We’re not told “when” the dog incident happened were we? The narrator said that the Mother incident was back when he was 10 years old I believe, but we’re just kind of lead in to the dog incident.
It would be plausible that the Mother incident occured first, and once having learned the “rules” of his gift then Ned knowingly would have taken precautions with Diggbee. That’s how I like to think of it
I agree with you fully and truly loved this show. Wonderful writing and storytelling. A mishmash of Northern Exposure, The Dresden Files and CSI with only the best of each thrown together.

Reply to this: comment

The dog thing happened first, bu then the dog ran away.  Obviously, he didn’t return until after Ned knew not to touch him!  My question is what died when the fly came back to life?

Reply to this: comment

Yeah, the dog did definitely run away....I just have a hard time believing that it wouldn’t return to its owner for some love at SOME point. Also, if your dog came back to life...wouldn’t you run up and hug it as soon as you got home? 

Reply to this: comment

He didn’t touch the dog cos the script said not to. It’s a work of pure fiction. Not everything is required to make sense. That’s part of the fun of it.

Reply to this: comment

Lucky for me, I came in on the pilot during the dead mother sequence, so I got to see a perfect episode! Ha ha ha.

I think it’s a mistake (or at least needed to be explained immediately to not feel like a mistake), though they might try to explain it later. Someone’s bound to point it out to the writer.

Reply to this: comment

The way the story was told is that the dog was brought back first.

The script riding is not realistic enough for me. The weak explanation of Ned’s power, the dog and the fly bring brought back to life was bad; however, what really bothers me is the way too much narrating in the first couple episodes and not fading out the narrating from the series all together.

The explanation of way Ned’s powers worked totally confused me, until he was shown touching a thing twice. At first I thought it also worked on living things. I quess it was just me; guess it would make the writing even harder to have Ned’s power apply to both alive things and dead things.

Being a dog owner and someone that has just found out that dogs are a lot smarter than we all though, I can tell you there is no way a dog never touches your hand. Ned need not reach out for the dog, dogs needing attention and love (goodness knows that Diggbee would be in a huge need for touching) will touch your hand.

About the dogs running way and then coming back being not true, I can tell for sure it is true. It has happened to me and has happened to a lot of people. Dog’s smelling ability is unbelieveable and every human that is not a twin has a different smell.

The fly is another short coming, but not really that big of a deal for me.

I cannot say it enough the narrating has to go, at first I thought it was like ‘Dead Like Me’, only for getting the audience up to date with the background for the story to drive itself. But after the second episode I see the narrating is each episode’s story background.

I should also say that this is the first and only show that I have and will watch from ABC. The total right wing fabricaton that Clinton administration causing Dictator Bush’s mess in Iraq special caused me to boycott ABC; until now I have only watched FootBall on ABC and ESPN (owned by the same person who owns ABC). I so beg for the show to move to cable TV, like ‘Dead Like Me’, also gives them freedom if they wanted to make the show a little more racier.

Other than all this I really like ‘Pushing Dasies’!

Reply to this: comment

I guess I should make this known, could make for interesting messaging (even thought I will probably not have enough time) but for the reason of explaining why animals brought back by Ned never touch his hand* themselves, I think the writers will make a episode that explains it as the following.

Brought back to life animals have sense that is keen that it tells them to not touch Ned again or deep harm will come to them. I know it seems a little to far out there; however, this is a Disney (owning company of the media collection I try to avoid) fair tale show. It would have to be explained that only animals* brought back to life by Ned would have this highened sense that warns them; our we all have another problem with the script writing...**

*- But wait, the travel agent (involved luandering ancient goods <monkeys>) from the first-episode just pinched his cheeks and died. So I guess it is just touching him for the second time. **Plus, she did not know to not touch him for the second time.

Reply to this: comment

I forgot another thing is not yet explained, I am sure they will be explaining it in a future episode, ‘Diggbee’ is still alive! Think about it Ned is what 20 something or 30 something and he brought back ‘Diggbee’ when he was 10-years old (I think). Even if ‘Diggbee’ was only one-year old (human years) then he is some where between 11+-years old and 21+-years and a extermely healthy looking. I think it is 3 and 1/2 dog years for every human year (I know 7-years has been proven wrong) if i am right that makes ‘Diggbee’ some where between 38.5+-years old and 73.5+-years old.

Maybe, they will write into a future episode that Ned’s first touch will have a live span extending or live for ever qualities. It works perfectly with Ned’s first touch 60-seconds limit, transfer/balance the death to other being. If death must happen.

I was eating lunch when this just came to me, Ned is seriously found himself trapped in tough shell to crack out of. I mean think about it, *nothing living and not brought back by Ned that he touches is hurt or at least we have been told*, yet he never touches a single being*. Sure, one can say he is trying to maintain a routine/habit/conditioning so that he does not slip; however, think how much that would mess someone up. Since we have seen Ned, we all know that Ned is at least a little shy. There is nothing wrong with people like Ned, not implying that.

Reply to this: comment

My nagging question is ‘Why the hell is Chuck alive?’.  Technically(and i’m all about technicalities) when he brought her back to life at the funeral home, it was their second touch.  The kiss was their first.  Did the second touch work in reverse because she was dead?  This is driving me nuts.  But it’s all good; this is my favorite show ever .

Reply to this: comment

That is interesting; however, you are confused about how it works, just like I was during the first episode.

How it works is that he has to touch (the first time) the dead being, and forunately ‘Chuck’ was not dead. Then the second time a touch in any way is the touch of death. Plus, I wonder if his first touch has to be with his hands, I am leaning towards yes; however, I guess the only people that could answer that is the writers/creators.

Reply to this: comment

I don’t think you should spend too much time analyzing the mistakes in this show, because there are a lot: the dog, the fly, all that fruit he touches to make his pies! What’s dying? What happens when he touches a piece of meat, as in a steak, does it come back to life? No, just enjoy the quirkyness while it lasts, because I don’t think the show will.

Reply to this: comment

I’d love to see a squirming-steak sequence that establishes he has to touch meat twice before he can eat it, but that’d kind of ruin the “he learned about the power when his dog died” premise.

...Darn it, I wish the idea had less holes!

Reply to this: comment

That is getting too picky for me and yes would ruin the experience if i was concerned about it. Plus, those are extermely minor items of the show. However, now you just got me thinking about it (LOL), and since those are only parts of a formerly living whole being, I would accept the answer is his power cannot bring parts together to their original other parts to create the living being again.

Reply to this: comment

To get away from the serious and complaints on the holes in the script (I would love longers shows to fix it) here is a funny little thing I thought of watching Ned cook and Chuck cook.

It first came to me when Ned brought the strawberries back. I was, where is his gloves? I would not eat any of his food. I do not eat any food some one who is a making me food, without gloves.

Reply to this: comment

Thanks, i guess that answers my question.  PS I personally would be more bothered by eating strawberries that had been brought back from the dead than whether or not the piemaker wore gloves. 

Reply to this: comment

Why? I am guessing you would be worried about the degree of decompustion before he touched them? (sp?) Interesting I guess I would agree; however, it would a lot more likely that we would know about his not wearing gloves, unless we where ‘Chuck’ or another character in his inner group.

Reply to this: comment

I love the narrating, i think it’s creative and wonderful, also that new show gossip girl has a little narrating. It lets the writer tell you things that he usally couldn’t. So, if you don’t like the narrating, don’t watch the show.

Reply to this: comment

Gabe,

It is funny you picked this one complaint out of all the compliants on here.
I always find it strange that people that use that line of thinking assume there is verse side of the issue, like if they do take the narrating out then you could just stop watching yourself. We disagree find, no need to give your post the feel of a combative 2nd grader.
If you watched ‘The Dead Like Me’ series from the beginning, then you would understand that in the middle and on of the series (out narrating) is was not more natural and better, than the beginning of the series (with narrating).
The creators/writers should have spent more time on the writing complaints mentioned here; stead of trying fit in the narration. Simply ordering fading out and fading in to show what was happening, instead of fading out and fading in to different times of events to verbally and visually explain things the watcher does not know.

Reply to this: comment

“My nagging question is ‘Why the hell is Chuck alive?’.  Technically(and i’m all about technicalities) when he brought her back to life at the funeral home, it was their second touch.  The kiss was their first.  Did the second touch work in reverse because she was dead?  This is driving me nuts.  But it’s all good; this is my favorite show ever smile.”

SERIOUSLY, DO YOU WATCH THE SHOW?  HE TOUCHED HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE.  HE CAN TOUCH ANYONE AS MANY TIMES AS HE WANTS WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE!!!!  PAY ATTENTION TO THE SHOW… My God I feel stupider for having read this idiotic question.

BTW, For those asking… A squirrel was killed for Diggbee.  Digbee was 3 years old when he died… Ned was 9 and a half.  Ned is 28 and a half in present day, making Diggbie 22… lending creedence to Ned’s touch extending the life of someone.  Based on what’s been brought back and what else died, it looks like the power takes the lives of things similiar to what was brought back… the fruit being brought back led to the Daisies dying in Ep 3.  The Dog, leads to the squirrel.  So the Fly probably led to another insect… it was NOT his mom as the playdate happens AFTER the fly.  Diggbee runs int he direction of the house, up the hill with Ned following.  He does NOT run away… However, the not touching is an excellent question and I would bet that they answer the question later.  As for the meat, NOTICE all the things brought back to life are pretty whole.  The fruit isn’t sliced or anything.  My guess is we will see that as a rule… touching the arm of a guy who lost his arm won’t bring the arm back to life… same thing with the steak… once its slaughtered, its not succeptible to those rules. 

Jason, if ungloved food bothers you then STOP EATING AT RESTAURANTS, because NO ONE wears gloves in a kitchen.  They wash their hands, etc, but NO ONES wears gloves… this comes from a sous chef who has worked in many kitchens.

Reply to this: comment

Possibly the reason why the dog didn’t accidentally touch Ned after he came back to life and before Ned found the true extent of his power is because the dog knows he is supposed to be dead?  I think as humans, we have a tendency to be able to deal with being “alive again” because it is the ultimate goal of many religions if you follow them.  The dog seems aware throughout the show that Ned won’t touch him.

Reply to this: comment

You are way late I already told her, and a lot nice way about it. I rarely do, being vegan also limits me to fewer ones, than most people. I eat at places like SubWay that you actually see them with gloves on.
I did not remember the squirrel, thanks.
Diggbie cannot only be 22, becuase those are human years, dog have a different (faster) scale than human years. It accounts for why dogs die a lot sooner then humans, faster heart beats than humans, by rule the larger the animal the slower the heart beats the longer it lives. Of course, Humans exceed the limit, thanks to our science break throughs. Scientist has proven this, heard on National Public Radio.

I do not by that humans are awre of it, because no one he wakes up is aware of it until they tell them and do not stop Ned from touching them. Sure, the dog could grow use to Ned not touching him (develop some real problems-behavior, until Ned’s assistant comes into the Picture); however, there is no way in heck any animals does not force the issue (with at first simply rubbing and later by any means possible/bad behavior); unless at least dogs (maybe animals) have the sixth sense thing.

Reply to this: comment

Hey.
First, i would like to say Bob, they asked a question. No need to be mean. They didnt know something so they asked for help. You are supose to attack the idea or question not the person.
Before i go further, i want to say all of what i say could be wrong. I didnt see the very begining of the first episode so it could throw me off. Just correct me nicely.

From what i saw, (im not sure what this suposide (sp) kiss before she was dead thing is..) she was dead and he touched her and she came back to life. The only times i remeber them kissing is when they were in the body bags in the new car thing and once when they were in the pie making area and Chuck kissed him but first pulled some saranwrap (or type of) between them, thus in both they were not really touching skin to skin.
From that, the rule might be that if Ned brings someone back to life, he cant touch them skin to skin anywhere a secound time.
And Bob, i do know for a fact he cant touch who ever he brings back to life as many times as he wants.
I think that later on itll come out that after a certain time he can touch the now-alive-but-should-be-dead person. 
oh and im sure they do wear gloves in resturants.

Reply to this: comment

Geez Bob, Geez.
Please take a chill pill. Its a show no need to get rude.. er… ok sorry didn know that, im not a chef. 
Cheese and crackers i might of been wrong about the first one but the second one…
My gosh, wow i think you need to take your own advice because you said before and i quote “SERIOUSLY, DO YOU WATCH THE SHOW?  HE TOUCHED HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE.  HE CAN TOUCH ANYONE AS MANY TIMES AS HE WANTS WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE!!!!” and then you tell me “AND I’M NOT SURE WHY YOU ARE SAYING YOU KNOW FOR A FACT HE CAN’T TOUCH PEOPLE AS MANY TIMES AS HE WANTS AFTER FIRST TOUCHING THEM.  ANYONE WATCHING THE SHOW CAN TELL YOU HE CAN’T TOUCH THEM.” you completly contridict yourself! First you say he can touch anyone as many times and then you act as if im insane for saying that and its so obvious but you yourself didnt even notice. There is no point for you here if all your going to do is tell people how “idiotic and stupid” they are.
Bob,ill admitt i made a mistake with the gloves, but its just about gloves are gloves really that important to you?

Reply to this: comment

But thank you for catching me up to speed about the kiss.

Reply to this: comment

I think Lynette nails it in regards to the dog… the dog seems to know he should be dead.

Reply to this: comment

Well, the latest episode answered the question about ‘Diggbee’ and other animals having a magic knowledge about avoiding Ned’s second touch.

Reply to this: comment

Am I the only one who picked up on how Bob said that Chuck shouldn’t be alive because when he touched her in the funeral home it was their second touch?  That makes no sense.  He can touch people as many times as he wants when they are alive.  It’s just when they’re dead that the 2 touch only thing works.  And the funeral home touch was the first touch since she died.  Be a little nicer Bob, cause you’re the one making no sense.

Reply to this: comment

No, just I already mentioned that people alive do not count. I am just done with people with attitudes for no reason. It seems there all ways what I call ‘sickos’ that ruin every time I find a discussion on The Internet.

Reply to this: comment

Thank you Bob. I was wondering if these people were actually paying attention to the show too. When I read your first comment, it was exactly what I was thinking. I was reading the other comments, and couldn’t believe that people had so many questions when it’s not a difficult show to follow. Again, thank you for trying to straighten them out...but honestly, no matter how many times you tell a stupid person something, I guarantee they won’t remember what you said in a few days. And I’m talking from experience.

Reply to this: comment

Wow, has this place gone to hell since the last time i was here.  (sarcasm begins) Bob, thanks for your answer to my ‘idiotic’ question, i’m sure i couldn’t have continued my life without it.  It honors me that you’d take a moment of your (angry) day to enlighten me.  Obviously you are WAY more inteligent than me, mostly because i didn’t know stupider was even a word.  You were brave to use it, even though it made you sound, well, you know(stupid, in case you couldn’t figure it out).  You did realize we’re talking about a TV SHOW right?  If you get this worked up about a show, i’d hate to imagine you in real life.  Unless you just forgot to take your meds, in which case, here’s a friendly reminder.  TAKE SOME MEDS.  You’re welcome.  (sarcasm ends, but not really...) Thanks again for your answer!

Reply to this: comment

Natalie and All The Rest of Us,

Bob is a ‘Sicko’- one who thrives off of any kind of attention; but especially negative attention. The fact that the moderators of these bloggs does nothing about shows us where greedy need for comments to get advertisers steeps to. Gear Live is dredging the scum from bottom of the ponds.

I have reported him Gear Live a long time ago, maybe we should notify the advertisers on here, about how this turns us away from any advertised on?

Some times I wonder if the communication providers actually are ‘The Sicko’ communicators themselves or their friends. In the past, I have exposed several ‘Sickos’ as the communication providers’ friends.
Back to Bob, the only and affective thing we can all do is completely ignore him, let him post with out anyone EVER (One reply and we have to start over) replying to anything new he provides and any of his posts. After a few more posts he will realize he will never get what he wants, from us, and leave.

Are you with me?

The alternative is to never have him accept what we post or change to posting in a humane manner, yet he gets worse with every one of our posts. I realize with this one, he will respond in his usual manner or try to pretend he has changed to suck us in, but I had to reach out to you guys and see if we can do this.

By the way if I knew another way (Gear Life providing messaging people on here) to communicate this I surely would have.

Reply to this: comment

Sorry, for the terrible use of the english language in the previous post’s first-paragraph. The following is the corrected version and I added a little bit more. I really like the anology, what do you guys think?

Bob is a ‘Sicko’- one who thrives off of any kind of attention; but especially negative attention and will interact in communications just to receive the negative attention. The fact that the moderators of these bloggs does nothing about it, shows us their greedy need for comments to get advertisers steeps to.

Gear Live is dredging the scum from bottom of the ponds. for their fertilizer.

Reply to this: comment

wow, some of you totally don’t get it. it’s not complex. Well, maybe it is but you’re high or something.. Understood.

The loopholes that you guys talk about aren’t there. Please feel free to re-watch the episodes.

Reply to this: comment

I don’t understand why you people are getting so mad over this one comment. Bob was completely right in thinking the questions being asked were stupid. The show does a good job answering all the quesitons about ned’s powers so I would suggest listening more closely to the narrator. I have done just that and I don’t have any problems following the show.
And just one more time in case there is still confusion over this issue:
Ned can touch anyone as much as he likes when they are alive.
ONLY when they are dead will touching someone twice make them re-die. (The first touch is the one which brought them back to life)

Reply to this: comment

I can’t believe I read through all the arguments on here over how Ned’s power works.  For all the adults that are worried about my generation’s future and leading this country, I can now understand how Bush came to office AND a second term now.  It really isn’t our well being you should be concerned about anymore because I do believe we are fine.

Now, about the show.  The show is great.  It’s got a nice quirky nature, its very simplistic as far as complexity of ability goes.  This makes for a nice, relaxing, and enjoyable watch.  I’m extremely happy this show has was picked up for the rest of the season.

Now, if only we didn’t have a WGA strike things would be golden.  BUT, I do understand where the writers are coming from and support them wholeheartedly.

Reply to this: comment

I mentioned the writers and their issues and they thought my post was spam....I wonder if it will ever see the light of day?

Reply to this: comment

Justin,

What was contact information you use, maybe if we all contacted them. Plus, if you used E-Mail or Internet messaging, then possibly it was the way you contacted them, not just that you solely contacted them.

Example: I have a problem with ‘House’ show’s using reality tv in their entire season, so I wrote The ‘House’ producers a letter and now boycott ‘House.’ Even though I have yet to receive a reply, I doubt it was the only negative response and they ignored it.

By no means am I suggesting we boycott ‘Pushing Dasies’, but I am saying traditional forms of contact might work better. Of course that is if we can find the correct address.

Reply to this: comment

Please don’t write into shows Jason. With your lack of grasping them, I’m not sure you’re getting what their intentions are.

Reply to this: comment

you boycott House?  I can’t be your friend :( That is one of my ultimate favorite shows period.  Ok, I can still potentially be your friend, it just saddens me that you do not like House.

Reply to this: comment

>>I can’t believe I read through all the arguments on here over how Ned’s power works.  For all the adults that are worried about my generation’s future and leading this country, I can now understand how Bush came to office AND a second term now.  It really isn’t our well being you should be concerned about anymore because I do believe we are fine.<<

>>I can’t be your friend<<, cannot be friends with people who treat people like that; without appologizing. Only reason I responsed is because that was the only bad comments.

Reply to this: comment

>:mad: That is one of my ultimate favorite shows period.  Ok, I can still potentially be your friend, it just saddens me that you do not like House.<<

Seems like a set-up; however, it was one of my favorite shows. I cannot stand “The Reality TV BLANK” (like it is even possible to have Real People acting Real, while competiting on TV) and to take, like I said before, extremely original show and force in extremely fad into it makes it unwatchable. Heck, I gave the writers and producers of ‘House’ almost half a season to get rid of it and correct their mistake.

Reply to this: comment

Oh, and we now know a little more about Digby and how he was able to bypass young Ned’s “discovery phase.” The narrator said that when Digby came back to Ned, they both knew that Ned couldn’t touch him. Is that canine instinct at work? This, of course, still doesn’t explain how Digby is still alive, since we never established that Ned’s powers give a being eternal life.

Reply to this: comment

jah,

No insult, but we already discussed that.

Reply to this: comment

Just wabt to know if that the narrator is that of Jim Dale? If not then who?

Reply to this: comment

Who is Jim Dale?

Reply to this: comment

Jim Dale - the same man behind the Harry Potter audio books - IS the narrator for this show.
http://www.thepiemaker.com/pushing-daisies-exclusive-jim-dale-interview-pics-from-nytvf/

Reply to this: comment

Veronica Santiago,

Sorry, never listened to the audio books or read the books; thus, is there any thing else he has done? I went to the link.

What is your guys’ opinions about ‘Pushing Daisies; moving to 9:00pm?

I loved it, because then I can watch the other show I like (’il Death’). Plus, when I start up my own company ‘The GW’sFBA’s Academic Teaching and Skills Coaching’ (end at 8:30pm), I will be able to get home in time to watch it. The Internet rebroadcasting quality just is not there yet and my PC monitor is not as big or as good as my TV.

What did you guys think of the latest episode?

The reason I ask is because even though I thought it was good and I only had problem with the case/beginning. The case/the beginning was a take off of the movie ‘Nars (sp?) and The Girl’/not original.

Reply to this: comment

does chuck move away to live with her aunts or do they already live with her?

Reply to this: comment

shmomar,

The answer is in the very first-episode (you could watch on The Internet), thus do you want me to ruin it for you or are you going to watch the first-episode?
If you answer the first choice I will help you out, more.

Reply to this: comment

Had lots of laughs in seeing this show, first of all, i guess we should all be laughing at ourselves thinking about how gullible we are that we can readily believe anything that shows up on the telly.
there are some shows that are far fetched but quite realistic in the way that it is shown, eg, star trak and the whole baggage. but then again you have shows with a weak story line and one that has quite a few glaring mistakes hereand there.
i guess beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder as long as it is not a case of ‘the dead touch’.

Reply to this: comment