No way would that be a pleasant surprise. It's just plain disrespectful. Ask Kate Winslet.
Yes, I gain +5 reading girls mind points....
also +5 stating the bleedin' obvious points.

No way would that be a pleasant surprise. It's just plain disrespectful. Ask Kate Winslet.
Those are two separate pictures, you can tell by how Emma look more stern in the second picture compared to the first. Clearly a case of making a mountain out of a molehill in more ways than one![]()
Surely the difference between the two pictures is very small?
I have a serious question:
Does there exist a man here who would say, after seeing the altered photo, "I'd hit it!", but when shown the unaltered photo, would say, "Nope, wouldn't do that"?
I wouldn't even notice the difference. And yes, I'd hit it in both cases.![]()
Very well, Turkmenbashi.To me, its not about this one instance. I believe in "truth in advertising" so I would prohibit digital enhancement from all advertising.
But why would the movie makers feel the need at all to do anything sexual for an underage girl in a movie like this? In the US being under the age of 18 is a minor.
In the US being under the age of 18 is a minor.
i'd hit it, i'd bang it!??? come on boys... this isnt the babe thread.
So Emma Watson (Hermione in Harry Potter) Gets a CGI cup size breast increase in an IMAX poster. Is this wrong?
Also would this start a slippery slop?
I continue to see no appreciable difference in oggle-ability between the before and after. If they were really trying to sex-up the poster, they should have given her more than that, and if they were affraid that people would get all outraged if the change were noticible, then why edit the poster at all?I wouldn't bang her either way (I'm married, she's a bit too young for me, and I'm not into casual sex in any case) but I'd be much less likely to ogle her in her 'undoctored' form.