Talk:Pushing Daisies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CHUD reference[edit]

Why isn't the reference to Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers in the seventh episode of the first season mentioned? It's a reference to a horror movie. 98.71.154.156 (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60 Seconds[edit]

I think the 60 second rule has been done away with. If you watch the trailer it seems once the second touch happens your dead forever.

206.255.40.2 07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Warren[reply]

You've got the rule wrong. If the person isn't touched within 60 seconds, someone else nearby will die in their place. If the resurrected is touched again, they die.

Specialk22 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network / air date[edit]

the show is also played on the Canadian channel CTV, a day earlier, on tuesday. The real pilot premier was on CTV Tuesday October 2nd at 8pm. Why CTV shows the same episodes a day early is unclear, but it is true. —209.161.214.39 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same happened with Heroes last season on Global, and also Young and the Restless is always shown a day earlier, so its not without precedent. Anung Mwka 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention a possible influence of Pushing Daisies?[edit]

Say, would anyone else consider this show to have many tribute aspects for the film Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain? They even feature the musical piece "Guilty" by Yann Tiersen, which was who did all the music for Amélie. Also, lots of green. And that specific time thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.45.226 (talk • contribs) 2007-10-06T00:13:55

The list of concepts and visuals "borrowed" from Amelie would be a mile long. Aside from being OR, however, such a list is not for Wikipedia to collect. Robert K S 18:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is littered with request for citation and spurious claims of original research but if you can dig up an early review of Pushing Daisies you should be able to find references to back up the claims easily enough and if the reviewer mentions the resemblance in style to Amelie then you have your excuse to squeeze in a reference to that too. -- Horkana (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark comedy?[edit]

I'm not really sure, but would the show be considered "dark comedy"? just asking. Doc Strange 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consiter it a bright comedy, that's diffrent, new, yet does have a deppresing undertone that is slightly detected ever once in awhile. You know people being dead and all. yet I don't find it that "dark"... it's perfect. Well at least I LOVE LOVE LOVE it.Umm... so no, I would not say it is dark!;)

Pushing Daisies has been described as "forensic fairytale" which nice covers both the detective and fantastic elements of the show, and although it does deal with death I personally don't think of it as a dark comedy. The lighter upbeat moments wouldn't work as well without the contrast of the darker moments. There is certainly a bittersweet touch to the comedy but compared to Dead Like Me a previous creation of Bryan Fuller it is far more upbeat and optimistic so I wouldn't really describe it as dark. -- Horkana (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Like Me was upbeat and optimistic to me :) It was about embracing life to me. Anyway, I wouldn't say that PD is dark, except perhaps in Ned's dodging of responsibility on the take-place rule.--87.42.205.130 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last names[edit]

Chuck's name is "Charlotte Charles" but is Charles her last name or is it a middle name? There doesn't appear to be evidence that the Aunts share the last name "Charles". Also what is Ned's last name? 69.143.26.71 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is Charlotte Charles. Charles is her last name. Her aunts are Lily and Vivian Charles. I have looked everywhere and can't find a reference to Ned's last name. Even ABC's site just calls him Ned the Piemaker. Olive Snook 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Ned not having a last name is just one of those "things" like the way they talk fast, and conected, or how ned doesn't show alot of expresion.
I hope they're last names aren't Charles. See the very end of Season 1 for my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There names are Charles-the reason is given that their mother married Chuck's grandfather when all three were in their 20's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess charles and the sisters sharing the same last name way is purely coincidental... this is a shot in the dark, but ned's last name might start with a "B" or an "E". If the writers stick to their loveof alliteration, Dwight Dixon and Charles Charles friend could be a BB or an EE 120.28.91.91 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomic[edit]

I added a small section about the comic that features new stuff and one that recaps old episodes, but I don't have any information about who makes them, or what the release schedule for the one with original content is. Your wiki-fu is needed! 66.36.150.101 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Daisies intertitle.jpg[edit]

Image:Daisies intertitle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character pages?[edit]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason only Emerson Cod and Olive Snook have separate character pages? I'm not entirely sure they're necessary at this point, but if they have them, I'd think Ned and Charles should, too. Is it just by chance that no one's created those pages yet? VZG 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created character pages for them but somebody decided to redirect those pages to the Pushing Daisies entry. - Jasonbres 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the Chuck article. We'll wait and see what the deletionists do before reinstating Ned's. At least they should be consistent and not allow the articles on secondary characters to stand if they're going to redirect articles on the leads. In recent months, there has been a rather disturbing movement among the deletionists, who have made articles on television episodes and characters one of their primary targets. The Chuck article should certainly be improved, but a general trend on these television article redirects is an alarming lack of consistency. The targeting of television character and episode articles appears to be rather recent, and it is quite troubling. 128.138.42.218 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, wow. Now the Narrator even has a page, but still none for Ned. VZG 08:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've gotten them all now. They have been redirected because they lack real world information, per WP:FICT. Considering how new these articles are, there is little excuse to letting them go without such information. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification and keeping us updated. VZG 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice[edit]

All of the character articles and episode articles (except for the first episode) have been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misc Pushing Daisies articles. -- Ned Scott 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing Daisies - Meaning of the phrase[edit]

So obvious it has been overlooked but where should the explanation of the phrase "Pushing Daisies" as in dead, as in worm food, etc. be placed? A link to Wiktionary or as part of the introductory note as part at the top of the page. Explaining the context and not assuming too much from the reader - the expression "pushing daisies" is non-obvious to those who have English their second language - is what makes the difference between an article and encyclopedic writing. -- Horkana (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good idea. I think we should make a new sub-heading which explains the meaning. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be able to rephrase part of the introduction to include some sort of explanation. Not sure how yet. -- Horkana (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here with that question - in British English the phrase is 'Pushing up the daisies' and I was wondering if 'Pushing daisies' was the American. 86.133.55.222 (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US it's usually "pushing up daisies" but the phrase itself is relatively anachronistic. People typically only use it as a humorous euphemism, referencing a bygone era.68.175.49.98 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisyverse[edit]

I put that the series takes place in the Daisyverse. The term came from http://www.pushingdaisies-tv.com/forums in the subject called daisyverse where the fans voted on a name for the universe of Pushing Daisies. —Mugatu3333 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically http://pushingdaisies-tv.com/forums/index.php?s=e14bbaedacafb4f3a53d2c89a826911b&showtopic=1200 —Mugatu3333 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, that's not really the official name of the "universe" that the series takes place in. So I wouldn't put it there. - Jasonbres (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok you don't have to. It's a fan coined name like they say about buffyverse and whoniverse pages. It's not like it's original research.--Mugatu3333 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - it isn't encyclopaedic, and terms coined by fan sites aren't used in a context that makes them seem "official". Otherwise, Wikipedia is in effect promoting the term as a de facto standard, which is not our role. --Ckatzchatspy 05:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I checked out the link; it is a fan forum discussion, discusses several different possible names, and has no value as a verifiable reference per Wikipedia's policies. --Ckatzchatspy 05:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if we say that it is just a name used by certain fans.--Mugatu3333 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the term used on another fansite.--Baitt (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries also aired in[edit]

Airing of the first episode started on 22 January 2008 in South Africa on the Subscription based TV channel, MNet. It airs every Tuesday evening at 19:30. I didn't add this to the article for the fear of inadvertently destroying it.

This links to the MNet page on the show http://www.mnet.co.za/Mnet/shows/displayShow.asp?id=569&Type=art&ArticleId=1970

Llvanden (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is the USA considered 'normal' and the rest of the world is 'international' in this article??? —129.11.77.198 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was made in the US and aired there first. 59.146.57.26 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense99.247.244.120 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)LIII[reply]

The broadcast information may be useful for short time but most of it is terribly boring and non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tv listings guide, it really should go. I would strongly encourage people not to add to it, and am suggesting now that it be removed sooner rather than later. -- Horkana (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show has finished and the broadcast/distribution information will become increasingly irrelevant. I'm resisting the urge to delete the section for a while longer but as the article settles down to a nearly finished state I hope it can be removed soon. -- Horkana (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been getting the article up-to-date over the past few days, mainly adding references when needed and I was wondering if anyone is objecting to finally deleting the International broadcasters section? Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels with Dead Like Me[edit]

Both shows by Brian Fuller feature a girl with a guy's nickname that dies, and is brought back to life - with a catch. She then lives more fully and grows in her post-life more than she was able to in her natural one. I think both definitely qualify as dark comedy in a sort of "morbid absurdity" sense. Camus would have appreciated these shows. 97.89.103.56 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Thanatos[reply]

The fly[edit]

Stop saying that Ned's mother's death was caused by Ned's revival of a fly. Ned's mother did not die because of that, because
a.) As explained in almost every episode, but more specifically in "Pigeon", the rate of exchange for the life an animal is that of another animal, and the rate of exchange for the life of a human is that of another human, which is why Emerson didn't die when Pidge was brought back to life.
b.) It would take way more than a minute for Ned to revive the fly, go to Chuck's house, have a playdate with her, go back to his house, get cleaned up by his mother and then watch his mother kick the bucket.
In conclusion, Ned's mother actually did die of natural causes. - Jasonbres (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when someone dies because Ned doesn't "re-dead" someone else, it seems that they die with no apparent cause. They show says something about how his mother died (I can't recall at the moment exactly what). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article's "introductory" paragraph -- isn't very[edit]

could someone who knows something about the show please rewrite the intro paragraph so that it tells something about the content of the show, rather than details about people no-one gives a crap about and who they've worked with, what their bicycle colours are and so on. many thanks 85.194.245.82 (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK episode skipped[edit]

Was it ever revealed what ITV were planning on doing if the strike hadn't happened? After all, there'd have been 13 episodes too many then, not just 1. Digifiend (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITV were going to slot it in before Euro 2008 regardless, even though not a single British team will be at the European football championships :( ... --Badgernet (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're putting it on their catchup service from 31 May for either 7 or 28 days (I've not been able to get a solid answer as to which) —82.21.104.117 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of episodes ordered for second season?[edit]

Has anyone seen yet how many episodes were ordered for the second season? -Joltman (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, 13. 17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk)

Harry Potter[edit]

I love to see people drawing parallels to Torchwood and Dead Like Me. I'd also love to see some people drawing some Harry Potter parallels in this article. The most obvious of which would be Jim Dale narrating the story of a young boy who is abandoned by his parents to a boarding school where he discovers his supernatural talents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.73.45 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood[edit]

Anyone notice any similarity with Torchwood, the Dr Who spin off. That show featured a glove with the ability of revive the dead for a short period of time. —165.69.13.113 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the age restriction?[edit]

hello, i'm a 15, nearly 16 in a month, and my legal guardian, has been questioning letting me watch it, she hasnt seen it, but she is protective and caring. 

Is there any idea roughly, on the age limit? i think its great, and would love to know.

thank you (89.243.86.181 (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know the formal ratings, as I've not seen a region 2 release of it, but to be honest, I'd let my 7 year old watch it with supervision (if she liked it), and a 10 year old could watch it without. Indeed, my 15 year old cousin who can't even watch shows like Grey's Anatomy or House M.D. has watched the whole series and laughed at it. There is very little of the "nasty" stuff that a parent would worry about. Most of the death and the like in it are so stylised and surreal that a 15/16 year old would be more likely to laugh at it than be disturbed by it (as an example, in this show, a revived pigeon has lost a wing, so olive and the aunts take a wing from a stuffed parrot and attach the parrots wing to the pigeon with what (I think) was called a bejeweller, with the net result of a pigeon with a green wing and some kind of jewelled gold backpack thing. —82.21.104.117 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"She hasn't seen it", the best thing to do would be to sit down and watch an episode together. Did a quick google search and the US Rating is TV PG and the review also believes Pushing Daisies is suitable for most teenagers. If your guardian is concerned by the death or romance you can always point out how Romeo and Juliet is violent, and involves drugs and teenage suicide. There are probably things on your required reading list more shocking than Pushing Daisies (not to mention all the violence in the Bible). -- Horkana (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field Cate[edit]

Who's the guy that keeps adding Field Cate's name to the regular cast? Please stop doing that! Cate is not a regular on the show. He's a recurring cast member! That's the reason why you never see his name after Kristin Chenoweth's name in the credits under "starring". He is ALWAYS listed as either "Co-Starring" or "Guest Starring". So please stop adding his name as a regular. -- Jasonbres (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who has attempted to add my son, Field Cate, to the cast list of "Pushing Daisies," since he's gained series-regular status on the show. I was simply trying to get the facts out, for the benefit of a more accurate page. But I apologize that I was unaware of the COI policy. Thanks. Fieldspring (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless he is stated in the "starring" section at the beginning of the show, he shouldn't be listed as a main cast member. -- Loveem at 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is now... -- Fieldspring (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I guess we will see. But until then, stop changing it. -- Loveem at 19:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[redaction]

Dear Fieldspring talk:

Although you are Field's mother, and therefore should not edit his WP articles, you still may be able to help us with his articles. You may suggest appropriate improvements on the talk pages, including helpful sources so that we can verify the info before we include it. The main Field Cate article in particular is currently very bare, and could use any helpful suggestions! Perhaps you would also be allowed to add/submit images to WP, that the rest of us might choose to include in articles (getting permission to use images is an issue here, and probably something you could help with). Sorry for the stress you went through learning how things work around here...-69.87.203.60 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to everyone, but Mrs. Cate, or whoever, is correct. As of the first episode of the second season, Field Cate is listed after Jim Dale and before Ellen Greene. Saw it myself on my recording of the show. tmkeffer71 at 16:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "ausiello" :
    • [http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Exclusive-Molly-Shannon/800022512 Exclusive: Molly Shannon Is Pushing Daisies!] from the ''TV Guide'' website
    • [http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Scoop-Daisies-Trees/800026992 Scoop! Daisies, Trees Prep Season Finales - Ausiello Report | TVGuide.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 02-Oct-2008: This topic is about duplicate ref-tags (both named "ausiello"). I fixed those 2 duplicate ref-tags to use distinct names "ausiello512" and "ausiello992" (allowing "ausiello" to be used again because, already, 4 issues of the Ausiello Report had been cited as references in the article, so expect more in the future). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of cameras capture colors like that?[edit]

The main article could be improved if there were more information on the lights and cameras used in shooting the scenes. The scenes really do look like they were shot in Technicolor. The colors appear to be very brightly lit, and I can't help but speculate that computers were used in post, so the colors could be made brighter and more uniform, all the way across the scene. 198.177.25.10 (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the DVD, the color improvement is not caught on camera. It is done with computers. You know how you can adjust color with your television? That's basicaly how they do it. - Jasonbres (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So color correction through computer processing is how they did it. What kind of added time and expense did that consume? For every episode, two or three days more were spent on color correction alone? 198.177.27.32 (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. - Jasonbres (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they did it on the Computer, where else would they do it? Question was which technique did they use - and while I don't know which particular High dynamic range method they used I'm pretty sure that's the reason why the show looks like it does. 88.217.118.91 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrofit topic year headers[edit]

02-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I moved the Torchwood-topic into date order for 2008, and shortened 9 auto-signed dates. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast section[edit]

I first added the "with" and "and" to the main cast section, but another user has taken them out due to them thinking it's something to do with an agent's desire. Any comments / opinions? I think the "with" and "and" should stay, as this is how they're listed at the beginning of the show. - Loveem (talk) 20:10, 05 October 2008 (BST)

Non-standard formatting for Wikipedia's infoboxes; we use the credits as source for information, but we don't mirror their presentation. --Ckatzchatspy 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Ckatz says, "Non-standard formatting...". This is an interesting read. Matthew (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in the PR business. "With" or "and" is a matter for Hollywood, not here. Just the names, please. DarkAudit (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daeg Faerch not a celebrity?![edit]

Who in the hell would NOT consider Daeg Faerch a celebrity?

I honestly think you removed him solely because you are jealous of his hard-earned success and true, genuine talent that most of today's plastic Nickelodeon and Disney Channel actors lack severely.

I think Daeg should be added back to the list of guest stars. Also note that Daeg is the FIRST guest star on the show to play a RECURRING GUEST ROLE. That alone makes him worthy of inclusion in my book. PF4Eva (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he is NOT the first. Field Cate, Sammi Hanratty, Tina Gloss and Sy Ricahrdson were the first ones. Still, he fails to meet any notability. - Jasonbres (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never heard of Daeg Faerch, Sid Haig, Ken Foree or Danielle Harris.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern technology[edit]

Should something be mentioned that there is no modern technology, such as iPods, computers and cell phones (at least that I've seen)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.215.130 (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong, because in both the "Pie-lette" and "The Fun in Funeral", Lawrence Schatz was said to have stolen things off of dead people and sold them on the Internet. Plus a high-definition television and a Hummer are seen at Dandy Lion Worldwide Industries in "Dummy". - Jasonbres (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third season?[edit]

Is the series likely to make it to the end of the second season? Is there likely to be a third season?-69.87.203.60 (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was cancelled yesterday :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.153.11 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's premature. The official word is that there is no decision by ABC yet. It should be announced between today and the end of the year. - Jasonbres (talk)
No, it's been officially canceled for a while now. Because ABC hates good television. 69.201.159.57 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not officially cancelled[edit]

While it's true ABC has not ordered any episodes beyond the initial 13 for this season, the network is on record as saying the show is not yet officially cancelled. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/tv_nm/us_abc_2 for a current news story confirming this. - 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's as good as canceled now, the article should be converted to past-tense. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed show cancelled —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.67.78 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the conversion to past-tense should wait until the final episodes have aired in the US, they've already aired in the UK. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The article could do with a section about the genesis of the show. In this interview[1] Bryan Fuller says that the programme was originally going to be a spin-off of Dead Like Me. Count de Ville (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary[edit]

I removed the following text from the plot summary and it was re-placed. It appears to be vandalism. What is your reference? The dedication makes me think this is junk. If there is no source from the broadcast episodes it should be deleted.

"By the end of the series, Emerson's daughter returns to him, Chuck is able to reveal that she is alive to Lily and Vivian, and Olive has fallen in love and opens her own restaurant (dedicated to Macaroni and Cheese.)" HK747 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, that's what happens in the last episode. I guess it was added by someone who already saw the series finale. --Six words (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some references to episodes are due, this doesn't seem to correlate with posted episode descriptions. Also the portion regarding the dedication to M&C should be explained as it appears out of place. HK747 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "reference" you're asking for is the last episode (Kerplunk), as I already stated. Since it already aired in the UK, there is no reason to keep that information out of the article. Please stop deleting this just because you haven't seen the episode yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Six words (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the reference is the episode which has already aired in other parts of the world. And per WP:SPOILER it is allowed in the article. I'm only holding off turning this article into past-tense (since it is 100% canceled) until after it has aired in it's primary market. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting in the ending!!![edit]

I keep saying, you're all ruining it for everyone in the US of A who has not had the chance of seeing the last three episodes! - Jasonbres (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we keep saying, please see Wikipedia:Spoiler for policy reasons why your edits have been reverted. Do not delete that paragraph again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what am I supposed to do?? Not go on Wikipedia again, because that's impossible. I mean, I'm in a no-win situation. - Jasonbres (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abide by the rules of wikipedia, if you don't want to know the plot of something before you see it don't read it. Wikipedia isn't tailored around what you have and have not seen/read. Thus the Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Id still like to know, are these thing that happen on screen or just descriptions by the narrator? If they didn’t happen on screen, that description should change. And somebody please explain the direct link to Mac and Cheese, spoilers be dammedHK747 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They happen on screen. Six words (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They had plenty of warning it was canceled and had time to rework the ending to wrap up the story lines as best they could. Once you see it it will all make sense. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The narator says it and it shown on screen. Its sort of a foreshadowing of events that will come to pass. Or in Ned/Chucks case things that are happening right now. As also noted on wiki article the movie/comic would most likely deal with these events in full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifactus (talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed the paragraph too. If the Harry Potter pages could have a huge heading telling us not to post the ending of the last novel then Wikipedia could be nice enough to wait until the episode has been broadcast in the USA. That's five days from now. Saxophobia (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please see Wikipedia:Spoiler for policy reasons why your edits have been reverted. Do not delete that paragraph again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The spoiler policy has changed dramatically in the last two years. On July 22nd, 2007, when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, this was Wikipedia's spoiler guideline, in late 2007, it shifted from pro-spoiler warning to anti-spoiler warning, and by the end of the year, the guideline contained a blanket prohibition of all spoiler warnings other than the Wikipedia's general content disclaimer. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will not tamper with the page, but please answer this question. The plot summary is a generalized outline of the show with few specific references to individual episodes or plot points. Why then is it so very important to have the last five minutes of the last episode explained? Either the article should be more detailed, season by season, or it should be brief without the final episode revelation. Saxophobia (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Fuller navbox[edit]

I've added new Bryan Fuller navbox to the article. As the result, both the new navbox and the series navbox are collapsed. Is there a way to force a template to expand?

Primaler (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from[edit]

I suggest Papen County be merged here under a section Setting. The show has been canceled, the setting no longer merits its own page. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation isn't supposed to be grounds for merging, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another hand, I'd say Papen County never was notable. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1080p production format versus 720p broadcast format[edit]

I think there is an important distinction to be made between the format Pushing Daisies was shot in (high definition 1080p), and the format it was initially broadcast in in the US (720p). There is a very clear and defined difference between these two standards, and it is important to note somewhere that the Blu-ray release presents the program as originally made, not broadcast. It is insufficient to say that the Blu-ray is automatically 1080p and this note is therefore unnecessary, because a Blu-ray can be released in 720p. Therefore, with Pushing Daisies, watching the Blu-ray represents the original program as produced, whereas the broadcast was a down-scale to 720p.

As this article is a repository of information and data pertaining to Pushing Daisies, this must be noted. 2.120.230.50 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no; Wikipedia is neither a repository nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Do you have a reliable source for what you are claiming? Yves (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Ends[edit]

Would it be okay with everyone if I added a section to the article about the plotlines that were never wrapped up? Ex: Both Chuck and Ned's fathers, the pocketwatches, that sort of thing. (Komodo ninja (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

fine with me —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to Chiller March 2013[edit]

According to [2][3], The genre-themed cable channel Chiller will begin airing Pushing Daisies starting March 5. It will be the first time it's aired on TV since 2009. I don't know where this will fit in the article. PF4Eva (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleavage[edit]

C'mon! Am I the only one to notice that the shows odd visual style includes lots of cleavage displayed by the actresses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.132.219 (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Lee Pace[edit]

The link to Lee Pace doesn't link to an article about the actor

It appears the article for Lee Pace was vandalized and has since been reverted. I think that's probably what you saw. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pushing_Daisies&oldid=1199416676"