Comments on: Everything’s Bigger in IMAX, Even Emma Watson’s Chest

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:24:53 +0000

Those look nice. You know what they say bigger is better. I’d love to grab those an squeee em real tight.

By: Ohgrabme

Ohgrabme — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:37 +0000

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.

By: Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:39:34 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:53:32 +0000

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.

By: Blaine

Blaine — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:11:33 +0000

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.

By: susan

susan — Tue, 29 May 2007 09:46:12 +0000

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.

By: miyna

miyna — Mon, 14 May 2007 01:56:07 +0000

i don’t know why they’d edit that at all? :(
she’s a teenage girl; do we really expect her not to ‘grow’?

By: GUMNAMM

GUMNAMM — Sat, 12 May 2007 19:42:51 +0000

EMMA IS SO BEAUTIFULL,,,,,,SHE IS BEST,,,,,,,,,,I LOVE HER VERY VERY MUCH….

By: jer

jer — Fri, 04 May 2007 23:03:01 +0000

Actually, thereâ€™s no foul play here. No breasts were enhanced.

I just discovered that the two images are part of a stereo pair, which Iâ€™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

By: Krum

Krum — Thu, 03 May 2007 17:36:44 +0000

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!