hihihi12345

There wasn't an undercurrent of dark, and I don't really wish to give this argument more breath. They're really rather dark overall. You try to over-sensationalize a moment from OOTP as "silly" by putting the spell as a "tap dancing curse", yet that's not what it was. The curse was "finestre", a curse that brings about muscle spasms and the loss of limb control. It was never depicted as a "tap dance", a simile was used to liken the effect to one. The books are actually darker and more grittily violent than the films, which are dark and gritty, but have a "modern blockbuster sheen" over them. And you really didn't do anything to prove that they weren't. The darkness was never intended to be an "undercurrent," and Rowling has always expressed displeasure at people who refuse to acknowledge that the Potter books were very dark. The only arguments used to say they aren't are arguments like the one above, that completely misinterpret and sensationalize benign moments from the books and try to push them off as "childish" or "silly". The light spots in the books happened sparsely and situationally. They were there, but they never overshadowed darkness and poignancy. The series is grim enough to be considered dark fantasy, and because you can't handle darkness without sugar doesn't mean every film has to balance dark and light. Some films are meant to be dark, grim, and depressing, and that's okay. To bash a film on that basis alone is infantile.