Contrapuntal - What other living equivilant thing was around? The other berries were dead. Animals to plants doesn’t seem to be equivilant. So the weeds are deliberately put there to be sacrifices so Ned can revive the dead fruit.
StG
And… ? Of course he can control what dies in a somewhat closed environment in the same way we control experiments: manipulate the variables. If you put him, a dead body and one other live person in a sealed room far from anyone else, we know who’s gonna die.
Same thing with the strawberries: there’s not much else in reasonable range equivalent to small plantlife when one lives downtown in a major urban area. All of his other fruits are probably equally dead, so no good there. I don’t recall potted plants elsewhere, though if I missed them then I’m willing to wave a hand and call them fake. What else other than the daisies could be taken?
Psst. It’s a freakin’ TV SHOW. If you want to analyze something with unrealistic stories, plot inconsistencies, amazing coincidences and deus ex machinas all over the place, try Shakespeare.
Yes, I know that Chuck moved in with her aunts, and that we know nothing yet about her mom. I just found it strange to find out only now that they lived across the street from Chuck’s family. And Vivian implied with her comment to Ned about how everyone talks about how nice a man he grew up to be, and both aunt’s knowledge of his dad, that they have always lived in that neighborhood. No major problem with this, just an observation.
I was only half kidding with my description, but I believe that’s how Ned thinks of the man’s death. If he was completely at ease with his power, he would have explained to Chuck what happened, and ask her forgiveness, and try to get on with things as they are. But he feels an inordinate amount of guilt over this death, and can’t talk to anyone about it. After twenty years of living with this, I see signs that the guilt is steadily increasing, aggravated by Chuck’s resurrection.
And in two weeks, it looks like Ned and Olive get nekkid. (“Don’t tell Chuck,” she says.) Or maybe it’s just a dream of Olive’s or Ned’s.
CHuck did not move in with her Aunts - the Aunts moved in with her. I assume that enough time passed where they had the ability to observe Ned’s dad.
It was, after all, a ‘long time’ before Ned recieved his first postcard from ‘dad’ - and that was a "we’ve moved’ notice.
Still liking the show, but the narrator is getting on my nerves, especially this episode. It is overdone in my opinion and not particularly good writing.
And I am in the camp that believes Ned should tell Chuck to take a hike and go with Olive.
Ned is a serial killer. How else do you describe someone who touches living people in order to end their lives?
Another quirk of the show is that when Ned touches dead people, they come back to life as mangled as they were when they died. When he touches fruit it goes from rotten to vibrantly ripe.
How do you figure that? The people are dead, and they’re going to stay dead (after a one minute interval.) He’s using his powers to help solve crimes. To his credit, only two people have died due to his powers, Chuck’s father (because he didn’t know all the caveats with his powers) and the corrupt funeral director (because he couldn’t bear to let Chuck go.)
Did he have a right to sacrifice someone for Chuck? No. But the person who died wasn’t a saint, he was a bad person. No, he didn’t have a right to be judge and jury in the death of the funeral director, but I’ll give him a pass because a “bad” person died.
Don’t be slamming on Ned. He’s doing the best he can under the circumstances. (stern look in direction of Mikemike2)
Sorry, that is your interpretation, not mine. To me he would be a serial killer if he was bringing back others on a regular basis and letting someone else die in their place. So far he has really only brought back one person, with the knowledge of what would happen. He chose to kill for the only girl he ever loved and even there it was more of, he could not kill her, even knowing that someone else would die.
He does cut the minute dangerously close, all too often.
Jim
Something else confused me in this episode – how did JJJ end up on the roof of the Pie Hole? How did he know to go there? How did Olive and Chuck know to find him there? Why did Olive and Chuck go to the roof via an outside ladder rather than use the stairs inside?
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
Still liking the show, but the narrator is getting on my nerves, especially this episode. It is overdone in my opinion and not particularly good writing.
[QUOTE]
I really do like the show, but I was also taken out of the moment by the intrusiveness of the narrator. I am tired of being told “the facts are these” and how old someone is to the minute when they die.
As to serial killer status for Ned, I can see the other points but am not convinced. I saw an open heart surgery on TV the other day (real not drama) that went bad at the start so they killed the patient by replacing his blood with cold water and removing his heart. No brainwaves and no pulse. This was a dead person who was going to stay dead. Then the doctors intervened with a new heart and new blood about 1/2 an hour later and zapped the patient back to life. Could they later kill the patient with impunity?
Olive’s apartment (and therefore Ned’s and Chuck’s) are upstairs of the Pie Hole - One can assume that JJJ went thru the Olive’s apartment - out the window and up the ladder - he left the horseshoe outside the window, so Olive went up to look - following the same path.
My question - how big a roof is this ? where were the bees?
On Edit - actually, we don’t know how JJJ got there - he may well have taken the stairs - but he did have to leave the horse shoe by the window ‘somehow’ - and it’s not a large leap to use the ladder for that.
I really hate to get into this argument - To be a ‘killer’ one has to cause the INITIAL death - You certainly wouldn’t call an EMT that ‘revived a patient’ a killer should the patient ‘re-die’ moments later, would you?
So far, to our knowledge, Ned has only ‘caused’ 2 human death’s (and he’s apparently been pretty exclusive in his use of his powers otherwise - mostly for fruit) - the first being Chuck’s dad - we’ll excuse that one based on his new found power and his not understanding what was going on, and Chuck - well that one was a choice, and one he would make again. (But then ‘He’ did not directly cause the FD’s death either - he knew the consequences of his actions (that someone would die) but he had no direct control over it other than that.
The question hinges on whether bringing someone back to life, for any reason, then qualifies Ned as a murderer (or voluntary manslaughterer). Once he re-animates someone, then someone is going to die. The obvious answer would be to never re-animate anyone (but then we would not have a show).
Prior to Emerson learning about Ned’s curse / gift, Ned did not use his powers except on fruit. Ned, if he had any backbone, would have told Emerson to piss off (again, no show) and continued on his failing pie-making business. But he didn’t, and he feels blackmailed by Emerson (but also likes having someone he can discuss his abilities with, I think).
Well - 95% of the folks that he re-animates are truly ‘dead’ - meaning they are at the morgue or would otherwise already be dead in a way that satisfies the law - his ‘re-killing’ of them does not change that fact, since the ‘law’ never recognizes that they were ever ‘alive’ again.
Now, where they ‘trample into a crime scene’ and ‘revive’ should certianly start raising suspicions, since those folks (Pinky, The travel agent) were not yet declared ‘dead’ by any sense of the legal term.
IMHO - Ned’s power - except when he doesn’t re-touch within the guideline - does not change the status of the recently (or not so recently) deceased - ergo you cannot kill the dead.
Exactly and well said. Saving a life or creating a life does not give Ned the right to take a life. I am not referring to the situation with Chuck or Chuck’s dad. I am talking about going to the morgue and bringing someone back to life, and then believing he also has the right to kill that person.
I have heard parents yell at their kids - *“I brought you into this world and I can take you out of this world.” * I do not think that would hold up in court. 
If he allows them to live he will take a life in a deliberate act making him a killer. This is a temporary revivication, he’s not taking their life. Sheesh.
I think you need to step back, does Ned really have the right to bring someone to life in the first place?
That is an old Bill Cosby routine, and I use it quite often. Of course, it works best with the follow-up “Make another one looks just like you.”
Again, I disagree, you are applying morals and laws to a situation that they were not envisioned for. Overall he is doing good (for profit) by solving murders. I just don’t see it as murder, returning them to their state of death.
Jim