Pushing Daisies

[Barbarian]

The show premiered Tuesday night in Canada, and I absolutely totally loved it.

The premise is very cool, and in practice comes across like Six Feet Under meets Pleasantville, with a dash of detective work thrown in for good measure.

I won't say more, because it would be too easy to spoil it for most of the board, but watch this show!

My favourite lines:
"Bitch I was in proximity!"

"Umm... it looks like your van has caught fire."

[kingpengvin]

The show premiered Tuesday night in Canada, and I absolutely totally loved it.

The premise is very cool, and in practice comes across like Six Feet Under meets Pleasantville, with a dash of detective work thrown in for good measure.

I won't say more, because it would be too easy to spoil it for most of the board, but watch this show!

My favourite lines:
"Bitch I was in proximity!"

"Umm... it looks like your van has caught fire."

Watched the last half last night. Very Burtonesque in some ways. Still, I liked it a lot. It is quirky and odd and visually quite different from most things on the air. Loved the Narrator and the odd characters and black humour worked. I even like the detective who seems to be dropped in from another series all together which actually works. I'll definitely tune in again.

[drm]

Burtonesque is precisely the word I used when I watched it.

The romance is perhaps the sweetest and most tragic thing I've seen in a long time.

I suppose I shouldn't say too much more...

[Trunk]

I'm never going to catch it because I have bowling league on Wednesday nights, but I heard an interview with the creative team yesterday.

Barry Sonnenfeld is the executive producer and has worked with the Coen brothers, and he seems to have some interesting, and well thought out ideas about directing comedy (as well as criticisms towards how other people do it).

He was cinematographer (for instance) on Raising Arizona. Big fan of old Preston Sturges movies.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001756/

He directed Men in Black, Addams Family, among other things. Enjoys black comedy.

I'd check it out if I could.

[John Mace]

I will check it out tonight. The reviewer in the SJ Merc gave it a big thumbs up. My tastes don't always align with his, but they often do.

[El_Kabong]

Yep, checking out the pilot, at least, as I'm somewhat of a Sonnenfeld fan. We'll see if I continue after that.

[Max the Immortal]

I really liked it. The vibrant colors and storybook narration mesh very well with the morbid subject matter. Perhaps the best thing I can say about the show is that it's different from anything else on the small screen. Hopefully its distinctiveness will help the show find a viewer base.

[bouv]

I missed a few minutes at the start...did it explain how he's gone twenty years without touching his own dog again? I mean, when he was a kid, I imagine it took him a while before he realized the other half of his ability. One would think he pet his dog before he had a chance to kill something he brought back.

And did it say if he can bring back someone he just killed from a second touch?

[jayjay]

I missed a few minutes at the start...did it explain how he's gone twenty years without touching his own dog again? I mean, when he was a kid, I imagine it took him a while before he realized the other half of his ability. One would think he pet his dog before he had a chance to kill something he brought back.

And did it say if he can bring back someone he just killed from a second touch?

At the beginning, they tell how he discovered his power by reviving his mother from a fatal stroke when he was 10 years old. Reviving his mother and letting it go past the 1 minute limit killed Chuck's father, though, which is why she was raised by her aunts. This is Ned's huge secret that he can't tell Chuck. Later that same night, his mother kissed him on the forehead when she tucked him into bed, and died again instantly and permanently (the narration actually said "forever").

So I'm pretty sure that a) he revived the dog well after he knew what was up with everything and b) after the second touch, they're dead forever.

[Achren]

I missed a few minutes at the start...did it explain how he's gone twenty years without touching his own dog again? I mean, when he was a kid, I imagine it took him a while before he realized the other half of his ability. One would think he pet his dog before he had a chance to kill something he brought back.

And did it say if he can bring back someone he just killed from a second touch?

Spoilered answers
When he was a boy his mom died. He brought her back to life (at the expense of Chuck's dad, though he didn't know that would happen beforehand) and then when she kissed him good night she died again. Died for good, he can't bring someone back again.

Argh, jayjay beat me to it.

[jayjay]

Incidentally, I never realized how TINY Kristen Chenoweth is!

[Achren]

I know! The contrast between those two is very striking.

I really enjoyed this show, it's a very promising premiere and I'm hoping it stays good...and stays on the air (please ABC, pretty please?)

[RealityChuck]

Oh, Chenoweth's short stature has always been pretty noticeable.

I think the show started slowly because of all the exposition for the set up, but after twenty minutes it began to find its stride.

I liked it. It's a throwback to the romanticism of the 30s and 40s (which is often a handicap these days). I'd love to see where they go with things.

[bouv]

So when they go past a minute, a random person dies to take their place? So basically the main guy (forgot his name already) killed someone else to keep Chuck alive? What about the dog and that fly we saw early on? Did two people die because they kept on living, or did another dog and fly die? And can his dog live forever, then, as long as he doesn't touch it? Same deal with Chuck?

[Evil Captor]

Ned should probably buy some gloves.

[Achren]

I don't know about the fly, but after he brings back his dog, we see a squirrel fall out of a tree. I'm guessing it's some kind of equivalency thing.

[jayjay]

So when they go past a minute, a random person dies to take their place? So basically the main guy (forgot his name already) killed someone else to keep Chuck alive?

The thieving funeral director died when Chuck's minute was up. Incidentally, this is what the PI was upset about when Chuck showed him the obituary for the funeral director. The effect is, as Ned said, "a random proximity thing." The PI said, "Bitch, I was in proximity!"

[jayjay]

Okay, another question that I wasn't sure of...is Kristen Chenoweth's character in on the secret or not? Several times, Ned and the PI were talking about it when she was around, and interjecting things into the conversation ("I used to think masturbate meant to chew your food!...I don't NOW"). They didn't seem terribly worried about her hearing them.

[LurkMeister]

At the beginning, they tell how he discovered his power by reviving his mother from a fatal stroke when he was 10 years old. Reviving his mother and letting it go past the 1 minute limit killed Chuck's father, though, which is why she was raised by her aunts. This is Ned's huge secret that he can't tell Chuck. Later that same night, his mother kissed him on the forehead when she tucked him into bed, and died again instantly and permanently (the narration actually said "forever").

So I'm pretty sure that a) he revived the dog well after he knew what was up with everything and b) after the second touch, they're dead forever.
I must have misunderstood the opening, then. I could have sworn I saw him realize his power when he revived his dead dog, then experiment with it by reviving dead flies. All of this happened before his mother had the fatal stroke.

I found the narration giving people's ages, etc. to the minute rather annoying.

[bouv]

Okay, another question that I wasn't sure of...is Kristen Chenoweth's character in on the secret or not?

I don't know if she is, but I liked that line she had:

"Does he touch you? He doesn't touch me!"

Honey, that's for a WHOLE 'nother reason. :D

And now the deal with the funeral director makes sense. I was half-watching at some points, and doing laundry at other points, so I missed some of the narration/exposition and conversations.

The people seem pretty casual about DYING and then coming back to life, though.

[jayjay]

I must have misunderstood the opening, then. I could have sworn I saw him realize his power when he revived his dead dog, then experiment with it by reviving dead flies. All of this happened before his mother had the fatal stroke.

I found the narration giving people's ages, etc. to the minute rather annoying.

Perhaps. I missed the first two minutes of the show. I could have sworn that the narrator said that reviving his mother was actually when he realized what he could do.

[Kamino Neko]

The span of time from reviving the dog and his mother keeling seems to have been about the time it took for a pie to cook, if I read the opening right.

[StGermain]

He brought back Digby the dog first, after he was hit by a semi. And the squirrel died. Then his mom swatted the fly and he brought it back (squished - eww) and we didn't see what else died. Then his mom died and he brought her back, but Chuck's dad died (he didn't know at that point what the conditions of the deal were - he was just glad his mom was alive). Then his mom kissed him and she died again, but couldn't be resurrected. He doesn't touch Digby, which the waitress said made Digby neurotic, although he has a fake skeletal hand he pets him with.

StG

[LurkMeister]

Perhaps. I missed the first two minutes of the show. I could have sworn that the narrator said that reviving his mother was actually when he realized what he could do.
I DVR'd it, so I can check later to see what the narrator said; I know there was something said about him realizing the extant of his powers, but don't recall exactly when it was said or how it was phrased.

[Only Mostly Dead]

I really wasn't giving this show too much of a shot; it looked just too gimmicky. Like it'd have no story for the sake of being really pretty and quirky.

And it was pretty, and it was quirky. But it definitely benefitted from the very bittersweet vein of the relationship to Chuck, that they will themselves to be so close, but cannot touch. It's much more of a punch than I expected.

I also enjoy seeing Chi McBride getting work.

I think this gets a DVR spot, so I can see all its glory in HD, even if I can't park in the living room for the hour.


ETA:
I forgot one major distraction during the episode:
Ellen Greene just cannot do anything without me thinking of Little Shop. And then "Somewhere That's Green" gets stuck in my head for days. Shit.

[RealityChuck]

I must have misunderstood the opening, then. I could have sworn I saw him realize his power when he revived his dead dog, then experiment with it by reviving dead flies. All of this happened before his mother had the fatal stroke. Which brings up an interesting question: did his mother die because he revived a dead fly?

But, as Newsweek used to say, "Buy the premise, buy the flick." It's not worth worrying about the details and foolish consistency.

[What Exit?]

I just watched it, I liked it.

The dog got hit by a car, he brought it back, a squirrel died and oh by the way, the dog is still alive 20 years later, a very healthy 23 year old, so there appears to be a little more to his powers than just bringing them back to life.

The Mom was brought back to life and accidentally killed before he knew how his power work.

In bringing back his Mom, Chuck's (Charlette) Dad died.


I liked the characters and the quirkiness. I hope the rest of the shows can hold this quality.

Jim

[AuntiePam]

Burtonesque -- yeah, even the music. One reviewer compared it to Amelie, and that works too.

It's so pretty and colorful. The set design in the aunts' house was luscious, and the Pie Hole is kinda neat too.

So does the power also include a truthiness component?

How cool that Chuck asked that guy if he had any last thoughts or wishes.

I teared right up when they held their own hands. Where's the "Awwww" smiley?

Edited to add -- a check of IMDB shows the Narrator as Jim Dale, who was in the Digby movie. He's also done a bunch of "Carry On" things, which I've heard of but know nothing about. And did he write the song Georgy Girl? And do a whole bunch of Broadway? He also does Harry Potter audio books.

[RandMcnally]

I can quickly see this becoming my favorite t.v. show (House is it right now).

It's so sad though. The girl he's obviously meant to be with is there, and she wants to be with him, and they can't even touch the slightest bit or else he will lose her forever.

I'm all depressed now. I'm such a woman.

[John Mace]

I DVR'd it, so I can check later to see what the narrator said; I know there was something said about him realizing the extant of his powers, but don't recall exactly when it was said or how it was phrased.
He realized he could revive the dead once he did so to his dog, but he didn't realize that someone else would die until Chuck's dad ended up pushing up daisies after he revived his mom.

I liked it. I don't know how it will stand up over time, but I liked this episode. Good choice of a narrator-- he reminds me of the narrator for "Fractured Fairy Tales" (my favorite cartoon as kid).

[Snooooopy]

I couldn't help but conjure up an evil counterpart. He would be more adept at controlling the power, able to specifically designate who was going to die if he didn't snuff the newly reanimated within the time limit.

[DrDeth]

I missed a few minutes at the start...did it explain how he's gone twenty years without touching his own dog again? I mean, when he was a kid, I imagine it took him a while before he realized the other half of his ability. One would think he pet his dog before he had a chance to kill something he brought back.


Well, the pilot also shows that they re-die if they touch him. And, sorry, his dog has to have touched him in 20 years. Hell, my cat jumps on me several times a day. Any dog I ever had has come up and put his nose on my or his head under my hand a few times a day. Sorry, this almost ruins the show for me.

Not to mention why the fuck doesn't he buy gloves! (I see Evil Captor noted this also).

I dunno, I think "Back to You"might be a better choice for this slot.

[MaxTheVool]

Well, the pilot also shows that they re-die if they touch him. And, sorry, his dog has to have touched him in 20 years. Hell, my cat jumps on me several times a day. Any dog I ever had has come up and put his nose on my or his head under my hand a few times a day. Sorry, this almost ruins the show for me.


That ruins the show for you? Weird.

Anyhow, perhaps dogs can sense his power, much the way they can sense earthquakes and smell cancer. I wish they'd put in a throwaway line to address that, but I'm also willing to totally overlook it.


I'm also NOT going to always bring a stopwatch and time the revival minute down to the second. I think doing so would NOT increase my overall enjoyment of the experience.

[ivylass]

My daughter thinks the narrator also did the Lemony Snicket audiobooks.

It was quirky, but what the hell was up with the commercials every two minutes during the last half hour? That was very distracting.

Ivylad fears it's going to be the same thing week after week...touch someone, find out who killed them, put them back under, collect reward money, lather rinse repeat. I'm hoping they can expand beyond that.

A lot of loving care went into set design...if nothing else, the person responsible should get an Emmy.

Any importance to the hometown which translates into Heart of Hearts?

[I'm No Saint]

Isn't 20+ years really old for a dog? Does getting touched by Ned give you somekind of eternal youth?

All in all, I really loved the look and feel of the show. Very Big Fishy to me. It's a great premise and for the most part, smartly written. That being said, I'd be shocked if it lasted more than two seasons. These kinds of shows just don't do well. Wonderfalls, anyone?

[phall0106]

Ned should probably buy some gloves.
That's what Hallboy said 10 minutes into it.

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

Ned should probably buy some gloves.Absolutely he should wear gloves! I really liked the show, but it was ridiculously nerve wracking for Ned and Chuck to sit so close together, when an accidental touch would kill her.

I liked Swoosie Kurt's line, "I can hold my breath a long time."

[Dewey Finn]

My daughter thinks the narrator also did the Lemony Snicket audiobooks.
The narrator is Jim Dale, who did the Harry Potter audiobooks (in the US; Stephen Fry read them in the UK). He does a good job. And I agree that it's implausible that the dog hasn't tried to touch or lick him (not to mention the dog's advanced age).

[Sean Factotum]

Incidentally, I never realized how TINY Kristen Chenoweth is!
It was incredibly noticeable in The West Wing when she was standing/walking next to Allison Janey - who is not a short woman.

As I saw it, once the minute time limit was explained, Mom died because the fly, once revived, flew away. Therefore it was out of rage and couldn't be touched again, so something/one else had to die. That would have been Ned's mom, who was the closet living being to Ned. Then, after Mom was alive for more than a minute, the next closet living being was Chuck's dad (Chuck had headed into the house before then.)

I like this show. True, as stated above, it'll be hard to maintain fresh story lines for more than a season or two, but I'll take it for now.

And Sonnenfeld also had something to do with the live action The Tick (producer? not looking it up right now.) There's the same feel to both of these shows.

[WhyNot]

I wish I still had it on my DVR, 'cause I'm pretty sure there was a moment devoted to the dog's uncanny age. Not an explanation, because I don't think the characters understand it any more than we do, but somewhere near the end, Chuck did say something about the dog - maybe she asked if it was the same dog, or something? And there was a silent moment of "ah." where it seemed (to me, anyway), that everyone suddenly "got" that there was some sort of extended youth or immortality thing that probably applied to Chuck, too.

Which would be really interesting, perhaps in flash-forwards. What happens when, after a lifetime of loving one another from inches away, he gets old and she doesn't? It's like a Rogue vampire story...

[Lightnin']

These kinds of shows just don't do well. Wonderfalls, anyone?

That's the show I most compare it to. Hopefully it'll last longer, though- Pushing Daisies has to be my favorite new show.

[Dinsdale]

I also will be watching for at least a few eps. Clever dialogue, appealing and interesting characters, the beginning of apparent chemistry between them, an offbeat sense of humor, and sets/filming unlike anything else on TV. Adds up to a winner in my book.

I agree, they could lose the narrator's recitation of ages down to the second. And I'll suspend belief to accept that he and the dog haven't touched (Hell, if I'm gonna believe he can bring people back from the dead, I can accept a little more.) But I also would like an explanation of whether his resucitation means no subsequent aging. Is Chuck going to stay the same age forever?

Another small nit to pick, the dog-chewed guy came back with a big chunk of his face missing. The way the dog got smashed by the truck, wouldn't he have been a little messy roming around later?

Interested in knowing what they will do with his reanimation of non-animals. They said something like he was so successful as a baker because his touch made ingredients fresh and healthy. I wonder how that will be developed.

[Slacker]

I thought it was pretty good, and will watch next week. Add me to the growing list of people who didn't find the narration of everyone's precise ages charming. Love the visuals, though.

[ivylass]

Interested in knowing what they will do with his reanimation of non-animals. They said something like he was so successful as a baker because his touch made ingredients fresh and healthy. I wonder how that will be developed.

And if that's the case, and I assume he's using fresh ingredients in his pies by letting them go past the minute window, what/who else is dying so he can use fresh peaches/blueberries/strawberries?

[What Exit?]

And if that's the case, and I assume he's using fresh ingredients in his pies by letting them go past the minute window, what/who else is dying so he can use fresh peaches/blueberries/strawberries?
They showed him bringing a rotten strawberry back to ripeness. I don't think anyone or anything dies for this ability.

Jim

[jayjay]

And if that's the case, and I assume he's using fresh ingredients in his pies by letting them go past the minute window, what/who else is dying so he can use fresh peaches/blueberries/strawberries?

Maybe he's killing a square foot of kudzu somewhere in the world every time he revives a strawberry.

Go, Ned, Go!

[Tupug Anachi]

I really liked it. The high-def was awesome. Ivylass, I wondered why I got a Lemony Snicket feel from it. Loved the aunts!

[RumMunkey]

I loved it! Brilliant.

I thought the narrator's dialogue had a very Douglas Adams-like quality to it and the narrator delivered it with an almost Dr. Seussian sing-song quality. I kept expecting him to rhyme.

I'll watch this for several more weeks.

[AuntiePam]

Chuck's suggestion about asking revived people if they had any last thoughts or messages might help them mix up the story lines a bit.

About the dog not being messed up? Could be the truck didn't run over him but just hit him and sent him flying, maybe breaking his neck. I've seen dogs and cats hit by cars that were dead but had no marks on them, not even any blood. Well, not dogS and catS but one dog and one cat.

[ivylass]

They showed him bringing a rotten strawberry back to ripeness. I don't think anyone or anything dies for this ability.

Jim

He's not Linderman, he doesn't have healing powers. He can bring something back for free for a minute, and longer if he's willing to let something else die.

Or maybe that doesn't apply to plants, just people, animals, and insects?

[Trion]

I wish I still had it on my DVR, 'cause I'm pretty sure there was a moment devoted to the dog's uncanny age. Not an explanation, because I don't think the characters understand it any more than we do, but somewhere near the end, Chuck did say something about the dog - maybe she asked if it was the same dog, or something? And there was a silent moment of "ah." where it seemed (to me, anyway), that everyone suddenly "got" that there was some sort of extended youth or immortality thing that probably applied to Chuck, too.


That's how I understood things too. Which made the idea of Chuck being burried alive all the creepier.

[StGermain]

Gloves might not help. When the dog was resurrected and was running by his side, it showed a line of daisies coming to life as he passed through the field. He was wearing long pants and shoes, I believe. So he might be able to do it through cloth.

StG

[What Exit?]

He's not Linderman, he doesn't have healing powers. He can bring something back for free for a minute, and longer if he's willing to let something else die.

Or maybe that doesn't apply to plants, just people, animals, and insects?
That is my Wag, he gets plants for free. Technically, even after he freshen the fruit and then touches them again, it would not immediately go back to rot. So, that might be another way to avoid it.

Jim

[Obligate Carnivore]

That is my Wag, he gets plants for free. Technically, even after he freshen the fruit and then touches them again, it would not immediately go back to rot. So, that might be another way to avoid it.

Jim

Actually it says it works as long as he doesn't touch the fruit again. So it implies if he touches it, it rots again.

But honestly....I didn't like it. About 30 minutes through my mom and I were bored to tears. The premise looked promising and we were looking forward to it. But sorely disappointed. I don't know what it was I didn't like. We only laughed once, were constantly looking at the time and just plain disappointed.

[DrDeth]

I
As I saw it, once the minute time limit was explained, Mom died because the fly, once revived, flew away. Therefore it was out of rage and couldn't be touched again, so something/one else had to die. That would have been Ned's mom, who was the closet living being to Ned. Then, after Mom was alive for more than a minute, the next closet living being was Chuck's dad (Chuck had headed into the house before then.)

I don't think so. I appears to some that some sort of equivilency is killed. A squirrel for a dog. Otherwise Ned could get around this by carrying a jar of fruitflys. He raises a human, and in the immediate area there are 1000 flies, 100o other bugs and one human. The human has a pretty good chance.

But too many damn holes.

[yellowval]

My husband and I gave this show a shot last night and we both enjoyed it. I definitely think we'll keep tuning in. The story was interesting enough but I think it was the visuals that really pulled us in. They really were amazing.

I just hope ABC gives it more than three episodes before it decides to cancel it. Honestly, I'm almost afraid to start watching new shows anymore for fear that I'll really like them and they'll get canceled immediately.

[StGermain]

yellowval - I Tivo most shows until they've been renewed. The disappointment of falling in love with a show and loosing it are all too real.

StG

[Askia]

Crossover Idea: Ned revives a mysteriously killed Jessica Fletcher, of Murder, She Wrote.

[alphaboi867]

Actually it says it works as long as he doesn't touch the fruit again. So it implies if he touches it, it rots again...

I'm not a baker, but wouldn't it be very hard to bake pies while only touching the fruit once? :dubious: And what about the flour does that come alive too? Does the person/animal/plant he touchs need to be whole? Could he touch a severed head and it return to life (possibly forever :eek: )?

[AuntiePam]

I'm not a baker, but wouldn't it be very hard to bake pies while only touching the fruit once?

Well, maybe he touches it once to freshen it and then uses a spoon or something.

We really need to see Ned experiment with gloves. Otherwise everyone yelling at their TV sets is gonna get pretty loud.

[vivalostwages]

I love The Pie Hole name.

The characters are sweetly and sadly appealing, like the premise. The production design and visual effects/colors are also pretty good.

Looks like someone actually knows what they're doing. I hope the show lasts.

[wonderlust]

I loved Edward Scissorhands, The Truman Show, Six Feet Under, Dead Like Me.

I wanted to like this, I expected to like this, and I did like parts of it: the humor was good, the quirkiness, irreverance and all that appeals to me. But halfway through I began to find the narration tediously irritating, the cleverness overly self-conscious (aren't I clever!), and the rapidly-paced word plays too frequent (aren't I clever!). It reminded me of the Harry Potter cartoonishness, British-accent and all, and the effort to follow suit bothered me.

Didn't this stuff bother anyone else? I barely made it through the episode. I'm not usually one to be ultra-critical, but this one just tried too hard.

[Menocchio]

Loved it. LOVED IT. Want to give everyone involved a big hug. Cute characters, good cast chemistry, good dialog, and a cute premise. Far and away my favorite new show of the season.

You know what I really loved about this? Chuck and Ned do everything but explicitly confess their feelings for each other, and Ned is upfront about why he can't touch Chuck. And their relationship is thus tragic but free from the angst and false drama so many lesser shows give us by not having the characters just talk to one another.

I don't really care how it is that Digby never jumped on Ned and thus expired, or how it would be a good idea for Ned to wear gloves and long sleeves around Chuck. That's not really the kind of show this is. This isn't Lost or Heroes where the point is exploring the details of weird powers and phenomena, it's more about the characters and the emotions and pretty colors and stuff. It's a fairy tale.

It won it's timeslot last night, so let's hope it sticks around.

[Typo Negative]

Burtonesque is precisely the word I used when I watched it.

Exactly.

I loved it. It was stylish and quirky. Great use of color and the dialouge was good.

But I kept thinking that the boy must be nuts not jump on Kristen Chenoweth.

I'll keep watching.

Which, of course, means it will cancelled after 13 episodes.

[jayjay]

Which, of course, means it will cancelled after 13 episodes.

Optimist.

[supervenusfreak]

Optimist.


Shards, dear man. shards...

[Mr. Excellent]

Man, this was great stuff. I normally like my television a lot darker than this - Battlestar Galactica's my favorite show. But this show makes me *happy*, damnit. Yes, there are huge implausible and silly bits - they're meant to be. But you can't watch this show without a big damn grin on your face - it reminded me a lot of the "Stardust" movie, in that way. And good Ford, the women are hot. One cannot argue with that.

I'm hoping these guys get a long, successful run.

[singular1]

WOW! What a beautiful show! Really makes me glad I invested in Hi-Def. I'm another one that doesn't care about the holes - it's just a great ride.

By the way, it's no accident that this brings to mind Wonderfalls. One of the exec producers was EP on Wonderfalls, as well as Dead Like Me. I just hope ABC is a little more generous with finding an audience that Fox was.

cancelling Wonderfalls after 3 freakin' 'sodes, fer crissakes......... :mad:

[WhyNot]

By the way, it's no accident that this brings to mind Wonderfalls. One of the exec producers was EP on Wonderfalls, as well as Dead Like Me.
Well, and of course the star was an actor on Wonderfalls...


(Yeah, the brother - the atheist divinity major. Didn't recognize him with a haircut, didja?)

[singular1]

Hey, you're right! No, I didn't recognize him, although he did look naggingly familiar.

By the way, why won't he touch Chenowith? I didn't get the impression she had died and been reincarnated. He can't find her repulsive, can he? That'd be like not liking puppies!

[WhyNot]

By the way, why won't he touch Chenowith? I didn't get the impression she had died and been reincarnated. He can't find her repulsive, can he? That'd be like not liking puppies!
I wondered that, too. Frankly, I'd be a little turned off by her, uh, vehemence, but I don't think that's it. I think they're trying to emphasize that Ned's chosen to avoid all personal connection by making it very literal. He won't touch anyone romantically or sexually. What if, after all, he were to have a fully sexual and fufilling relationship with someone, and s/he died? He'd have to chose whether or not to leave her dead or kill someone else! And, of course, that's exactly what happen with Chuck - although they weren't physically intimate, he loves her, and had to chose between her and someone else. Of course, the someone else turned out to be A Bad Guy, which was fortunate. But next time it might be someone ELSE Ned cares about.

Nope, best to keep everyone at an emotional and literal distance. If you don't love, you can't be hurt, or hurt anyone else.

Ow. I feel like I've been beaten over the head with the Metaphor Stick.

[Tristan]

My wife started gently crying when she realized that Chuck had died. She realized right away what that meant, and then she got mad when I told her they had figured out a way to prevent the Moonlighting problem.

good show, it'll be DVR'd so I can watch it.

(sadly, I don't expect it to last either. but it'll be fun while it's on)

[RealityChuck]

Which, of course, means it will cancelled after 13 episodes.Well, since it won its timeslot, and is the third-highest rated new show premier this season, it may survive. The big test is next week -- will it hold its ratings or will they drop?

[Slacker]

Well, since it won its timeslot, and is the third-highest rated new show premier this season, it may survive. The big test is next week -- will it hold its ratings or will they drop?
What was 1 and 2?

[RealityChuck]

Bionic Woman and Private Practice. Since both were pre-sold (one a remake of a well-known name and the other a spinoff from a popular show), they had an advantage.

The article is here. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/10/04/wednesday-ratings-pushing-daisies-is-highest-rated-debut-at-8pm/)

[jsc1953]

Liked it a lot.

I'm sure it's Deeply Meaningful, but what was with the duplication of names? Charlotte Charles....Boutique Travel Travel Boutique...Darling Mermaid Darlings.

[Eleanor of Aquitaine]

Liked it a lot.

I'm sure it's Deeply Meaningful, but what was with the duplication of names? Charlotte Charles....Boutique Travel Travel Boutique...Darling Mermaid Darlings.Don't forget the town's name of Coeur d'Coeurs (Heart of Hearts).

[dropzone]

He can't find her repulsive, can he? That'd be like not liking puppies!Maybe his libido has one of those "You must be this tall to ride Ned" signs. I knew a woman who I didn't realize was very pretty until I saw her in heels, not because I have a high heel fetish (one of the few I don't have) but because they made her tall enough.

But really, it's the emotional distance thing WhyNot and the narrator mentioned.

[Only Mostly Dead]

Liked it a lot.

I'm sure it's Deeply Meaningful, but what was with the duplication of names? Charlotte Charles....Boutique Travel Travel Boutique...Darling Mermaid Darlings.
Another example is the name of the town, Couer d'Couers (http://pushingdaisies.wikia.com/wiki/Couer_d%27Couers), which translates (putting aside a spelling error) into "Heart of Hearts."

I don't think it's so much Deeply Meaningful as it is an easy opportunity to foster the fairytale atmosphere via the naming conventions.

[h.sapiens]

I really liked it, and I'm glad it did well in the ratings. The similarities to "Wonderfalls" had me worried. To be honest, I'm still worried, because this is just the type of show that could lose half its audience in the second week. Maybe just too quirky for most people. But I think the lead actors are charming and charismatic, and it looks so great, and the writing is clever—it could hang on.

And how do you not love a show about a guy who bakes pies for a living, and the place he works is called "The Pie Hole" and the roof looks like a giant pie crust with a neon sign?

I also noticed that Ned walks around a lot of the time with his hands jammed into his pockets. Part of his thing of not really liking to touch people.

[Katriona]

I missed a few minutes at the start...did it explain how he's gone twenty years without touching his own dog again? I mean, when he was a kid, I imagine it took him a while before he realized the other half of his ability. One would think he pet his dog before he had a chance to kill something he brought back.

And did it say if he can bring back someone he just killed from a second touch?

He used one of those "claw" backscratchers to pet the dog.

[jsc1953]

I forgot to mention the cutest, most adorable thing about this show: the name of this episode.

Pie-lette.

Pie-lette. Pilot. Pilot episode.

Geddit?

[dropzone]

Cute? Yes. Adorable? Sure. "Kristen Chenoweth" level of cute and adorable? Not even close. (I was attracted to her LONG before I knew how petite she is. Height fetishes, or, in my case, prefering taller women, are flexible--I dated a woman who was 4'-11" and claimed she was "one inch too tall to be a 'dwarf'" and had no problem with her height, though walking with my hand down the back of her pants was awkward.)

[SmartAleq]

There actually was a throwaway line to explain the longevity of the dog--when Chenoweth was taking Ned to task because he doesn't touch his dog and says it's making him neurotic, he turns and looks down at the dog and asks "So, do you want me to touch you?" and the dog visibly recoils and gives out with this little whine--in my head I heard a Scooby-Doo "ruh-ro!" The dog knows what's good for him! I laughed until tears squirted out me eyes!

Great show, really dug it. The narrator really does do the most uncanny Edward Everett Horton impression possible.

[HazelNutCoffee]

I just saw the re-run tonight. It looked pretty cool. Only problem is that it's usually on when America's Next Top Model is on, which is something my roommate absolutely must watch. :dubious:

[sturmhauke]

Sometimes it takes a ridiculous premise to create something that really moves you. This show is a modern take on the tragic love story. I'm a sucker for a good tragic love story.

[enigm4tic]

The show was recommended to me earlier today by a friend, and I watched it and really thought that the cheesy throwaway comedy actually really helped it out...

It's so... I guess like was said above, "fairy tale" plus a good dose of self-aware humour
("It's like those half heart pendants.... but with monkeys!!!" who hasn't said something like that before?) I'll definately watch the next episode, but Heroes is still my favorite.

[The Controvert]

I enjoyed it. Liked the Pie Hole.

The life odometer countdown bothered me because there's never any zero hours or minutes. Like the writer believes random numbers sound more random when there's no repeats or zeros.

The eyepatch was on the wrong side for Chuck not to be seen. Otherwise, a clever plot point.

I liked the repeating wordplay. I really hope the show reveals what the characters do with all the newfound wealth and reward monies.

[Sir Prize]

It’s available online if there is another show you have to watch for at the same time.

I enjoyed it although the same things bothered me about not wearing gloves and how close Chuck stayed to Ned especially in the car. After finding out about the proximity situation, would you ever stand next to Ned in morgue when he is planning to revive someone? He spent at least 45 seconds talking to Chuck after reviving that last guy.

[Baldwin]

I thought the narrator's dialogue had a very Douglas Adams-like quality to it and the narrator delivered it with an almost Dr. Seussian sing-song quality. I kept expecting him to rhyme.Thanks for nailing what I hated about the narration (that and the stupid "precise age" thing).

I've never seen a show try so hard to force me to like it. It's embarrassing.

Not that it really matters, but the multiple-murder case didn't make any sense. The lady who ran the travel agency was working with somebody who was willing to commit murder in order to get two small golden monkeys into the country. She enticed Chuck into being a monkey mule, and then the confederate murders Chuck -- on the cruise ship. So why use Chuck at all? Why didn't the smiley-face-bag strangler just go get the monkeys himself and bring them back?

Definitely reminiscent of Tim Burton's movies -- great art direction, but a sloppy script, and an absolute lack of subtlety. I do like Chi McBride, though; he's always watchable, and his character is like a link to the real world. (Though, as with most stories involving a private dick working on a murder case, one has to wonder what the hell the police are doing with their time. Not really a tough case to crack.)

[ivylass]

Ivylad and I do have a new catchphrase: "emotional Heimlich." I liked that. :)

[wonderlust]

I've never seen a show try so hard to force me to like it. It's embarrassing.Exactly. I'm glad I'm not alone in this response.

[alphaboi867]

When he revives someone does he heal them as well? The guy whose secretary sicked her dog on him still had wounds on his face, but Chuck seems fine. As a corpse prepared for burial she should've been full of embalming fluid, and as a murder victim she'd have been autopsied. And her dress would've been slit up the back.

[Barbarian]

The eyepatch was on the wrong side for Chuck not to be seen. Otherwise, a clever plot point.

Methinks you can't distinguish between your left and your right. ;)

[Archergal]

My favorite line was the one that went something like "I've been ruminating, as in thinking a lot, not as in chewing my cud."

Because I actually think like that too. :D

[sturmhauke]

I've never seen a show try so hard to force me to like it. It's embarrassing.
I didn't see it like that at all. There's so much crap on TV that's just like all the other crap, and it all blends together into a steaming pile. Now, if you think this show is still crap, you're entitled to that opinion, but you can't deny that it's at least a different variety of crap. I think the networks should take more risks than they do.

[B. Serum]

I just thought I'd chime in here and mention that my girlfriend's ex-roommate is casting director for the show.

That's all I got...

[Only Mostly Dead]

I just thought I'd chime in here and mention that my girlfriend's ex-roommate is casting director for the show.

That's all I got...
So that makes you, like, the show's uncle once removed or something?


I never was good with genealogy ;)

[RealityChuck]

When he revives someone does he heal them as well? The guy whose secretary sicked her dog on him still had wounds on his face, but Chuck seems fine. As a corpse prepared for burial she should've been full of embalming fluid, and as a murder victim she'd have been autopsied. And her dress would've been slit up the back.This is a show about a guy who brings the dead back to life.

Why are you willing to accept that, and then nitpick trivial details?

If you're not willing to suspend your disbelief for this, that's one thing. But if you're willing to accept a major concept that's inherently unrealistic why nitpick over minor details that have no bearing on the story?

[Baldwin]

The eyepatch was on the wrong side for Chuck not to be seen. Otherwise, a clever plot point.
Methinks you can't distinguish between your left and your right. ;)No, The Controvert is correct. Aunt Lily was missing her right eye, but had a good left eye. Yet they made a point of showing, with camera movement, that Aunt Lily could see Chuck with her left eye, but (because of a doorframe in the way) would not have been able to see Chuck with her right eye, the one she didn't have -- even while the annoying narration told us that she couldn't see Chuck because she didn't have two good eyes. So the contradiction between what we're told and what we're clearly shown is either an inexplicably stupid mistake, or somehow supposed to be clever.

[Baldwin]

This is a show about a guy who brings the dead back to life.

Why are you willing to accept that, and then nitpick trivial details?

If you're not willing to suspend your disbelief for this, that's one thing. But if you're willing to accept a major concept that's inherently unrealistic why nitpick over minor details that have no bearing on the story?You're creating a false choice (and I think it's not the first time we went down this road). A fantastical premise is fine -- but it's not a good excuse for ignoring all questions of logic.

[amarinth]

The lead reminded me of John Cusack, which (for me) is a good thing.

I did keep expecting Aunt Audrey I to break out into "Somewhere That's Green" (especially since the style of the show is very much like the style of that segment of the movie)

I think I liked it. I'll need to see more, of it, but I think I liked it.

[meow meow]

The lead reminded me of John Cusack, which (for me) is a good thing.

Me too. Chuck reminds me a little of the actress that played Trillian in the movie version of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.

And, there was a scene that mentions the immortality factor. It's when Chuck sees Digby again. "Is that the SAME dog? " Then the Pie Maker makes some remark about how there are only the two of them that he's "touched" and not touched again.

My husband has been calling me Chuck for years. It was funny to us to see another "girl named Chuck."

[RandMcnally]

Me too. Chuck reminds me a little of the actress that played Trillian in the movie version of The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.


You're thinking of Zoey Deschanel. I thought the exact same thing.

[WhyNot]

No, The Controvert is correct. Aunt Lily was missing her right eye, but had a good left eye. Yet they made a point of showing, with camera movement, that Aunt Lily could see Chuck with her left eye, but (because of a doorframe in the way) would not have been able to see Chuck with her right eye, the one she didn't have -- even while the annoying narration told us that she couldn't see Chuck because she didn't have two good eyes. So the contradiction between what we're told and what we're clearly shown is either an inexplicably stupid mistake, or somehow supposed to be clever.
So...how is that wrong? I'm sitting here winking at my doorway, and with my right eye closed, I can't see what's further to the right, just where Chuck was in relation to Aunt Lily.

[MilTan]

So...how is that wrong? I'm sitting here winking at my doorway, and with my right eye closed, I can't see what's further to the right, just where Chuck was in relation to Aunt Lily.

That's true when you don't take into account occlusion, but not the case when you do. Try standing at the right edge of a doorway. If you close your left eye, you can only see stuff to the far left of the doorway (since the wall will block everything else). If you close your right eye, your left eye will be able to see further to the right for things past the doorway.

[sturmhauke]

So...how is that wrong? I'm sitting here winking at my doorway, and with my right eye closed, I can't see what's further to the right, just where Chuck was in relation to Aunt Lily.
Close your left eye. Hold a sheet of paper or something halfway between your face and the computer monitor so that it blocks the right half of the screen. Now, without moving the paper, open your left eye and close your right eye. You should now be able to see more of the screen than before.

[Baldwin]

So...how is that wrong? I'm sitting here winking at my doorway, and with my right eye closed, I can't see what's further to the right, just where Chuck was in relation to Aunt Lily.But you can see further 'round the door to the right with your left eye than with your right; if you could just see somebody to the right, past the doorway, with your left eye, the person might well be invisible to your right eye. On the show, they even demonstrated this by moving the camera slightly to the right, showing how from that position (the position of what would have been Aunt Lily's right eye, had she possessed one), she could not have seen Chuck. If she had possessed a right eye, and been missing a left eye, it would have made sense that her infirmity prevented her from seeing her surprisingly alive niece (as the irritation narration claimed); as it was, it made no sense. If they had either had the eyepatch on the other eye, or blocked the scene differently, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Barbarian]

One day I'll start a thread called "Ask the guy with blind spots in his right eye what he sees."

Until then, let me say that the camera motion used in the show was correct. It went from what a person with normal binocular vision would see to what a person with only a good left eye would see.

[Lightnin']

If they had either had the eyepatch on the other eye, or blocked the scene differently, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Agreed. I've got amblyopia (lazy eye) in my right eye (I'm effectively blind in that eye), and my wife is completely blind in her right eye (morning glory syndrome- she doesn't even have an optic nerve in that eye). When they showed that scene, we looked at each other and said, at the same time, "Wait... that's not right."

A shame, 'cause otherwise the show was damn near perfect.

[Baldwin]

One day I'll start a thread called "Ask the guy with blind spots in his right eye what he sees."

Until then, let me say that the camera motion used in the show was correct. It went from what a person with normal binocular vision would see to what a person with only a good left eye would see.No, it did not. Change the word "left" to "right" and you'll have it.

[Baldwin]

I just took a look at my tape to make sure I was still right. Yep.

Something else, though -- I'm actually starting to warm up to the show. If they ditch that stupid narration, I'm in. (For instance, right at the end, when Ned and Chuck were each holding their own hand -- that would have been a nice moment if it weren't for the goddamn narrator making sure I didn't miss it.)

[Barbarian]

Looks like Lightnin' and me will have to throw down. I still say the camera pan matches my vision loss, with my less-than-fully-functional right eye.

[Baldwin]

Looks like Lightnin' and me will have to throw down. I still say the camera pan matches my vision loss, with my less-than-fully-functional right eye.Well, I'm sorry, but the camera is dollied a few inches to the right. That would show the effect of a nonfunctional left eye. If Aunt Lily had had two good eyes, she still would not have been able to see Chuck with her right eye, because Chuck would have been occluded by a wall. However, she would have been able to see Chuck with her perfectly good left eye.

Of all the things to be arguing about. Still, it's odd that they made such an obvious error.