MovieChat Forums > Cabin by the Lake (2000) Discussion > Dummy Not Dressed Like Mallory

Dummy Not Dressed Like Mallory

posted 18 years ago by ernielambert
11 replies | jump to latest

Why didn't they put Mallory's dress on the dummy? Don't you think he would notice that? Also, if they were going to put a dummy down there - whey did they have to do full body cast (with a nude Mallory)? Couldn't they just do a head cast and put it on any dummy? If he wouldn't notice that the dummy/body had changed clothes, I doubt that he would notice that the body wasn't quite the right shape.

And really, if they were doing a body cast, and it was going to be covered by clothes, why couldn't she wear a swimsuit when making the cast? They showed later another girl with a stocking over her hair, so they must be able to take casts over things other than skin. Don't say because they wanted nudity, because there wasn't any shown.

[–] FreelanceStuntdouble 18 years ago

Well for one...they put the dummy down with the exact same clothing she was wearing when creepy Judd Nelson threw her overboard, not a dress. And they made a complete body cast because they needed it to look exactly like Mallory, not some other body. And if they used a swimsuit, well, do you really know what creepy Judd Nelson did down in the water with the bodies? They needed it to look as real as possible.

Hey I've been in a firefight before, well I was in a fire...actually I was fired.

[–] ernielambert 18 years ago

I think she was wearing the Jeans when he kidnapped her - which is how they dressed the dummy. He made her put a dress on before taking her to the lake - he made them all wear those long prom dresses - remember all the bodies?

So they should have dressed her that way - he would have noticed. And they could have put her "head" on any similar body - with clothes, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference And if they expected him to do something to the "body" underwater - he would have found out it was a dummy anyway. None of it makes sense. Just get a head impression, put it on a dummy, and dress it with the dress she had on when rescued.

I could understand it if they wanted nudity in movie - but there wasn't any, at least on TV.

[–] FreelanceStuntdouble 18 years ago

Listen to me when i tell you this. She was not wearing a dress, she was wearing the exact same clothes that they put on the dummy.

Hey I've been in a firefight before, well I was in a fire...actually I was fired.

[–] CountessBazzini 18 years ago

You're positively right freelance. I just watched Cabin By The Lake again and when Judd Nelson drops Mallory in the water she is wearing pants. I have this on DVD along with it's sequel and so no the full body cast wasn't done to show nudity. Oh and not everyone was in a prom dress. The skeleton had on a wedding dress and another body had on a bathing suit. So the dummy was dressed like Mallory.

[–] darkenchantment-1 14 years ago

Ernielambert... stfu you IDIOT... i suggest you watch the movie... Mallory never worn a dress in the film...

the only thing that doesn't make sense are your pathetic posts...

get a head put it on a dummy? wtf... its much easier to just do a full body cast.. who cares?? does it really matter how they did it? what difference does it make???? omg... you freak............

[–] toobitterforyou 15 years ago

yes yes, the dummy was bad, but who cares.

the really stupid thing about that whole scenario is that the cops waited until the film geeks shout out "oh no he made us" to do anything.

great timing you freakin morons. no reason to get in the water until he starts to swim away. oh, and let's not swim towards where he might swim to. let's all swim to the place where he was two minutes ago.

the dummy was a huge waste of time to begin with, but now it becomes an extreme waste of time because all it did was made them look like idiots.

[–] swingers70 15 years ago

Mallory sure liked to be nude that's for sure. From the times that she suppsoedly had to for creepy Stanley, to the model casting, to the first time he comes in to give her clothes and she's in that white bathrobe and says "I need you to put these on" and she says "Why? Do what you want with me" and opens and drops her robe this was, to my knowledge the first time he saw her nude and it looked like he really didn't care.

She on the other hand seemed to be very comfortable in this manner as there was really no reason to do what she did in this scene. Why would she give her abductor the benefit of seeing her nude when she had yet to know his motive for taking her?

Later, she is shown bathing and he somehow gets in her hotel room and pulls her up out of the tub and proceed to re-kidnap her by throwing her into the back of his van again and all she's seemingly wrapped in is a red blanket.

There may have been, and probably were other instances where this occured but I missed the end. My recording cut off right when she screams in the water after wading in the water with her cop friend. I assume she sees either Stanley's corpse or he comes back as they said his body was never found.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rum-Ham-Revenge 13 years ago

i wonder if the hairy bum hole was anatomically correct?

I have to return some video tapes.