Actually…now that I try to remember details, didn’t he swerve just when her questions got just a little too close to the truth? Maybe he was just trying to shut her up before she hit the bullseye. I remember that the swerve came just as she asked him if he killed Dwight Dickson, and then she asked them both in her apartment later the same question.
- Slogan “Skubbe Du?”
I took that to be a reference to “Scooby Doo” - you know, the other high profile investigating team.
(Which also has 2 men, 2 girls and a digby).
“Pig Spit”
I take it one step further -
Ned’s Dad has been made alive again.
Or vice versa?
So Young Ned was in jail on suspicion of murder? I wonder how that will sort itself out.
I loved the line about barking up a tree and not seeing a kitty-cat. And my son giggled at Ned’s Magic Finger.
Damn ABC. Damn them to hell. I was watching a documentary on Cheers and that show was dead last after the first season. What would have happened if NBC had cancelled it instead of letting it get its legs?
It’s gotta be. That would make perfect sense. It turns out that Ned’s Dad isn’t a bad guy - he was just doing what was best.
Maybe instead of being a serial abandoning bastard, he’s actually being careful in the way that Ned/Chuck should be.
Almost makes you wonder if a magic trick went wrong - and that’s why he had to ditch the twins as well.
-Joe
Which means (if it’s true) that a “reverse-awakening” would have to require the SAME “magic finger”, since Ned was hugging and touching the twins with no adverse effects.
Which POSSIBLY means that the answer to Chuck & Ned’s eternal problem lies in the hands of Dear Old Dad…have Ned touch Deadgirl again, then have Dad touch her…TA-DA! Chuck and Ned can touch now!
Except for that “in proximity” thing… Damn…
Maybe Chuck’s dad would be willing to sacrifice himself for his daughter’s happiness by being in proximity! His main objection to Ned was the possibility of an inadvertent touch, right?
Okay, it’s getting pretty convoluted now!
a little hopeful news - I’m very happy, and hopeful, based on this…
Yep, that’s what I was implying. I hadn’t considered the implications for the twins, though. I do agree that it’s going to somehow be the resolution to their no-touching relationship problem. Sigh…but it’s almost too happy of an ending to hope for!
That is one of the reasons we love the show so much, is it not? 
Absolutely!
I think I heard a shout-out to Richard Donner’s Superman when Ned said “I’ve got you!” and Olive replied “You’ve got me? Who’s got you?” - the same exchange took place between Superman and Lois Lane after he caught her in mid-air.
Olive’s facial expressions after taking a drink with the Norwegians were priceless. And the look on Emerson Cod’s face when Vivian showed him the sketch of Dwight Dixon, with his shirt open, was hilarious too.
Actually I thought of Rose’s drawing in Titanic when I saw Viv’s sketch of Dwight…the hand position is the same.
Well, at least we’ll get closure. I guess that’s better than a major cliffhanger that will never be resolved coughJoan of Arcadiacough.
Of course! I caught the Superman reference but missed the Titanic one. And Dwight even had what looked like his pocket watch around his neck, a la The Heart Of The Ocean!
I suspect it IS too happy an ending to hope for.
I’ll admit that I read things differently than (apparently) everyone else in the thread.
Ned could touch the twins (insert yummy Olive joke here) because he’s not the one who brought them back. Similarly, if he wanted to, Ned’s dad could touch Chuck without Dick Van Dyke-ing her…
…but where do people get this “reverse touching” thing from? It never even occurred to me. I just figured that Ned can’t touch the people he’s brought back, because they’ll die permanently. Dad can’t touch Ned or the twins because he’s brought THEM back, and they’ll die permanently.
It never occurred to me that the two of them touching each others’ resurrectees would have any effect at all.
-Joe
Right - nor would either of them be able to bring back the formerly brought back but dead again folks.
I’m not sure anyone suggested “reverse touching”, or anything that might violate the established “touching” rules- or maybe I’m reading it wrong (I do that sometimes).
In post #26, jayjay suggested that, if Ned’s dad has the same power, then Ned could touch Chuck, killing her. Ned’s dad could then touch the now-deceased Chuck, bringing her back to life, and Ned is thereby free to touch Chuck all he wants.
In post #27, I suggested that Chuck’s dad could volunteer to be in proximity when Ned touches Chuck, satisfying the requirement that somebody die.
That all fits the established rules, doesn’t it?
ETA: Just saw simster’s post. I guess we don’t know if there’s a rule about touching someone who was previously revived then re-deaded by someone else with the same ability.
Ah, maybe I did a misreading. That one makes much more sense. I didn’t think about the end-run around the rules.
-Joe
Chuck would never agree; nor should she; nor would Ned.
Idle question: Who died when Ned brought Chuck back to life?
The corrupt grave-robbing funeral home operator, if I remember correctly.
I’m sure you’re right about whether anyone would actually agree to this plan.
When Ned touched Chuck in the funeral parlor, the evil funeral director died (he had been stealing valuables from dead people before he buried them).
ETA: Spanked by Jas09!
Wouldn’t Ned’s dad moving Dwight Dickson have re-awakened him? He might’ve worn gloves, or he even might have spent a minute and explained things, but I’d be surprised. (If the re-deadening turns out to be true)
It might be a big experiment to put any faith in, but I presume they could experiment on Digby? I can’t see Ned taking the chance of perma-killing Chuck without tangible proof that she could be re-awakened and having kept Digby around for two entire seasons would be the biggest Chekov’s Gun I know of, if that’s true.