Just finished it, I actually quite liked it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child' Launches on iBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand it's a script for a play, but because of the lack of scene building and quite abrupt 'witty' dialogue, It does read a bit like fan-fiction.
I'm also wondering why on earth *vague spoilers* the act 1 McGuffin is hidden somewhere which can be accessed by solving a riddle, it makes no sense.
I'm also wondering why on earth *vague spoilers* the act 1 McGuffin is hidden somewhere which can be accessed by solving a riddle, it makes no sense.
Last edited:
WTF? What lobotomy? She got a bunch of kids interested in reading. Why so much hate? Did she shoot your dog or something?
[doublepost=1469985863][/doublepost]
I'm getting the impression there's a percentage of the people here for whom hate is like a sport.
Harry Potter and What Have You A$$holes Accomplished With Your Life?
[doublepost=1469988954][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1469989015][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1469988954][/doublepost]
Yes!!!
[doublepost=1469989015][/doublepost]
I completely agree.
Same. I can't read full books (bad eyes) so I just avoided the whole thing, films and all, until a few years ago. Finally saw the films and didn't think much of them. But something grew and I watched them a second time recently and really got into them! Picking up this book tonight for my Kindle! Even with bad eyes I'm gonna soldier through it. A lovely story universe.
Wow, it's amazing how seriously some people take this - you'd think someone was poking fun at their religious beliefs!
It's good you enjoy the books. But developing a sense of perspective might be worthwhile...
It's good you enjoy the books. But developing a sense of perspective might be worthwhile...
Just finished reading it, really enjoyed it, and the 'play in my head' that it created.
To all of the armchair critics who haven't accomplished jack in their entire lives: Do you also consider Ian Flemming a "hack" because he too had a "one trick pony" or "cash cow" which kept generating income for him for decades? Or was his cash cow acceptable to you because his name was "Bond...James Bond." vs. "Harry Potter...the boy who lived." Is there really any difference, other than the fact that JK Rowling's books have been much more effective in getting young people to read than pretty much any book series in history? If you don't think there's a difference, then I suppose you are one of those folks who think there is actually virtue in poverty just for poverty's sake. If that's the case, then there's no point in discussing this with you, because logic and reason just don't fit into your vocabulary. If you think it's better to be poor than rich, than you probably also believe that it's better to be ugly than beautiful, better to be sick than healthy and better to be evil than good. When you return from Bizarro World and join us back in the real world, please consider rejoining the conversation.
Never read the books. Watched all the movies.
No nude scenes with Hermione.
Perhaps because she is portrayed as a child throughout all 7 books/movies... (11 in the first, 17 in the last)
Anyway, as a diehard Harry Potter fan, I was a little disappointed with this, but mostly because it was repeatedly marketed as a "book" when in fact it was not. Also wasn't a fan of some of the changed lore. Kinda broke immersion for me and like others said, made it feel more like a fanfic.
Voldemort never kills his parents, or gets roasted himself. Alternate timeline gold! Quick! Someone call JJ!
The way I thought of it was: she had it set up where if anyone tried to find it in the bookshelf they'd get RANDOM riddles every time... she knew she would always be able to answer them because, well- she's Hermione!
Also: office of the Minister of Magic seems fairly secure, in and of itself.
Is this the same Ian Fleming who wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
The only Bond book I read was The Spy Who Loved Me. I read it 30+ years ago, so my memory is hazy. It was from the point of view of a woman who is harassed by some small time thugs. Bond shows up in the last third of the book and takes care of them for her.
The cool thing about J.K. Rowling is that she, unlike some authors, doesn't actively oppose fan fiction, so Harry is never done! I've read some very clever ones. I've also read some that were so bad I laughed until my sides hurt.
I find it interesting, telling and utterly appropriate that you mention Ian Fleming in relation to her, in that I do consider her to be very similar to him: she filled a particular, pulpish and tedious niche at the right time. But before you become too comfortable upon that horse, perhaps you might consider that it isn't the fact that Ms Rowling is rich so much as it is that she got rich producing utter tripe, composed of poor prose, wooden, one dimensional characters and a plot that steadily collapsed into a singularity of absurdity, and is in fact the literary equivalent of a takeaway vendor on the street corner. Her wares can be satisfying in that they scratch a very particular and cynical itch but do not nourish in any meaningful way. Normally, I wouldn't have so much trouble with this if she had remained a semi-obscure but relatively successful children's author, held generally in favour by football mothers from Kensington whose notion of raising their children is centred primarily around distracting them with vapid entertainment whilst spending their insipid lives on their mobiles. Instead, readers with a general taste for good literature were forced to endure decades of asinine people, aged six through twenty usually, whose primary pastime was dressing up like public school hooligans, waving about plaster sticks bought from the Noble Collection, and nattering one about whether a bookish shrew should be romantically involved with an emotionally unstable child abuse victim or an emotionally unstable bully.
That is your problem right there. You don't have to "endure" anything. Other people are free to enjoy what they want and that does not take away from the things that you enjoy. So what if these books you enjoy sell less than the Harry Potter series? Live your own life and be happy and let others do the same.
Says the person responding to a thread on bloody forum about Apple rumours about the release of a script, in book form, for Harry Potter. I, and everyone that doesn't like the series, do have to endure it because it's constantly shoved into our faces.
I, and others had to suffer through weeks of incessant Pokemon GO news, even though Apple did not create it. Doesn't mean the world stopped revolving. Skim and move on...
You knew from the title what the article was about. but that didn't stop you from reading the article, clicking into the comments, and responding. Dislike Harry Potter all you want (it doesn't hold any particular fondness for me), but "constantly shoved into our faces"? You sought this out, wanting to be outraged, you could have skipped to the next article when you saw "Harry Potter" in the headline.
Last edited:
I enjoyed the Harry Potter books.
This may be a great play script, but the original books are a self-contained entity, and I don't want to spoil that. As such, I won't be reading this.
I enjoyed the films, but have decided never to watch the Hobbit. Saw The Lord of the Rings films, and have a love/hate relationship with them. On one hand, they were very entertaining. On the other, they deviate greatly from the books, leave huge chunks out, and make a mockery of Frodo and Sam, in my opinion. They turn their relationship into a weird love story, rather than a master and his servant. The Hobbit films sound completely over the top and far too serious. I loved the light-hearted children's book, and don't wish to sully my memory of it. This is why I will never watch a book adaptation again; they simply never do justice to one's own imagination.
This may be a great play script, but the original books are a self-contained entity, and I don't want to spoil that. As such, I won't be reading this.
I enjoyed the films, but have decided never to watch the Hobbit. Saw The Lord of the Rings films, and have a love/hate relationship with them. On one hand, they were very entertaining. On the other, they deviate greatly from the books, leave huge chunks out, and make a mockery of Frodo and Sam, in my opinion. They turn their relationship into a weird love story, rather than a master and his servant. The Hobbit films sound completely over the top and far too serious. I loved the light-hearted children's book, and don't wish to sully my memory of it. This is why I will never watch a book adaptation again; they simply never do justice to one's own imagination.
I would love to have come to MacRumors and not seen any articles at all about Harry Potter. But I did and I felt more than justified in registering my contempt of it generally, and the fact that it's offered as content here particularly. It's not news, it's clickbait pandering and I addressed it as such.