MovieChat Forums > The Parallax View (1974) Discussion > Parallax boat explosion

Parallax boat explosion

posted 10 years ago by zzzgreg
9 replies | jump to latest

How did anyone know Frady was on the boat, or for that matter the boat existed or who owned the boat to plant the bomb. The intended target escaped death for years until he met Frady. Assuming Frady was being followed by Parallax they would have had to know in advance to plant the bomb.

If Frady and was responsible for the security breach how was it public knowledge or known to his boss. His boss couldn't have known he was on the boat unless Frady kept him abreast of events, which I don't believe he was in such detail. Assuming Parallax was responsible for the explosion, why would they leak who was on the boat.

[–] shani-3 10 years ago

Also, how did Tucker get Frady's name? Frady obtained a new identity and an alias during his investigation. When Tucker kept asking who sent Frady to look for him, Frady kept saying that no one sent him. Was Frady lying? Did his editor-in-chief contact Tucker? Also, why would Frady go through the trouble of having an obit printed if he was using a different name?

One theory I've heard is that Frady was being set up by Parallax even before the senator's assassination, and they were the ones who contacted Tucker with Frady's true name.

Yeah, they're dead; they're--all messed up!

[–] zzzgreg 10 years ago

Wouldn't the obit be standard procedure, with the lack of one appearing peculiar to those who orchestrated the bombing.

Now wondering why six? (of hundreds) who attended the space needle gathering were targeted for death. The investigation was closed and the waiter/assassin was not a person-of-interest.

[–] TheTeuchter 8 years ago

Remember Lee Carter seemed to know Austin Tucker well(they were together, talking,at the time of the assassination).
Lee also mentions when she turns up to Frady's apartment that 'Austin seems to think we all saw something that day'(or something very similar).This suggests to me that they had continued to keep in touch with each other after the assassination,regardless of whether they knew each other before.
It does not seem far fetched for Lee to have mentioned being in a serious relationship with Frady(as seems to have been the case)at some point.This would make being honest to Tucker about his true identity to be absolutely in his interests-Frady wasn't just some random stranger.

[–] ccr1633 10 years ago

In my opinion this illustrates good film editing vs bad film editing. In this case it was bad editing, in that the filmmakers didn't give you any clue as to how Frady sent out the word that he was looking for Austin Tucker, or who put out that word. It could have been his news editor doing him that favor, since he probably had political connections. But the film simply didn't clue us in on this. We therefore have no way of knowing how this information may have leaked out to Parallax. Who knows, maybe Parallax was on to Frady first, and they themselves leaked the word to Tucker's people, who then took the bait.

[–] nrangerseven 10 years ago

Bad editing???? Are you kidding me???

Back in the 70s filmmakers weren't required to spell out every single little detail. Audiences back then were capable of putting things together on their own without every unnecessary scene shot. People used to go to a movie theater and actually watch the film - not sit at home distracted by phones, computers, dogs, kids, etc. taking them away from the movie. People used to be able to concentrate and pay attention. Today people are too lazy to think for themselves and can't have a conversation with a real person because they're staring at their phones. Then they blame the editing of a film rather than themselves for being to dim-witted to use their imagination. Very sad.

The people you idolize wouldn't like you.

[–] iamrandyb-16-13216 9 years ago

I should mention that "back in the 70's" I watched Parallax and thought the same thing. Now I rewatched it, thinking that maybe back then I missed something. Like maybe I was distracted because I was tripping on Purple Haze at the Drive-in, my Flower Girl's Monster Bells pulled down around her Earth shoes in the back of my Gremlin filled with Maui Wowee smoke. No, I was really paying attention today and still I saw all the flaws... man. Maybe it was just a Flash Back! After all this time, FAROUT!

[–] EmmaPopell 8 years ago

Totally agree with your sentiments regarding lazy film-watchers of the younger generation. Some of the most Classic Great films are wasted on their lack of attention-span and inability to suspend reality and their stupid gadgets for the length of a movie so they can enjoy it, and "get it" (the plot!). smh.

[–] iamrandyb-16-13216 9 years ago

That's exactly what I was thinking. I can't believe its not mentioned under "goofs" for plot holes. I never read the book maybe it's explained there. If so then it's a problem with the screenplay writer or the editor.

[–] stevekaczynski 7 years ago

Nowadays you can record a film or buy a video tape or later a DVD. This makes it a lot easier to pick the plot apart and find discrepancies. In the past, before the 1980s, you maybe had to see the film four or five times in the moviehouse during its run to notice the same goofs or plot weaknesses.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."