He used one of those “claw” backscratchers to pet the dog.
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?
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.)
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Ivylad and I do have a new catchphrase: “emotional Heimlich.” I liked that. 
Exactly. I’m glad I’m not alone in this response.
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.
Methinks you can’t distinguish between your left and your right. 
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. 
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.
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
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?
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.