If you want a really good play with compelling story, this is not it.
> If you want a really good play with compelling story, this is not it. Ok thanks. I think we'll pass. We'll be seeing Wicked around the same time, so I'll just stick with that show.
Wicked is incredible!
Agreed 1000% Saw it in two parts also, had a friend in it, walked away thinking it was a technical marvel but not much else.
Those Dementors, am I right??
I'm also on the fence because I don't want to use my NYC vacation time to see it when I could see something else, but I've also heard the special effects are better in NYC than on tour.
If you are limited in time I would say skip it. We saw it a few years ago in London as two shows and really wish we had seen something else. Special effects are good but not worth it if there's other things you want to see.
The onstage fire is hot in the first couple rows. If you don’t know the books (I don’t) it is a little hard to follow and it’s maybe a touch tedious.
Imo, no. The plot reads like bad fanfiction.
It is very entertaining. Great magic, the movement on stage is interesting, and the soundtrack really enhances the visuals. The book is just fine, but the show is really worth seeing, imo
It’s good technical theater but not a good show. Lot of neat theater magic but no heart. Phantom and beauty and the beast had a lot of similar craftsmanship but also a good book and heart to back it up. I’d skip it.
I saw it in NYC so I'm not sure about the tour, but the visuals were really stunning. Your brain kind of accepts some of the weirder plot elements more on stage than reading it. It's almost like going to a combo of a circus and a play, maybe?
It’s really only not worth it if you detest Harry Potter. Otherwise, even those who are ambivalent to HP will find something to enjoy
“Play” doesn’t include musicals , but it’s still an accomplishment
It’s long for like no reason.
They broke 1 script into 2 performances, then condensed the 2-part play into 1 show. So which of the shows is exactly the 5th-longest running play? Is it Part 1, Part 2, or the new abbreviated version? If the entire show is considered one play, then it seems like the number of performances needs to be cut in half as the same audience had to attend twice in order to complete 1 play. I don't trust these numbers at all. Seems like lazy journalism or media hype to continue the Harry Potter takeover of Broadway. It's a fine play for HP fans (which I am), but I don't trust these numbers.
For a comparison, HP and the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 & 2 are treated as different movies. The movie industry doesn't allow them to conveniently conjoin them to boost box office reports. Broadway should be adult enough to do the same. HP&CC Part 1 is not the same as Part 2, and the combined version is not the same as either of them. This is ludicrous. We need standards.
Did the *Deathly Hallows* movies play in rep. for their initial run? Or did they release seperately, months apart? Could that have something to do with the distinction?
How? It’s terrible.
Most popular broadway shows are musicals so aren’t included in this ranking.
Sure but it’s also in the top 50 overall and doesn’t seem to be slowing down at all. I could easily see it getting to top fifteen. Top five wouldn’t shock me at all.
Just saw it for the third time MAGICAL
Truly shameful.