I respect someone who stands their ground about not doing nudity, just like I respect someone's choice to be nude on screen. I think it is a personal choice, not wrong or right. She is a very beautiful, talented girl.

In the case of one movie, "Cool World" they actually bought a guy's script, agreed to have him direct the movie, and then when it came time to shoot presented him with a completely different script, written totally without his knowledge. They'll do this with actors. They'll get them on a film with one script, fire that writer, and 2000have the script completely rewritten by the time production starts. So, the script the actor has to play in has no resemblance to the one they agreed to play.

This message has been deleted.

To111c put Katie's complaints into context one has to look at the history of how she got the job in the first place.
Katie's agent was contacted by the producers and she was asked to audition for the LEAD.
When she went to the audition they told her they didn't want her for the lead, but for the role of Gibb.
In short they lied to her to get her to go to the audition in the first place!
Then, after she reluctantly accepted the role, and had pointed out that the nude scenes were a non-starter (both the shower and the jumping up and down on the guy in bed are body-doubled), they insisted she was to do the nude scenes.
So Katie had a running battle with the director for a number of days.
On top of that, Katie was guilty of not having watched either a Freddy or a Jason movie. In her defence, she has always said she is a 'hiding behind the couch at the gory scenes, girl'. And so Katie only saw one, on a borrowed portable DVD player,when in makeup (onset)on the first day of principal shooting; needless to say she was disappointed.
So, yes it is true that Katie really should have done some research before even accepting to go for the audition; in which case one suspects she may well not have taken ANY role in the movie.
On the other side of the coin, her comments were spot on as regards the quality, or rather the lack of it, in the movie. Though, as ever, Katie's comments are not exactly calculated to win friends and influence people; but that's Katie

Freddy Vs Jason was ok, fun watch but will never be an elite horror flick.
But her comments were idiotic.
Besides New Nightmare look at the last few Elm St. flicks, look at the last few Jason movies.
Now with that and the movie is Freddy Vs Jason; I think it's fairly obvious what kind of movie it will be.
Both franchises stopped trying to scare the audience a long time ago. Was she really execting a legit, scary and suspesneful movie?
If anyone thought it would be well no comment.

Didn't she do a podcast and she talked about nudity?
I believe I heard her say she doesn't really have a problem with nudity
If someone can find the podcast post it here and hear it for yourself

http://www.imdb.com/board/10101428/
The nudity in this film is integral to the film.

Well, I can think of movies where nudity was significant, but none of them (that I can think of) were big Hollywood movies, so the point basically stands I suppose.

I think that there are movies where nudity is absolutely appropriate to the story, and there are some easy (non-titillating) cheats for using nudity to convey certain emotional aspects of a character. However, I do think that
Basic Instinct
is not an appropriate example of this. Nor is the language used in trying to use it as an example very mature.

This message has been deleted.

"Honestly, nudity does nothing for a film. Can anyone really name a movie, besides porn, that nudity has helped further the story? That wasn't just in the film to say, hey look there's someone's tit?"
Okay, I didn't read every post, but did anyone say: Basic Instinct, when she flashes her hooha?

There is a big difference between penises on screen and tits on screen. You could argue that there are many movies that have topless women and it's rated R but many movies that have topless men and are only rated PG. Most movies that have bottomless women are also rated NC-17 as are most movies with penises.

"Can anyone really name a movie, besides porn, that nudity has helped further the story?"
I Am Curious - Yellow & Blue to name one.
The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum to name two.
I'm sure there are more, but those are just two off the top of my head.

Anybody ever think that maybe she doesn't want her family to see her naked on screen? I'm sure most of the people who are putting her down cause she won't do nudity are guys. Guys, would you be OK with your family seeing you naked? If you are OK with that, then you're kinda weird.

This message has been deleted.

Personally, I find it hypocritical when somebody pretends to be on a higher moral ground by not doing nudity but then spends half the movie running around in a tight shirt with a bare stomach showing and big tits bouncing. Obviously, she didn't accept the role because she thought it would be some kind of magnificent artistic expression. She just looks like a tease for doing that. If you're going to make a statement by not doing nudity, then don't be a tease either.
People don't watch horror movies for great acting. They watch them for the scare, the gore, the gratuitous nudity, etc. We're not talking about Shakespeare or Broadway theater here people. My point is that if a person objects to nudity because they want to be acknowledged as an actor/actress and not as another hot body, then follow through with that conviction all the way. Because when you refuse to do nudity but then dress provocatively, you will be viewed by many people as nothing more than a tease.
The chick who played Lori got on my nerves because she did the exact same thing. And I'm sure I wasn't the only guy who was admiring her implants more than her "artistic expression". If you're an actress and you're trying to impress guys with your acting ability, then don't spend the entire movie exploiting your body and teasing us. Because us guys are going to be spending more time admiring your hot body than we are admiring your acting talents. That doesn't make us immature, or scumbags either. There's nothing wrong with admiring beautiful women and wanting to see them naked. It's 100% normal and healthy.
And before everybody freaks out, I'm not maligning her for not doing nudity. That's her prerogative. And judging by her body of work, she's a pretty good actress.

snort From what I've heard one could argue Showgirls wasn't worth watching AT ALL, let alone what they did or didn't show. Haven't seen it myself of course because such films have no interest for me and actually disgust me.

Showgirls. Without the nudity, that movie would NOT have been worth watching. And dont forget the tree-thitted alien in Total Recallthat's one of the only things people remember about the movie

I say BRAVO! Not because I wouldn't want to see more of her but because this way there'll always be something left to desire. Perhaps the old saying: "Having something is not as good as wanting it." applies. Back in the good ole' days (the 80's there wasn't much nudity and boy did the ladies back then seem all the sexier for it. After all, once you've seen it (all) what's left?

This message has been deleted.

How about 'Sirens'?

True, there are exceptions to every rule. But most male actors haven't and won't appear fully nude in films. Nor are they asked to, unlike women.
~~~*~
The Leech Patrol
Dean: Demons I get. People are crazy.

Before anyone starts attacking someone because they won't do nudity, think about the double standard. Guys aren't asked to do nudity, except maybe showing they're asses. And the reason is, nudity is really only in films for guys and guys don't want to see someone else's penis on the screen, especially when it's twenty feet big! Hell, you show one guys' penis on screen and most times the movie becomes NC-17, but put in a locker room full of topless girls and it's only rated R.
You are, of course, ignoring the entire career of Ewan McGregor.

I hope that was a joke
Now for the crazies to start with the illogical arguements to my post.