Rachel McAdams refuses to pose nude for Vanity Fair

[muchlove]

Don't you just hate it when you show up to a photoshoot, and your publicist forgets to mention that it's a going to be in the nude? I know I do, and so does Rachel McAdams. But she had the guts to say no. According to Radar Online, McAdams showed up to shoot the cover for the November issue of Vanity Fair, but got so angry after finding out about the nude photoshoot, she stormed off the shoot, and fired her publicist. So, yeah. No nude Rachel McAdams.

“Every magazine wants her on their cover and thinks she’s gonna be huge, so she can get away with being picky,” says a Condé Nast insider. “But everyone’s really impressed that she stood up for herself. It’s kind of amazing, actually.”

Wow. Someone with principles and a backbone in Hollywood. Who knew. On the bright side, it's probably for the best that Rachel McAdams didn't pose nude. The photoshoot was also to feature Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson in the nude, which would probably have led to my head exploding.

Of course, principles are one thing, but paying the rent is another, and it seems that a younger Rachel McAdams was not so principled. I'm sure it was all for the integrity of the story, but in the film "My Name is Tanino," the sight of Rachel McAdams topless was hardly a rarity.

Rachel McAdams topless pictures on the site:
egotastic.com

[calendargurl]

she also flashed boobies in The Notebook. what's the big dealio anyway? her parts would've been covered. it's Vanity Fair..not Playboy.

[SVZ]

oopsie! she has nice breasts though