Emma Watson - boy, that was quick!

[TheLazenby]

Since Emma Watson's 18th birthday last week, two items of interest have made the rounds online, and I was wondering if anyone knew if they were legit... (I can't post either here, as they're NSFW, but I'm sure you could find them easily enough.)

1) The first is a set of pictures of Emma supposedly pulling a Britney and giving the camera an unfortunate peek whilst getting out of a car. There seem to be a number of pics from this set; the fact that they've (strangely) ended up on some of her fan sites makes me think they're legit.

2) The second is a bit more graphic. There's a grainy video circulating around the web purporting to be Emma on a bed doing something rather naughty, and having, erm, been shown this supposed footage for investigation (nod wink), I'm actually very certain it is her. Someone else that saw it claimed that the clothes she's (kind of) wearing also appeared in a Harry Potter movie. (I almost feel pathetic for saying this, but if the pictures mentioned in #1 are indeed legit, then certain things would match, if you get my drift.)

Anyone know more about these? I think it's odd that they just happened to pop up as soon as she turned legal, but both seem plausible enough.

[mags]

I'd have to see to be sure, but I think the first is quite unlikely to be anything but a fake (she hasn't been hanging out with Paris Hilton, has she? That whole rash of crotch shots last year seemed to be some sort of initiation into her silly clique), the second possible but also unlikely.

eta: the first one seems real, but she is wearing panties, unlike Britney.

[candy from strangers]

If she is properly pantied in the first one I see no reason for doubt. What skirt-wearer amongst us has never gotten out of a car less than gracefully and accidently given any passersby a glimpse? Most of us just aren't being photographed when such things happen. I can't look either, as I'm at work. I do find it interesting that they both popped up after she reached the standard age of consent in the US though. She would have been legal for 2 years in the UK if I'm not mistaken.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by candy from strangers

She would have been legal for 2 years in the UK if I'm not mistaken.

That's right. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been a couple of leery stories in the tabloids at that time, although I can't remember any.

[bthyb]

Originally Posted by TheLazenby

(I can't post either here, as they're NSFW, but I'm sure you could find them easily enough.)
.

Never heard of the rule that we can't post NSFW stuff! Can't somebody post and spare me wading through crotch shots?

Not that I can look now anyway...darn job.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by bthyb

Never heard of the rule that we can't post NSFW stuff! Can't somebody post and spare me wading through crotch shots?

Not that I can look now anyway...darn job.

The "getting into a car" ones are here:

http://www.americangirl.co.uk/index....e-with-see-thr

I don't see much reason to think they're fake. She seems to be trying to get in discreetly - following all the "legs together" rules and so on - but her skirt has ridden up a bit. Beware - although she is wearing knickers, they're fairly transparent so you can see pubic hair through them. (Although you don't get the uncensored versions in that link until you click on the pictures, so the link itself should be OK.)

I'm not sure I want to look for the other item...

I've got to agree... there are some things a woman can't do in a dress without sudden "flashes" for someone looking for them (like.. paparazzi), especially a short one.

the video (having never seen it) I'd say is fake just because I find it unlikely... but I'm not planning on doing a whole lot of research to find out anyways.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by bthyb

Never heard of the rule that we can't post NSFW stuff! Can't somebody post and spare me wading through crotch shots?

I don't think it was a snopes rule that prevented The Lazenby from posting the NSFW, but rather the fact the he was at work.

[bthyb]

Originally Posted by Lainie

I don't think it was a snopes rule that prevented The Lazenby from posting the NSFW, but rather the fact the he was at work.

Quite possibly - the OP said "here," which is unclear.

I see no reason for the pictures to be fake, but for all the googling in the world I can't find this video. Where did you see it?

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by candy from strangers

I do find it interesting that they both popped up after she reached the standard age of consent in the US though. She would have been legal for 2 years in the UK if I'm not mistaken.

She passed the age of consent to have sex at 16, but you cannot pose for "adult" publications, movies, etc. until you are 18, which may explain the sudden appearance. Even if such photos or videos had previously existed it would have been illegal to publish them (and still would be if they originate prior to her birthday).

I agree the pictures are probably real. One would think, if one was faking a photo of naughty bits, to fake it without the clothes in the way. Plus, panties can be sheer and then see-through when a camera flashes, so I say plausible.

[candy from strangers]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

She passed the age of consent to have sex at 16, but you cannot pose for "adult" publications, movies, etc. until you are 18, which may explain the sudden appearance. Even if such photos or videos had previously existed it would have been illegal to publish them (and still would be if they originate prior to her birthday).

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you.

Frankly, I'm just glad to see that she actually has pubic hair. I'm getting so tired of the hairless look.

[Mycroft]

Just my opinion (and not having seen the video); I think it most likely to be a deliberate spoof - clothing worn in a film is not the property of the actor; not only would it be retained by the company for future sequels/publicity, but in the final reckoning if sold to fans it would be worth considerably more than the cost price. Also she is an 18 year old playing a much younger role - her personal taste in clothes would be different.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

...clothing worn in a film is not the property of the actor; not only would it be retained by the company for future sequels/publicity, but in the final reckoning if sold to fans it would be worth considerably more than the cost price.

Possibly or possibly not. I've certainly heard of actors or other cast members retaining their costumes. Shannon Doherty (sp?) had it written into her contract for Mallrats that she kept everything she wore on the film and Harold Ramis took home the coat that Bill Murray wore in Groundhog Day. (Both of these facts are from the appropriate DVD commentary, cite-fans).

[ElectricBarbarella]

And not only that, in Prisoner of Azkaban, the kids said (as did David Yates) that he allowed them to wear their own clothes for the filming of that.. they repeated it during a few scenes in Order of the Phoenix.

pics are clearly legit. Video, who knows since no one can find it.

But to those that have seen it, is it a stationary cam or is someone filming? If it's someone filming, I'd have to say obvious fake, since, although Emma Watson may be doing these things, I SINCERELY doubt she'd have a third person there filming. Filmed unknowingly? Sure. Filmed willingly? Not likely at all.

[TheLazenby]

I will say that the pubes in that picture match the ones in the video in terms of color and quantity...

(Yeah, I'm definitely going to confession tomorrow.)

[mags]

My opinion on the video, sight unseen:

Current cell phones have nearly as good video as a rather expensive digital camera from five years ago. If someone was to take a celebrity video, presumably to either sell or blackmail, why in the heck would they use a less than clear camera?

Because it isn't really her, but someone who looks enough like her to only fool others if the video is grainy.

Why would she happen to be wearing clothing from the movie, which was filmed a couple years ago? Because it adds to the illusion that the look-alike might be her.