I have enjoyed watching this show and realize that it is a fairy tale with its own rules to make it work. It struck me as I was watching the last episode that bringing people back to life does not give you the right to murder them again. If a surgeon performs a life-giving open heart surgery, he does not then have the right to execute that patient later.
I realize that there is the further complication that if Ned does not kill the person he brought to life in a minute, someone else in the vincinity will die. So maybe Ned should keep his fingers to himself, instead of murdering for money. As Ned is aware of the morality of his situation, I would think he would have more of a problem with murdering people, even if it is easy.
I also think that he and Chuck should live in different cities. I know this would ruin the show, but standing within inches of each other is going to lead to one of them stumbling and touching the other. What do you guys think?
Also it may have been covered before, but do people brought back to life age? The dog looks the same now as when Ned was a kid.
I don’t know, but that’ll probably be dealt with as the show progresses. People are going to start getting real suspicious of Chuck if she’s always…however old she is.
Also, can the people Ned brings back die again without him touching them? Are Digby, Chuck, and Pidge going to be immortal?
Oh is that what the deal is? I’ve been wondering how the show could keep from making the protagonist look like a complete psychopath. I didn’t know that someone in the vicinity had to die if he didn’t re-kill the dead person!
Also the detective is taking a huge risk by being around Ned when Ned re-animates people. If Ned misses his one minute window (and this happens a lot) the detective is likely to the life exchanged. I am not sure if Chuck is at risk because she has already been brought back from the dead.
Well, to his credit, Emerson (the detective) is painfully aware of the risk he’s taking. Once when it seemed like Ned might not make it in time, he ran like a big weenie. I guess the prospect of all that reward money keeps him going back, though.
He’s also solving the murders, and therefore bringing criminals to justice. That weighs in his favor morally. Isn’t it better to wake em’ up for a minute to solve the crime then it is to let the victim stay dead?
Ned: It’s kind of a random proximity thing.
Emerson: Bitch,* I* was in proximity!
To be fair, though, it’s only happened twice in the current time of the show - Chuck and Pidge, and only Chuck’s reanimation endangered Emerson.
As for Ned and Chuck being near each other, I’ve just decided to put it in the box with the bringing back dead people thing. It’s a conceit required for the show, and except for when they bring it up, I ignore it.
Emerson was chasing a criminal in the opening moments of the pirst show, and the guy fell off the roof, broke his neck on a dumpster behind the Pie Hole, and fell into Ned’s arms. Ned immediately touched the guy again to rekill him. Emerson saw all of this, and blackmailed Ned with exposure. Of course, the very first case they worked on was the Death of the Lonely Traveler - Charlotte “Chuck” Charles.
It’s very easy to ovethink this show, but I feel that they’ve kept a consistent internal logic, so I don’t have too much trouble suspending belief.
No, the Lonely Tourist was NOT the first case they worked on. The first case they worked on was a man attacked by a dog. Ned was able to “prove” that the dog that killed him was the rottweiler belonging to his secretary and not the family pet.
Ned had to chase the guy for several feet in order to touch and rekill him. I liked the little “I’m completely creeped out” shiver that Ned did afterwards.
Before Emerson came along with his little scheme, I think Ned did avoid bringing dead people back to life.
Didn’t they work on the dogbite-to-the-face victim before Chuck?
What wigs me about this show, which I touched on humorously in a previous thread but which actually sort of creeps me out the more that it happens, is all of the apparently immortal things roaming the Earth. Digby seems to establish that anything Ned brings back and keeps back becomes either immortal or extremely long-lived. In addition to Digby and Chuck, there are a handful of frogs, Pidge, innumerable insects (including several assless bees) and God knows what else from the animal kingdom along with immortal fruits that he baked into pies at the expense of flowers. Which doesn’t even get into the notion of the immortal bacteria he leaves in his wake every time he touches a surface. And if virus are alive, he might sneeze out clouds of immortal cold germs every winter.
Actually, the notion that he can bring back rotten fruit is just more disgusting that anything else. Is the immortal fruit digestible? Does it result in immortal poo chunks? Ew.
That’s the first case that the audience saw them working on. It was implied (in the premiere) that they’d been doing this before we joined their already in progress story. (Remember, the Pie Hole was in financial trouble. They’d done enough cases to get Ned out of those troubles.)
That is a good point AndyPolley, and does weigh in Ned’s favor, even though he is making money off of the justice. I know the show talks of Ned waking these people up and putting them back to sleep and everything seems okay. But actually Ned is saving these people’s lives, and then murdering them. I have also been amused by what good sports most of the dead people are when they are told that they will be killed again in a minute.
Yes, and Emerson has a drawer full of hand-knitted socks, into which he puts his earnings. They have worked on a number of cases, and Emerson needs a financial planner.
Chuck and Ned’s proximity bothers me too, because in addition to everything else, Chuck and or Ned wear a lot of short sleeve/sleeveless clothes. That is just asking for trouble. That is the only part of this fine fairy tale that pulls me out of suspended disbelief.
They reattached a bird’s wing with a bejeweler and it flew again and your belief is resuspended because of Chuck’s dresses? Chuck strikes me as a happy-go-lucky live-for-the-day character who consistently acts on impulse. Of course she’s going to take risks with her floofy sleeveless dresses!
