Paula Garces' ass
Was that really her, or a body double? That scene was already amazing, but if that was her ... wow.
shareWas that really her, or a body double? That scene was already amazing, but if that was her ... wow.
shareAaaaand I just checked the full credits and found this girl:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4018958/
"Tiffany Stone: stand-in, Paula Garces"
DAMN IT
Jazz Samurai--
Don't lose hope! My understanding is, that the term "stand-in" in films refers to actors who merely read the lines of the script of the intended character during rehearsals, to set-up the scene before the actual actor reads the lines.
"Stand-ins" do not actually appear in a film at all.
Now, when the credits say "actor X double", this refers to people who actually appear in the film to do a nude scene or stunt that the actual intended actor will not do.
So, it may have actually been Paula Garces' rear end in the movie.
If not, then I'd say this was the only major flaw in an otherwise very enjoyable film.
Perhaps someone else will be able to conclusively answer this question?
Todd
It looked like her ass from the rump I saw in those jeans when he's kissing Harold in the elevator at the end of White Castle.
shareA body double and a stand-in are two different things. It's possible that ass still could have been Garces'.
shareI kinda doubt it.. when they do those type of insert shots it's almost always a double. If it's the real actress they'll let you know by showing the body part and then panning up to the face in one continuous shot
Or maybe not, lol.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAkyqtoZTzQ
I doubt it. For one, they didn't show her face in the same shot, which is usually a dead giveaway that it's not her. For another thing, the actress running up the stairs was bottomless, and even though you don't really see anything, it seems strange that an actress who hasn't even done any topless scenes would do a scene where she runs up stairs without any underwear.
Read her interview in a mag. Nope not her. Useless though 'cause it doesn't make a difference. People will always assume that she mooned at the movie. Unless she has a hideous behind then the body double was necessary.
A ship sank at the end of the movie Titanic!
I kind of figured it wasn't hers, just the way it was shot. If she didn't want to show her own ass, why did she allow then to make people assume it was hers?
Maybe some kind of compromise? Nice ass either way.
If they don't show the actresses face in the same shot, I always assume that its not the actual actresses body part...
nice arse either way, I agree.
it is a NBD go to http://mrskin.com/paula-garces-c6691.html search her and you will see NBD for this movie. You don`t have to pay to search site. Just have to pay to see full size pictures and videos. By the way NBD = nude body double
shareThe ass was flat as hell. What kind of board-figured women are you all attracted to. Paula's ass is a lot more figured if you know what I mean. The ass in the movie looked like a board with a crack going down the middle.
shareIt was definitely a body double, you can tell by how the scene was shot, it was a quick flash to it, had it been her it would have shown here whole body walking up the stairs not just her ass.
"I can't, I have to stay here and smoke this pot or else I won't get high"