05.02.07
Emma Watson in 3D
PosterWire.com has an interesting article about Emma Watson’s “digital enhancements” in the IMAX 3-D version of The Order of the Phoenix movie poster as compared to the regular theatrical version.
Click on over there and feel free to post a punny comment about 3-D. Go on. I’ll wait.
For my part, I think it’s reprehensible to exploit a young, underage actress this way. Perhaps behavior like this is more prevalent than we imagine, potentially leading to Emma’s reticence to continue doing the films.
Pure conjecture, but an intriguing thought for the day.
-->
Emma Watson “con mas pecho” en 3D « Descubriendo Harry Potter 7 said,
May 2, 2007 at 3:13 pm
[…] Fuentes: PosterWire y BloggingHarryPotter […]
Adam said,
May 2, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“potentially leading to Emma’s reticence to continue doing the films.”
She’s 17, I’m sure she’s flattered. But I have been disappointed by the casting choice throughout - the books don’t make it sound like Hermione is unusually good looking.
RavenclawWit said,
May 5, 2007 at 9:22 pm
@ Adam
Actually I’ve never understood that complaint. I don’t think Emma Watson is “unusually good looking”. She’s just pretty in the way that a lot of teenage girls are pretty. While you’re right in that the books don’t describe Hermione as drop dead gorgeous, they don’t say she is ugly. Yes in the beginning she has “large front teeth” and frizzy hair, but as we know she fixes the tooth problem in her fourth year. And in fact, Harry, before realizing that he’s looking at Hermione, describes her as “a pretty girl” at the Yule Ball. My sense about Hermione’s looks is that she was an awkward little girl who has gradually become a pretty teenager, albeit in a commonplace sort of way. However, since Hermione is not the sort of girl to spend an inordinate amount of time on her appearance (hair, makeup, etc.) her looks are not noticed much, especially by Harry, from whose point of view the books are written. Frankly, Harry can be quite unobservant and because he looks on Hermione as a friend and/or a sister figure, it’s unlikely he would have much to say about her feminine charms.
Nicole said,
May 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm
re: Emma vs Hermione
I agree with you, RavenclawWit.
Here’s something else to consider. Given that the three principle actors were all cast in the first movie when they were around 10-years old, it’s likely the film-makers were less concerned with each young actors’ physical attractivenes (or lack thereof) as opposed to their general screen presence.
As well, I’m sure we’re all aware that adolescence is a tricky business and someone who’s cute at 10 may turn out to be an awkward, gangly mess at 16. The fact that Emma, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint have developed into photogenic, “teen heartthrobs” would not necessarily have been a safe bet back then.
Nicole said,
May 9, 2007 at 10:28 am
Whoops! Didn’t mean to post that twice. I didn’t think it went through the first time.
Roxie said,
May 13, 2007 at 7:52 am
I can’t really see the difference in the bust size…I see perhaps a small curve instered just above the bust, they don’t appear to make it look any larger to me.
I see more difference in the hair than the bust.