Emma Watson’s IMAX Boob Job
The augmentation is subtle, but if you look carefully at the poster for the IMAX version of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” you can see that Hermione’s boobs are a bit larger. Though come to think of it, everything seems bigger on that IMAX screen. And while the Warner Bros. marketing department felt compelled to alter the size of Emma Watson’s breasts, they don’t seem to have fiddled with Harry Potter’s pecker, but from what we hear from the folks who have seen the London production of “Equus,” Mr. Radcliffe doesn’t need any below-the-belt enlargement.
Update: According to this interesting analysis, the difference is actually caused by the 3-D camera used to shoot the image in the IMAX poster.
This isn’t the first time a movie studio has altered parts of a woman’s body in a movie poster of course. Julia Roberts has claimed that the woman in the “Pretty Woman” poster isn’t her, but rather, a body double. And Keira Knightley was abuzz that her bust was digitally enhanced in the “King Arthur” poster which you can see below.
But body parts aren’t always made larger. In Kelly Clarkson’s case, her derriere was made smaller, or at least more round. Check out the two different versions of the “From Justin to Kelly” movie poster below, and notice how the version on the right has had some extra curves added to her waistline.
But the most egregious example in recent memory has to go to TIME magazine, who didn’t alter the size of shape of anything, but who, on June 27, 1994, published the same photo of O.J. Simpson on their cover as Newsweek. With one slight modification: the color of his skin.
Related posts: So Good You’ll Do What??? | Oopsie | Kyra-bunga! or A Brief History of Kira
05.04.07 at 9:45 pm
Or did they shrink them for the normal-screen release poster? Probably unlikely, but wasn’t there something about Disney thinking Lindsay Lohan’s boobs were too big for a family flick and had them digitally reduced for that “Herbie” movie?
05.10.07 at 9:19 am
[...] Com uma pesquisinha no Google eu encontrei uma centena de sites e blogs tratando do assunto. Um deles, o Yuppie Punk (por sinal muito interessante) não só dá a notícia da suposta alteração do cartaz, mas também um link para um segundo artigo intitulado “Debunkery: Eu demonstrei como os seios de Emma Watson NÃO foram alterados para o cartaz IMAX“. Ah! Além disso ela mostra uma galeria de adulterações famosas; mais aumentos de seio, bumbum mais redondinho e OJ Simpsons com a cor da pele “ressaltada”. Confira. [...]
08.12.07 at 9:24 pm
Definitely Photochopped, not 3-D-induced.
09.06.07 at 5:04 am
english mother fucker, do you speak it?
01.10.08 at 3:27 am
“english mother fucker, do you speak it?”
Yes. And do you dumbfuck speak anything other than “Im-Stoopid”?
01.10.08 at 7:25 pm
Aaron, let’s see if you can translate this:
Sinirimi bozma, fena döverim seni, süraleni ve tüm abd hükümetini!
aq
01.14.08 at 1:48 pm
Definitely NOT Photoshopped. The two pictures are shot from different angles, for example, just look at the tie (and the collar of his shirt) of the guy next to Emma.
01.14.08 at 4:33 pm
btw, “English motherfucker, DO YOU SPEAK IT” is a famous line said by Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction
01.14.08 at 6:51 pm
i remember it from that ep. of the Boondocks…man, that was a funny episode….
01.14.08 at 8:45 pm
“Definitely NOT Photoshopped. The two pictures are shot from different angles, for example, just look at the tie (and the collar of his shirt) of the guy next to Emma.”
no, not a different angle. they just photoshopped her hair too and made it more flowy.
01.15.08 at 9:07 am
3D my ass, look at her hair I take it thats some miracle of 3D aswell? it’s totally a photoshop-job
01.16.08 at 6:01 pm
For the OJ picture. It was not photoshopped or touched up in ANY way. It is not the same picture as the Newsweek one. If you want proof, look at this:
- On the numbers below OJ in the newsweek picture, the black part of his coat and the white part of his shirt meet right between the 1 and the 3. If you look at the Time magazine picture, the black of the jacket and the white shirt meet in the middle of the 0 closer to the 4.
These are two different pictures and the one that was used by time is a darker overall picture. Notice how the jacket and the background are darker?
They didn’t make it darker to make his skin look more black. They did it because, according to them, it was a “Tragedy” and you don’t use bright happy colors to show sorrow and tragedy.
01.17.08 at 1:46 pm
jesus christ
i hate america
01.17.08 at 7:04 pm
How could you forget the Denise Richards example:
http://www.dtheatre.com/read.php?sid=1770
01.18.08 at 3:24 pm
Good collection. Thanks! I always like more ammo to prove everything you see in media is an illusion.
01.19.08 at 5:38 pm
@ chris
ok, maybe as you said it’s not the exact same picture of OJ but i’m pretty sure that OJ didn’t have 1 shot taken then was allowed to lay out in the police stations garden to catch abit of sun before having the next shot taken, so I guess he’s picture was touched up..
01.19.08 at 5:42 pm
forgive me chris.
next time i’ll read the whole post before I comment,
my apologies
01.22.08 at 9:47 am
The OJ picture is not photoshopped per say, I agree with the explanation previous. However, the boob job in the king arthur poster is obvious….the angles don’t even come in to play on this. Way too drastic of a change to argue that. Also Kelly clarkson’s shaping was touched at the top of the rump. A typical photoshop trademark is losing quality when using the pucker tool. Not only that, but the shadow from her shirt near her waistline is lost and inconsistant with the rest of the bottom of the shirt.
What’s really funny about the harry potter poster is that in order to try to hide their boob job there, the made the character behind the girl a bit bigger too. Compare where his hair parts and where it lands behind the girls hair. He’s a little bigger to look like everythings just a little bigger….but alas, the girl didnt grow taller, just digitally lactating.
01.22.08 at 2:52 pm
The OJ picture is photoshopped, but not in the sense of the word that’s going on here. It looks like the darkened the entire picture and upped the contrast so he would stand out against the white background to make him spookier, not to make him look blacker. Again, it was being hyped as a horrific tragedy, and tragedies are dark and scary.
01.24.08 at 3:42 pm
The picture of OJ was not photo shopped. I studied for a short time with the photographer who did this image for Time magazine. His technique was to take an image, paint the entire picture with black (or another color depending) oil paint, and then using cotton or cloth to slowly remove the paint over the lighter parts of the image leaving a dark murky final image. Then photographing the final piece and re-printing to make the final print. There was a big furor over this image at the time with racism being implied. I have to say that the man who did the image was the farthest thing from a racist I have ever met. This was his style at that time. If you have doubts, google Matt Mahurin and look at his work in the 80’s & 90’s. Some might recall his image of John Fogerty for Rolling Stone with the green overtone. Many of the music videos we’ve known over the years have been inspired by his work as a photographer & video director.
01.27.08 at 9:26 am
If you look at illustrator/photographer Matt Mahurin’s work you will indeed see that it’s just his style. it wasn’t done to make OJ look ‘blacker’
03.06.08 at 1:27 am
Actually, Emma’s boobs aren’t bigger, they carved away part of her stomach and shoulder. That is how her hair seems to stick out more, and of course the breast in question. If you could lay the pics on top of each other it would be more evident. Photoshopped? Absolutely.
01.06.09 at 4:49 pm
What’s wrong with being black? I think it’s racist to say that this image is racist. It’s bigotry in itself.
03.23.09 at 9:32 pm
Jeez, can’t we trust anyone anymore? For years I’ve looked to Hollywood to show me life the way it REALLY is. I need a moment….
07.24.09 at 12:16 pm
Actually, Emma’s right pic is closer than the left.
08.11.09 at 6:27 am
man, i was pissed! when i was on the cover of a movie box, they didn’t enlarge my tits! whats the deal hollywood? a young boy shouldn’t have some cleavage? i got an idea, make it look like i have a ham in the front of my shorts. you know, something so big i could club a girl with it and take her back to my place for an extra special photoshop session. seriously though, isn’t emma watson supposed to be playing a 16 year old? that there is some gosh-dern paedophilia if ive ever seenit