[M George]

WhatsOnStage gossip re Harry Potter

Well, it was only a matter of time really wasn't it. Good luck to whoever is taking on the task.......

[Xander Hough]

Well it could be great just as any fantastical source material could be great. It could also be rubbish. I just hope they lend this enormous amount of financial viability to new writers *cough, cough* like me *cough, cough*. It would be a fantastic star vehicle for new performers as well (like Billy Elliot was).

[mjr]

i agree with the points made, but, i don't know if speezing 7 books into one night will work??, i mean lord of the rings struggled wwith 3, maybe its not a very good idea.

[xXAngelofMusicXx]

i agree with the points made, but, i don't know if speezing 7 books into one night will work??, i mean lord of the rings struggled wwith 3, maybe its not a very good idea.

I agree. Im sure it would be popular and it would make kids go to the theatre - but if lotr struggled to fit 3 books into one musical, 7 is going to be REALLY hard, and frankly will probably end in making the play disappointing.

[David]

There's much less substance with Harry Potter- those last 4 books were overlong, and could easily have been halved had Bloomsbury had power enough to stand up to Rowling. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it won't, but if you look at it from a producer's point of view- it'll draw in the crowds and their money, moreso, I reckon, than Lord of the Rings. (Too many commas in that last sentence, which was more badly written than Harry Potter 5!)

[mjr]

i agree that it will probably be more popular than lord of the rings, but it is a huge undertaking, even if they do half bits and take them out, it will still last a long time i petty the poor writer who i am sure will have re-right after re-right, although i hate these, i could bet you that they use projections and screens as part of the set for this lol

[Daniel]

What utterly depressing news

[Matthew Winn]

It strikes me that the many of the sort of audience who are most likely to want to see a Harry Potter musical are the sort that aren't going to fully appreciate that they're not going to see the same people as in the films, and they'll be disappointed. On the other hand, if the show preserves some of Rowling's writing ("My wand of yew did everything of which I asked it, Severus, except to kill Harry Potter", for instance) it could become a classic for all the wrong reasons.

However, I think it'll be a flop simply because the source material demands plenty of special effects, and that requires an immense budget, and that means having to sell at 80% for at least a year to have a chance of recouping. I don't think there'd be sufficient interest to make it a financial success.

It might be better to make it deliberately tacky: quidditch matches with people running round with broomsticks between their legs, for example, or wand fights with sticks and people shouting "zap". Go the so-low-budget-it's-hilarious route instead of the obvious gosh-wow one (like my signature, which is peculiarly apposite).

[Lynette]

It is frankly depressing. JK has enough money I expect so no doubt someone else thought they would make a bit or a lot on the back of her. Unless the songs are utterly brilliant [ and aren't we all making up the spoofs as I write?] as good as Mary P or The Sound of Music, it doesn't really stand a chance. Or does it? Anyone for buying shares?

[MrsDoyle]

What utterly depressing news

Exactly!