let me explain - no, there is to much - let me sum up.
Ned can bring the dead back to life with a touch - a second touch makes them dead again - permanently. If the person/thing that is brought back to life stays alive more than a minute (60 seconds) an ‘equivalant’ life is taken in exchange.
“Its a random proximity thing”
“Bitch, I was in proximity”
Chuck was Ned’s childhood sweatheart until her dad died, which is by no coincidence related to the “random proximity” rule stated above (where Ned brought his mother back to life for more than a minute). 20 years later Chuck dies on her first ‘real adventure’ outside of her Aunt’s house - Ned re-awakens Chuck - and decides to not retouch her. (Much to the demise of a certain ner-do-well funeral home director.)
Olive wants Ned - but Ned "digs Chuck in a way that he doesn’t dig her’.
Emerson is a PI that uses Ned’s ability to quickly (?) solve cases for the reward money. (Which is how Ned got in touch with Chuck again in the first place).
Digby - Ned’s dog that was the first benefactor of Ned’s ‘special’ gift - and a very gifted dog at that.
The Aunts - Raised Chuck after Chuck’s dad died - was once a famous swim team until a freak accident with CatLitter - now live a solitary life with many ‘odd’ behaviours.
Ned (aka the Piemaker) has a special talent. When he touches a dead thing, it comes back to life. If the formerly dead thing stays alive for longer than 1 minute, something else of equivalent value in relative proximity will die. Also, if he touches the formerly dead thing again, ever, it will revert to being dead, forever.
For instance, in Pie-lette (the pilot…get it?), we see Ned’s mother have a stroke and fall over. Ned touches her, she comes back to life. A minute passes, and Chuck’s father drops dead (and, just for the drama involved, Chuck still doesn’t know the reason her father died). That night, when Ned’s mother leans over to kiss him goodnight, the contact kills her again.
There is a relative equivalency of value involved. Frogs who get revived cause pigeons to die. A pigeon who gets revived causes a blackbird to die. A dog who gets revived causes a squirrel to die. People who get revived cause people to die.
Ned and Chuck were childhood friends. Ned had a crush on Chuck, but when her father died and his mother died, they were separated. Ned was sent to boarding school and basically abandoned by his father, and Chuck grew up a recluse with her aunts.
Ned met Emerson when Ned accidentally revived a criminal that Emerson had been chasing (Em was chasing him across rooftops and the criminal slipped and broke his neck against Ned’s dumpster, which Ned was at that same moment visiting to drop some garbage bags. The dead guy bounced off the dumpster and into Ned, causing Ned to spark him to life. Ned had to chase the guy all the way out to the street to make him go limp again. Emerson saw this and proposed a partnership.)
Their second case together involved the murder of a girl on a cruise ship, who turned out to be Chuck! Ned revived her to find out who killed her but couldn’t bring himself to devive her again. The funeral director (who was basically a graverobber) died instead. (Emerson, upon finding this out, and being told that it was a random proximity thing, says, “Bitch, I was in proximity!”) Now Chuck and Ned are reunited, but they can never touch again.
That’s the basic premise, along with Olive being madly in love with Ned, and Digby being an also-revived creature (which is why Ned won’t pet him with his own hand).
I really liked this episode too, especially that Olive doesn’t seem to hate Chuck quite so much anymore.
The one thing that bugged me, and it just bugged me a little, was that after the fatal Jock-Off, only the other jockeys seemed to care about examining the damaged saddle. Where were the race officials? Also, how did All The Gold die? I know his legs were badly broken, but they didn’t really explain why he fell after JJJ fell off him.
So, if Ned is reviving fruit, wouldn’t other perfectly good fruit, probably nearby and also waiting to be used in pies, have to die? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose?
In a recent episode, they showed that when Ned revives rotten fruit, some flowers or weeds die. He keeps them planted in nearby containers for that purpose.
Ned likes Neopolitan ice cream, and Emerson says that means he’s comfortable with polygamy, and that there’s no reason he can’t “have” Chuck and “hold” Olive…
Squeeeeeeee! In two weeks it’s sweeps, and the really cool episodes! (Not that this show hasn’t been cool before, but imagine the heights they will scale now!)
I think that’s a very definite danger to watching this show. This is not a sitcom. It’s not a drama. This is a fairy tale. It’s not about the wacky aspects of real life, or about the tragic aspects of real life. It’s not about real life at all. It’s about a world where a man can bring the dead back to life, where everything looks like a Roald Dahl story, where you pretty much expect to turn the corner and run into a Tim Burton character. Worrying about piddles is only going to ruin your enjoyment of this show.
Strictly speaking, the only ‘other’ strawberrys around are already dead, or recently revived— it does suggest that the ‘Random Proximity’ clause only applies to things that are alive (and have never been dead and then touched by Ned).
And - the Fruit that Ned revives never spoils - which is why his pies are so tasty. (one wonders what this would do in the digestive system, but…)
Fascinating. What other things in the world do I erroneously find suggestive?
When they make a point out of how he cannot control it, and then make a point out of how he can, it suggests lazy writing. At least I think it does. I’m all confused now.
I disagree that it is “Dues X” to make it work - so far it has been shown to be internally consistent with the rules as we know them - Ned knows that “something of like kind” in proximity will die - therefore he keeps ‘daisies’ (weeds by any other name) close by for his fruit refruitation.
I think he realizes (and or atleast so far has not learned how) to have any finer control - hence his being worried about the squirrel for pidg - he didn;t know there was another bird nearby - or the equivalance wasn’t there (and the proximity got wider). (which does not explain the Birds for Frogs in a prior incidient).
We’ll have to agree to disagree, because at no point have I seen this happen. They have made a point that it is a proximity thing, and an equivalency thing, which is why other plants are kept nearby. YMMV.
I said “to some extent.” If he does it because it works, which is what the poster to which I respond said, then, to some extent, he can control what dies.
There is nothing wrong with expecting internal consistency, even if the premise is a fairy tale.
Then why don’t living things which are closer, and more equivalent, die instead of ones which are farther, and less equivalent?
This “over analyzing” strawman is a bit tiresome. Was your response to me not an analysis? How is it that your explanation is proper analyzing, but when I point out its shortcomings, I’m over analyzing?
What is it called when someone posts just to share his thought that he is not thinking about it? Over postulating?
