Emma Watson in 3D

[pegkerr]

PotterCast was talking about the recently released IMAX poster for the Order of the Phoenix. As they pointed out, Emma Watson appears blonder and her chest appears a bit larger in Harry Potter IMAX ads when compared to the Order of the Phoenix poster, even though they are both based around the same artwork.

IMAX Order of the Phoenix poster

Posterwire.com comments:

Although Hollywood (and media in general) has a long history of "augmentation via Photoshop" in advertising, this instance is less obvious than other examples. But it is hard to resist pointing out Hermione Granger’s breast growth spurt in this case when the artwork is for a 3D movie from a theater chain with the motto "Think Big." (This also invokes memories of a Saturday Night Live Harry Potter skit from a few years ago.)

Why is there a difference between the two pieces of Potter key art? Since the IMAX version of the poster art appeared online before the final Harry Potter one-sheet, we can only speculate that Warner Bros. gave the IMAX ad group an earlier "comp" version of the artwork prior to being finalized for the studio’s own press run. There are other subtle differences between the two: the domestic one-sheet version of Herminoe Granger features a less flowing hair style, probably because her hair in the IMAX version blocks more of actor Matt Lewis (as Neville Longbottom) standing behind Emma Watson.

I share the PotterCast commentators' irritation with this. I am not naive, of course, about Hollywood's prediliction to sex everything up. Nor do I think that if Hermione is brainy, she therefore can't be sexy. And if the intention was to "sex her up," then note the underlying message that blonder woman with bigger breasts are somehow sexier than darker-haired woman with small breasts. It's especially worth noting, given that Jo Rowling herself has spoken out about the insanity of girls judging themselves and each other on the basis of weight and/or personal appearance.

Edited to add: I'll also add that it's possible that I'm simply being unreasonably cranky about what is, after all, a rather minor change. I blame getting a less-than-ideal-amount of sleep.

Edited to add again: thomtoffner offers a perfectly reasonable explanation that I think clears this up.

"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."

Thanks, thomtoffner.

Comments

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Actually it looks like a shading change, if you look the perceived sexing up is actually removal of shadow, which changes perception. They did however change her hair around a bit.

No need to rar rar yet.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

I thought the entire poster looked painted, but particularly Emma's face looked NOT like a photo but like painted or at least heavily airbrushed art. If the IMAX version is earlier, it seems more likely that the studio actually REDUCED the size of her chest for the final version. It's not like the IMAX version looks ridiculous; if they both looked like that, nobody would have said anything, because even in the IMAX version she's not out of proportion or anything. I'm a guy and a sucker for a nice sweater, but honestly even the IMAX version didn't draw my eye nearly as much as her face did.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of Drew Struzan's work. He did all the Star Wars posters of recent memory in the way it looks artificially lightened up (and the rockstar hair treatment). I think it was a lighting up thing more than a sexing up thing. But hey, people will always see what they want to see in things. Especially in the realm of fandom.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I'll also add that it's entirely possible that I'm simply being unreasonably cranky.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean it like that :P

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I'm still upset that Hermione is so skinny. I always pictured her being a little on the plump side.

[avengangle.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, in most people's experience, if you're that pretty, it doesn't matter how irritating or smart you are. You'll still be popular. Oh well.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

It's really, really subtle to my eye. But I think the IMAX one is all together lighter- her sweater, as well as her hair... to me it looks more like they didn't want her hair just lost in a dark shadow? The breast issue as well... it looks like they cut a bit away to make the profile a bit more pronounced, which to me doesn't look bigger, just more noticable.

*shrugs* I had a bigger issue when "What a Girl Wants" came out and they airbrushed out her hand holding up a Peace Sign, because it was too "controversial" at the time.

[msavi.livejournal.com]

I don't think you're being unreasonably cranky. It's obvious, however subtle, if you zoom in on the pic in Photoshop. I find the changes absurd and vaguely offensive, but perhaps not enough to do anything about it other than scowl.

[rabican.livejournal.com]

See my comment below - it's pretty blatant, no zooming necessary, if you look at some of the other comparisons provided. They also pulled in her waist.

[rabican.livejournal.com]

For everyone saying that it's a subtle, I was inclined towards, "Worrisome, but yes, maybe so," until I saw the larger version here.

It's not just lighting and strategic hair poof - that's a pretty blatant breast-job and tummy-tuck via Photoshop, there. How ridiculous. Someone should definitely contact Ms. Rowling for comment, methinks.

[cathellisen.livejournal.com]

I think it's pretty sad, really. Just so goes against the image of Hermione I built from reading the books. Blegh.

[rabican.livejournal.com]

Exactly! I mean, it's not that I expect a bunch of marketing execs to care about the integrity of the book's image, but - but. Gah. If nothing else, I wish someone on the chain of command had had the wherewithall to look at this and say, "Hey, guys, wait a minute! This is going to get us more negative publicity than it'll gain us horny teenage boys, who won't spend their money on Harry Potter anyway!"

Then again, if it's true that there's no such thing as negative publicity ...

[thomtoffner.livejournal.com]

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

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Hey, thanks! I'll include the link in the original post.

[thomtoffner.livejournal.com]

I've been posting that on every commentable instance I can find across the net, and you're the only one to do this. For that I thank you.

I know that this sort of thing actually does happen all the time, Kiera Knightly and Scarlett Johannsen come to mind as examples that were blatantly "boobhanced," I just want to do whatever I can to clear up what I beleive to be rampant misunderstanding that could possibly hurt Emma or the movie.

Not that I really care about Emma or the movie, mind you, I just like injecting al ittle rationality whenever possible :)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

You should send this in to The Leaky Cauldron. They'll be very interested (it was on their podcast that I heard about the poster issue in the first place), and they'll get the word out to everybody, either through their podcast or newsource. They are the go-to site for all things Harry Potter, and they have, I think, just about the largest gallery on the web of HP-related material.