Harry Potter IMAX Poster Gives Emma Watson a Breast Enlargement?
Here’s an interesting (and perhaps slightly disturbing) look at the marketing machine behind Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix. Posterwire (via The Movie Blog) points out the fact that a recent IMAX poster for the next Harry Potter flick features an image of star Emma Watson that has been somewhat “enhanced” — specifically in the chest area. While my first reaction was to scoff at all the horny fanboys examining the chest of a 17 year old girl, after seeing the image comparison, I have to admit there is indeed a small difference there… which means that someone in the Warner Bros marketing department must have consciously decided that they should increase her cleavage and play on her sex appeal. That, to me, seems a bit creepy. Hey, she may be “legal” now, but she’s still pretty damn young!
Now, there is another possibility that could be a bit closer to the truth. A commenter over at PosterWire feels that the standard movie poster looks like it was the more heavily modified image, which means they may have gone in the opposite direction with the first poster and reduced her bosom instead. Perhaps the WB were concerned that her breasts were too much of a distraction and sending the wrong message for this wholesome family film. It’s certainly not the first time we’ve heard of body parts being toned down for the sake of propriety; Lindsay Lohan had her jubblies digitally reduced by Disney in Herbie: Fully Loaded, while Brandon Routh’s package is said to have been adjusted in Superman Returns as well. What situation do you think is more likely?
Comments (16)
It’s totally creepy because she hardly looks mature, she still looks like a little girl.
I can’t tell what image has been modified (how do you spot something like that) but either way, this creeps me out, and I think it’s a little disgusting to be honest.
Posted by Henrik on May 2nd, 2007To me it looks like they’re just different pictures. If you look at her face and her hair, they’re different.
Posted by Jay C. on May 2nd, 2007Her hair seems to have been touched up as well, possibly to give a better view of the guy standing behind her. But if you look at the comparison below, all of the other characters are exactly the same.
http://posterwire.com/image.php?img_full=/wp-content/images/imax_order_of_phoneix.jpg&img_title=Harry%20Potter%20and%20the%20Order%20of%20the%20Phoenix
Posted by Sean on May 2nd, 2007its a very slight difference. i mean who takes time to find these things. preverts maybe.
Posted by Chopper Sr. on May 2nd, 2007Either way it’s really quite disrespectful to here. I’d like to say I can’t believe they’d do something so objectifying but my opinion of the marketing/advertising operations of our world isn’t so high. Still, you’d think they’d have respect enough not to do something so obviously rude.
Posted by Aaron Moore on May 3rd, 2007Somehow I can’t help think my entire credibility with that point was destroyed when I spell ‘her’ as ‘here’. Sometimes I amaze myself.
Posted by Aaron Moore on May 3rd, 2007Haha don’t worry, your point remains quite credible… unfortunately I think it’s a given that if you’re an actor, you’re going to have your features enhanced and touched up for most posters and promotional pictures. I guess it just seems particularly wrong here because she’s essentially still a kid.
Posted by Sean on May 3rd, 2007Actually, there’s no foul play here. No breasts were enhanced.
I just discovered that the two images are part of a stereo pair, which I’m assuming is for one of those 3-D movie posters you sometimes see at the theater.
I have explanation and a sample 3-D image here:
http://nyquil.org/archives/852-Debunkery-I-demonstrate-how-Emma-Watsons-Boobs-Were-NOT-Altered-for-the-IMAX-Poster.html
Posted by jer on May 4th, 2007Nice, thanks for clearing that up Jer. Seems to make sense to me. The diagram definitely helped.
Posted by Sean on May 5th, 2007I stil think that they deffinately did do a bit of work on her.And i think it is very rude and very sexsits.And i also think thats she looks better in the befor pic. And that she is really beautiful without photoshop.
Posted by Nutmegz on May 6th, 2007by the way i also think they sucked in her stomach a bit …it lookes thinner in the 2nd pic…
Posted by Nutmegz on May 6th, 2007To me it looks like the breast did not change
Posted by what on December 8th, 2007but her waist went in… dont you think?
I like emma, because she is little girl though she looks very sexy
Posted by vitthal on March 3rd, 2008no,, its a little bit possible…….. & i love emma… & i waana merry wd emma….
Posted by ashish on May 20th, 2008big boobs don’t go well with an unattractive face
Posted by Drew on May 20th, 2008My observations:
The difference certainly seems apparent to me, and I have to agree that deeming a girl’s body unfit for the likes of their poster is awfully disrespectful to her and to females in general.
The second picture does look shopped, it appears they sucked her tummy into a weird curve and went over her bust with a light colored airbrush…
On the other hand, the skin looks more natural. The first looks to me like they might of given her some digital make-up, made her skin glow, makeup pop, and softened it all.
Her hair is different between the two as well; the second one seems to be attacking Nevile. I wonder what the original image really looked like?
Posted by Terra on July 30th, 2008Leave a Reply