ROTTEN TOMATOES: Warner Bros. Denies Beckinsale Body Double Rumors

Warner Bros. Denies Beckinsale Body Double Rumors

by Jeff Giles | June 17, 2008

Warner Bros. has denied reports that Kate Beckinsale has demanded a body double for scenes in her upcoming film Whiteout.

Responding to rumors posted earlier this week at various celebrity gossip sites -- rumors which claimed Beckinsale refused to film a shower scene in the movie, forcing the producers to hire a body double -- Warners has issued the following statement:

The claims appearing on the internet today that Kate Beckinsale requested a body double for filming on Whiteout are absolutely untrue. As is standard practice on many movies a body double was hired for several scenes by the production and not at the request of Kate Beckinsale. Whiteout producer Susan Downey confirmed that "Kate Beckinsale made no request for a body double for this production."

In the Dominic Sena-directed drama -- based on the Greg Rucka graphic novel, and scheduled for release later this year -- Beckinsale plays a U.S. marshal investigating Antarctica's first murder.

Related Items

Celeb:	Kate Beckinsale
	Dominic Sena
	Susan Downey

(1-17 of 17 posts) | Reply

xenogears writes:
on Jun 17 2008 04:58 AM

Though that still doesn't say that it will be Kate in the shower either. Just that she didn't ask for the double.

Oh well.....

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jun 17 2008 05:53 AM

honestly...thats sorta pathetic. 1, that SHE has to have a body double. and 2, that the body double made 2 g's A DAY. two grand for having a nice 2ss? anyway...unless she's been attacked by the cottage cheese bandit...i don't understand why she'd need one, i've NEVER seen a bad pic of her in a bikini. although it really doesn't change my image of her(ok, kinda does) i stand by my thinking that if you take the part...DO THE ENTIRE ROLE as its stated in the script, or else dont take the part. if you CAN do it(playing a musical instrument, an insane stunt excluded) then you're required to do so.

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Jun 17 2008 06:02 AM

Doesn't bother me one bit either way. Honestly I'd rather see here in more tight black leather again than in some shower scene anyways.

Hopefully the movie will be interesting. I'm not paying to see a damn shower scene!

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jun 17 2008 06:59 AM

Is it me or does the premise of this movie seem *really* weak?

(Reply to this)

opTIMus Nerd writes:
on Jun 17 2008 08:32 AM

TSLD: I was kind of wondering the same thing...That and is it me or is Hollywood getting a boner for Antarctica lately? That Herzhog doc is coming and now we have a murder mystery set in a place where a bunch of scruffy, 1970's shag dudes live in a box? $10 says they have another Thing re-make in the works!

(Reply to this)

the train writes:
on Jun 17 2008 08:40 AM

i can't figure out which is the sadder comment on kate beckinsale's bum: the actress demanding a body double because of low self-esteem, or the studio demanding they hire a body double. did they test screen her rear end for TMZ first?

(Reply to this)

OffKeyMelody writes:
on Jun 17 2008 08:45 AM

Every movie has doubles for the actors, it saves the studio's alot of money so they do not have to pay the stars to stand around for scenes they are not needed...this isnt rly anything new...

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Jun 17 2008 09:19 AM

I don't get why they made this announcement, it's really not any better.

There are scenes in the movie that aren't her, which is kind of a cop out. So who cares who made the decision as long as the end result is the same?

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Jun 17 2008 09:35 AM

I have actually seen interviews with Beckinsale where she has said that she hates the idea of doing any nude scenes, and in one particular interview she talked about a nude scene she did early in her career (mid '90's) and how she was so angry with the director b/c he made her do it that when he wasn't looking she stole his coffee and peed in it.

(Reply to this)

trgdr777 writes:
on Jun 17 2008 12:56 PM

I don't see why it'd be a big deal if she had demanded a body double in the first place. So many movies are filled with pointless scenes that exploit a woman's body just to get people excited. Her body's her own property, so she can do what she wants with it. So many people see movies with an attractive female lead and immediately want her to get naked even if it does nothing to advance the plot. I don't know which is more sad: the fact that so many guys expect every attractive actress to strip down on the big screen or that so many actresses do it to promote themselves.

(Reply to this)

Defshep writes:
on Jun 17 2008 01:19 PM

Still, would rather see her nekkid in every role instead of Nicole Kidman. Please, Kate?

(Reply to this)

Dust McAlan writes:
on Jun 17 2008 04:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#1796636)
When one reads the simple premise, yeah, this does look kinda weak. However, should the filmmakers stick close to the tone of the original comic, this could end up on par with thrillers such as Insomnia and Seven.

(Reply to this)

Ash Talon writes:
on Jun 17 2008 04:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#1796757)
I think you're confusing body doubles and stand-ins. Not the same thing, since stand-ins aren't filmed.

Who cares if and why they hired a body double for her? This is not news. I haven't read the comic, but my friend liked it. Aren't shower scenes just pointless? Who really puts those in a movie that takes itself seriously?

I think it's funny that the comic is stark black and white (which adds to the tone) and this promo pic looks terrible unrealistic and overlit.

(Reply to this)

BigJimSlade writes:
on Jun 18 2008 09:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#1797616)
"Aren't shower scenes just pointless? Who really puts those in a movie that takes itself seriously?"

Uhhh...Hitchcock?

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jun 19 2008 10:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#1797260)
trgdr777: "So many people see movies with an attractive female lead and immediately want her to get naked even if it does nothing to advance the plot. I don't know which is more sad: the fact that so many guys expect every attractive actress to strip down on the big screen or that so many actresses do it to promote themselves."

I'm just curious and you obviously don't have to answer, but I presume you're a woman? It has no bearing on whether or not you make a good point--I'm a straight male and I agree to an extent--but I'm testing a theory...

On behalf of at least a fair cross-section of the guys you're referring to:
While it is ENTIRELY our choice what movie we see, and NO straight guy that I know has a bad reaction to seeing an attractive actress getting naked, it is certainly NOT our fault that the industry panders to our baser interests.
Furthermore, I would go so far as to say we do NOT reward a suck-@ss movie merely for providing us with gratuitous nudity. Example: Halle Berry's first 'nude' scene in 'Swordfish' was widely advertised and I saw it in theaters (bored, needed a break, NOTHING else playing nearby) and it was such a crappy movie that I remember telling people that DESPITE Halle baring her chest, they should avoid it at all costs...

Here's your soap-box back..

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Jun 19 2008 11:28 PM

That's right, Tombstone, only women complain about hot hollywood actresses getting naked.

I thought that was common knowledge.

BTW, i can't believe how fast i accepted the previous reports that she hates her butt. I guess in LA-Hollywood, looks are absolutely everything and it's easy to understand why some women feel that they can't match up to the ideal Vida Guerra type bubble butt that makes men's mouth water.

(Reply to this)

pinkincide writes:
on Jun 20 2008 12:34 AM

She may hate her butt, but she loves her hoo-hah. Google "Pharoah%u2019s Tomb". She should show that.

(Reply to this)