When you go to the IMAX theater, you go in expecting to see bigger and better. But who knew that was also true in the marketing?
Check out Emma Watson’s chest (yes, I did just write that), which seems to get bigger in the IMAX advertisement, compared to the theatrical poster artwork for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (We’re not pervs - I swear, PosterWire were the ones who pointed this out).
The question now becomes, why would Warner Bros digitally enhance Emma’s breasts for the IMAX poster? But we noticed, it’s not only her breasts, check out her hair. On the IMAX version it is also more flowing, glowing, and hides more of Neville Longbottom (who is standing behind her).
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
I heard it was the other way around! Emma’s boobs looked so big in the original poster that they enhanced them to look smaller on the theatrical poster…could be true, she’s growing quite an impressive little rack!
May 4th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Actually, 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
May 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
EMMA IS SO BEAUTIFULL,,,,,,SHE IS BEST,,,,,,,,,,I LOVE HER VERY VERY MUCH….
May 13th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
i don’t know why they’d edit that at all? :(
she’s a teenage girl; do we really expect her not to ‘grow’?
May 29th, 2007 at 2:46 am
i hates emma, because of she is so ugly and she likes dan.she is no suited of dan like cute, dashing and great actor.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 am
It looks to me as if the IMAX is untreated, the theatrical poster looks chopped. If you look at the picture here http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/03/18/emma-watson-quits-harry-potter/ She is obviously bigger, naturally rounded. The theatrical one looks like they taped them down, more than likely to try to appeal to the younger audience and down play any sexualization towards the movie. Lets face it (them) a big pair blasting out of a movie poster does not exactly say “kids movie”
As for the hair, it blocks to much of her fellow star and takes away the symetics of all equal face space. Main character, yes, the only one, no.
August 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Actually there was no digital enhancement either way. It was all during one photo shoot and the two were separate pictures. You could audibly hear her breasts growing between shots. It sounded kind of like bamboo growing along with the stretch and strain of fabric.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I don’t think her breasts we enlarged. Why would they do that? And both of the pictures look like two SEPERATE photos. That would explain why Neville Longbottom’s face was covered by Emma’s hair. And besides, why would people bother about that? It’s not like it’s the MOST important thing in the world to discuss. There are more important thigs than Emma Watson’s breasts. Or the fact that you can’t see Neville.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Grow up, dont yahll have better things to do?
Shes more famous than you people would ever be, plus who gives a shit. Shes perfect for the role she plays. No one cares about how big or small her fucking tits are. Shes 17?18?, still a child, still got growing up to do. On the other hand, you people will never get a life.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Those look nice. You know what they say bigger is better. I’d love to grab those an squeee em real tight.