Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince so dark you can't even watch it

I just rented out the latest Harry’s Potter movie. The last two movies let me down so I missed this at the cinema and only rented it out because I have watched just about all the good new releases at the store.

Is this movie WB’s new idea of a joke. They keep going on about how dark each new installment is compared to the last but come on! What lighting incompetents did they unless on this movie?

I have tried to watch this movie on my tv, laptop and desktop. I have tried every damn colour preset that a tv can have and all have met with similar results the are just some scenes that are so dark that I can’t even make out what is happening in them. This isn’t about using moody dark lighting this is just stuff so underexposed I can’t even read facial expressions.

did I just rent out a bummed dvd or is this movie just like that. I have tried different DVD and the are all playing fine.

Forgive my rant but I feel a little cheated and was wondering if others had similar experiences. the ten minutes I could stomach were actually alright but ten minutes of badly lit scenes get old quick

1 Like

i felt that way about batman begins as well as dark knight…

Hmm… Didn’t watch it on DVD.
In the cinemas, it was fine.
And it was way better than the 5th.
Just as the book was.

However I personally didn’t think, the 4th was that bad… So you might disagree if you’re able to watch it distinquishablish or something…

(Edit: Huh, wonder why I wrote 7th before. 4th of course^^)

Have you turned off your lights? Usually that helps.

@PlantPerson, didn’t try that one I should keep that in mind next, my laptop and its creepy screen with the poor contrast ratio saved me. only than could I actually see some things.

@kram1032 I just found the fourth one dragged like hell, the one I have liked is the 3rd one it is also my favorite in the Book collection. Yates’ movies have been the worst IMHO. This man has some major British actors in these movies and 90% of the time they sit around doing nothing. Ms Watson and Daniel Radcliffe lack of acting ability is also disappointing. The one(watson) seems to be stuck in a state of constant panic and fear and seems to deliver her lines like that no matter the situation at hand. Radcliff is as wooden as the come.

I should have actually read some reviews because several people have complained that some scenes are just lit so badly that you can’t see what is happening.

At least I was able to watch the damn thing on my laptop the one time having a poor contrast ratio has come in handy.

You’re certainly not alone in the sentiment that movies have become, literally, so “dark” as to become objectionable.

I watched Holmes in a very excellent theatre … and it was “so damn dark” that I could not make out the details in important scenes. To me, that is pure-and-simple “underexposed film.” I know that this is what the production design called for, but to my way of thinking it’s a serious flaw.

1 Like

In the cinema it was fine because it supports a broader range of the color spectrum. On your DVD they have to convert it so it fits the current 16 mill. color range, but blu-ray + deep color support + tv’s that have deep color support often supports 2 billion colors or more.

I have that at home, and yes - there’s a HECK of a difference.

some of the compliments that it was so dark you couldn’t make out things in some scenes came from people who watched it in the cinema. Hell even MAD magazine’s parody on the fifth movie made fun of that point. That it was so dark you couldn’t see what was going on. The sixth film took it too far, it had too many scenes that were too dark more so than the fifth one.

@sundialsvc I feel you on that. the are some movies that even though scenes are taking place in the dark are beautifully lit. but some of the newer releases are just too underexposed at times. You can use low key lighting in movies just don’t under expose things to the extent that people watching are left wondering what is going on.

1 Like

Hmmm… As said: I watched it in two different cinemas, once even IMAX with the first quater hour or so being 3D (especially the death eater flight scene through london was great in 3D) and in both cinemas it was just clear…
From what I recall, the 5th was actually darker than the 6th… (But it’s not like I watched them yesterday so I could definitely be wrong with that…)

Yeah, I seem to recall wondering if Sherlock Holmes was supposed to be that dark or if i just had a dark screening or something…

It might also have something to do with the continuing in-flux of digital productions. A LOT of major films are being shot digitally now, and they may have some issues with low-light noise if the final images are graded with too little contrast. I’ve found that darker scenes now tend to favor high-contrast lighting setups. While some noise can be cleaned up in post, if you’re familiar with Micheal Mann’s three digitally-shot films, you know that low-light, low-contrast scenes can look REALLY noisy if you don’t work on them a lot. Mann seems not to mind the noise, and has actually used that as sort of a stylistic choice. For most films, I think that much noise would be too distracting.

I have the full Potter series thus far on Blu Ray and I’ve not had any darkness issues at all with them. I’ve noticed it with a few flicks, tho, but usually just in certain scenes. Haven’t seen the last several in the theaters, tho, so I can’t comment on if they’re different or if one’s better or whatnot.

The movies suck bad anyway. There is only 2 things that is good about harry potter. Voldemort and the special effects…the rest makes me throw up.