5

In the film Frequency, I can't understand how he can come from the past and shoot a bullet at the villain in the present.

12

I think you've misunderstood the scene.

In 1969, we have

  • Frank-1969 (the father)
  • Jack-1969 (the killer)

In 1999, we have

  • John-1999 (the son)
  • Jack-1999 (the killer)

In the movie, both versions of Jack attack the Sullivan home at roughly the same time. In the ensuing struggle, just as Jack-1999 is about to shoot John-1999, Frank-1969 shoots the hand off of Jack-1969.

At this point, the movie has clearly demonstrated the events of 1969 being able to affect the current state of 1999. Since Jack-1969 has now lost the hand he was holding his gun in, Jack-1999 now also loses his hand - and it shrivels up (technically, he hasn't had it in 30 years now). At this point, it is revealed that Frank-1999 is still alive, as he shoots Jack-1999.

  • But from the start of film it was told that Frank died – Sai Kiran Feb 4 '15 at 14:12
  • 4
    Yes, in the timeline prior to the events of the movie, Frank died. During the movie, John-1999 warns Frank-1969 of the fire that would have killed him. – phantom42 Feb 4 '15 at 14:14
  • But in present the movie shows both appear in same scene – Sai Kiran Feb 4 '15 at 14:15
  • 4
    Yes, after Frank-1969 has avoided being killed by a fire, and giving up smoking to avoid lung cancer. The movie shows multiple timelines being affected by the events of the movie. – phantom42 Feb 4 '15 at 14:18
  • +1 This is exactly why I hate stories that just ignore the problems of paradoxes, it leads to awkward situations that are hard to explain when people don't understand what's happened. – Pharap Feb 5 '15 at 3:30
3

There's a little "suspension of disbelief" going on, but in the past, Jack Shepard (the villain) is shot in the hand by the father and then leaves the house. In the present, Jack Shepard returns to the house and attacks the son. Jack's hand shrivels up and disappears to reflect the fact that it was shot off by the father (a little artistic license, IMO). Jack is then shot and killed by the father, since he is now alive and well thanks to the son telling him how and when he was supposed to die.

  • Is his father died in present? – Sai Kiran Feb 4 '15 at 14:01
  • 1
    Jack told his father that he was going to die in a specific fire. His father then avoided the circumstances that led to his death, so he did not die. Therefore, he was still alive at the end of the movie. It changed the whole timeline of both their lives. – Johnny Bones Feb 4 '15 at 14:06
  • 1
    Like I said, a little suspension of disbelief. It showed their timelines as being parallel, when they were actually sequential. – Johnny Bones Feb 4 '15 at 14:07
  • 1
    If you believe in time travel, imagine if anything would be different if someone contacted Hitler and told him how to avoid being killed. A LOT would change once that timeline caught up to the current timeline. Remember the very end of the movie? All those scenes flashing by? That was the timeline of what happened when the father survived, getting caught up to the current timeline. – Johnny Bones Feb 4 '15 at 14:11
  • 1
    "Jack told his father that he was going to die in a specific fire. His father then avoided the circumstances that led to his death, so he did not die." Slight technical point which doesn't really affect the answer, but.. After the son had saved the father from the fire, the son informs him that he dies of cancer some 10(?) years hence. Some time (in the movie timeline) after that, the father considers having a cigarette but instead crushes the pack and tosses it in the bin. It was that decision that allowed him to live entirely to the time that was 'the present' according to the son – Andrew Thompson Feb 4 '15 at 14:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .