Kristen Wiig nude in welcome to me - 4/29/2015

I liiike it! I hope that's not a pussy wig
Don't know why, but now I want a lesbo scene with her and Leslie Mann.

 

It does seem really odd...lets spend a ton of money to CGI; Kristen's face into the scene. If that's the case... a boo. But I hope its actually her, and maybe the scene is for something else. Hopefully.

 

Wigg's bush is a wig???

 

Kristen has done many interviews discussing doing the nude scene, so unless you're hopelessly cynical and are certain she's a pathological liar, it's pretty clear it's her. And do you really think a tiny indie movie has the time and money mess with CGI?

“Being naked in a film or on stage isn't always supposed to be sexy,” the actress told Robbins about the buzzed-about scene. “It was the part and it felt right, so I did it.”

“Of course you're nervous,” she added, “and you know people are gonna make comments but if you care about that, your job instantly becomes more difficult.

“You have to do things for you.”

"I didn’t want to say yes and then take that scene out. I just thought it was important to the story and the character—so the thinking was if I make this movie then I have to do the scene where I’m totally naked."

 

It is really Kristen doing the nude scenes and not the work of someone else. To those that still have doubts, here's Mr Skin's report on the film: http:///www.mrskin.com/kristen-wiig-does-indeed-get-nude-in-welcome-me---15696

Edit: Could a mod or the OP change the thread title? It's Kristen Wiig, not Wigg.

 

Pussy wiig.

I thought I didn't know her but she was in Paul.

 

The BD must have been as a stand-in then or perhaps in case she changed her mind

 

I just love controversy.

 

Just the right amount of bush too...

 

I voted Paul.

 

Merkin?

 

Of course I don't know what this scene is about, but it is certainly not intended to be sexy. It looks like she has burns or other injuries to her upper body. It reminds me of Isabella Rossellini's nude scene in Blue Velvet, technically nude but decidedly unsexy.

That said, I am in love with this woman (if you don't know why, don't bother analyzing it). She is becoming an accomplished, serious actress (if you like her, check out her indie/small films "Hateship, Loveship" and "The Skeleton Twins"). Thus, seeing her nude is a milestone, even if not the sexiest circumstances.

 

Yeah, I caught "Hateship, Loveship" twice on Showtime last winter; Kristen had some amazing underwear and nightgown scenes in that film. That one love scene where Kristen was grinding on top of Guy Pearce in bed was hot; I Kept thinking Guy Pearce was one lucky motherfucker. Love scenes aside, there's some amazing close up shots of Kristen's face and eyes; the camera really lingers on her features. It makes you wonder if the camera man or director had a crush on her during filming. I always found her attractive on SNL, but this film really shows you how beautiful Kristen is; which is odd because, her character is supposed to be a "plain jane". I hope Showtime will air it again this year, so I can get it on tape.

 

The body double may have been contracted "just in case". This was an indie production, they usually have a tight schedule, with the set the scene takes place available for a couple of hours. So, even if the lead actress agreed to shoot the nude scene, the director may prefer to secure a body double weeks before. Wiig's body type may not be easy to find, and for a full frontal nude scene which is both a scene of public nudity and a first for the actress, it doesn't hurt to have a stand-in for rehearsals, then for the screen, if the lead freaks out and they need to use the double instead. Which is not what happened.

 

See this is the kind of explanation I was looking for and this is the kind of stuff they usually don't explain in promotional interviews. I usually have to track down expensive film magazines or look at some obscure late late night documentary about how indie films are made to learn these type of things. Thanks for info quecho; you've gving me the missing piece of a puzzle I've been looking for since last year.

Funny thing, I just saw Kristen Wiig on the Daily Show Thrusday, promoting Welcome to Me and neitherJohn Stewart or Kristen brought up the nude scene; but the interview was edit for time.

 

Just a heads up, last night I read on movie site, can't remember which one, Welcome to Me will be available on VOD starting May 8; that's this Friday. So by this time next week we should have HD pics.

 

Actually, the 'CGI' wouldn't take a huge chunk out of an indie budget. All you'd need is talented people who know their way around a green screen and Adobe After Effects/Premiere Pro.
But, that said, why even bother with that? I mean, shit, we're talking about grown ups here, right? Just shoot the fuckin' nude scene and then move on.
I think the fact that ScarJo did 'Under the Skin' and is still able to make 'Avengers' stacks kind of green lit the path for other 'established' stars to jump on the nudity wagon.

 

CGI isn't as specialized as it once was. There are teenagers that superimpose faces on other people for Youtube videos. An actual professional digital artist could easily superimpose an actress' face over a body double these days, and it wouldn't take much money or very many of those artists to do it (union fees are really the deciding factor). Not saying Wiig didn't do the scene, since it's impossible to tell from low-res screenshots and no video to analyze, but it's not really something to view as witchcraft anymore considering how easily it can be done. Green screens aren't necessary for this type of thing anymore, just a digital artist that can interpret directional lighting properly.

 

Haven't seen the flick but if I had to guess the BD was there for probably two reasons. A crowd scene shot far away so that Wiig's face wasn't needed or if she decided to chicken out. I have no doubt it's Wiig's body in the pics by the way.

 

I applaud her and I will reward the makers of the film by paying to go see the movie.