#or in9 in general

[bluvlet]

father to father.

(additional art under the cut)

[sleepysuburb]

george cold comfort is endlessly fascinating to me. I'm drawn in by his loser jumpers and stubble and floppy hair. his tendency to mimic the voice of a suicidal teenage girl and get his new employee to sing him take that over the phone as he pretends to overdose and die in some form of twisted psychosexual pseudo-therapeutic vindication. his little furrowed brow:3

[moomin279]

Steven James Pemberton the only man i could find attractive shitting in a shoebox

[stealerofthe2ndbraincell]

I think the funniest thing to me about The Understudy is why the misdirection involved (to me at least) works so well.

It makes such a show of the story it's "retelling" that you really don't notice how different it is until the very end.

(this is a long, tired ramble btw. Underrated episode <3)

A major aspect of Macbeth is how, despite the obvious involvement and influence of the Witches and Lady Macbeth, he is ultimately the one who makes the decision to kill Duncan and continue to act and kill afterwards. He made the active choice to murder.

The Understudy originally presents itself as a "retelling" (?) of the Shakespearean Macbeth story through through a theatre group performing that very play. Jim, as the understudy to Tony's Macbeth, is meant to embody the Macbeth to Tony's King Duncan. Jim even appears to have similar visions/hallucinations throughout (I don't know what to really call those). His fiancée and fellow understudy Laura takes the role of Lady Macbeth (both literally and figuratively).

However, our Jim, unlike Macbeth, never makes that act. He remains pretty passive throughout the whole story.

Everything by the end of Act II seems to suggest that things are going to play out the way of Macbeth. Laura and Jim's situation is established, (their financial position, the upcoming wedding and their desire to take that main lead) and the seed of violence has been planted by Laura, similar to Lady Macbeth herself.

Even Act III seems to follow that narrative, with the "King Duncan" character of Tony (ironically playing Macbeth) being taken down from his role of authority - with Tony having his juice spiked with vodka and unable to perform.

Laura offers Jim the dagger, now being seen as bloody by Jim....

....And he doesn't take it. He doesn't do anything and eventually Tony takes it back

Jim soon gets another opportunity to take the lead and make Tony rest, as encouraged by Laura. Once again, Jim panics, refuses to act, which lets Tony go back on stage (although that does lead to Tony's ultimate downfall).

This rejection of the spotlight, despite wanting it, is an active diversion from the original Macbeth story. Although his lack of action does mean Tony is put out of commission, he never actually makes the conscious decision to harm him unlike Macbeth.

This consistent passivity of his also keeps that point of conflict between him and Laura's own ambition, which includes possibly my favourite interaction in the episode.

"I'm there if they want me"

"What!? Stuck in the corner of the room, like a television on standby?"

"Yes."

Jim is essentially the anti-Macbeth. Whereas Macbeth seems to want more than what he already has, Jim is not only seen as much lower in that social area than Macbeth ever was, but he is content that way. He wants the lead role Tony has, but also has zero want to push for it, especially not as much as Laura would want from him.

Then the scene cuts and Tony, too injured to perform, is replaced by Jim. His understudy gets the lead. Macbeth takes the crown from Duncan. And he never did anything to get it.

The closest Jim ever does to making an active choice is rejecting dinner with Laura (admittedly in a pretty prick-ish way but still), before thanking her for getting him the role in the first place implying he thought she caused Tony's accident, which is an opinion he openly states near the end.

In his version of the story, Lady Macbeth is the one that killed Duncan. Or at least that's what Jim believes.

Up to the final act, whilst there have been these cracks here and there, the episode still seemingly follows the Macbeth narrative structure.

Then Kirstie gets involved at the very end and any pretense is dropped entirely.

(side note: this whole final scene is such an underrated unnerving bit. Rosie Cavaliero is insanely good)

Arguably, although the notion of it being a direct Macbeth retelling is destroyed by now, Jim learning about Laura's suicide seems to parallel the scene where Macbeth is informed of his wife's suicide also (even though Laura and Jim were no longer together, which may parallel the emotional distance between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth at that point in the play). However, once again, our Macbeth doesn't act. Kirstie says her piece, reveals she stole Laura's ring, kisses him, leaves and all Jim really does is go back on stage.

I should note that, although this scene is Kirstie casually confessing to her involvement throughout the timeline of this episode, she isn't a fully reliable source of information.

A way this can be seen is through how she seems to speak for both Laura after her death and for Jim.

"Looking after Tony is the price I pay for what I did. Just as Laura's death is the price you pay".

"That was nothing to do with me"

"I know it wasn't. Your career had to come first. You told her that"

Jim never did that. That whole previous scene was pretty douche-y of him but by the end he clearly shows the appreciation for what he thought Laura did for him - getting him this role.

Whilst we can't be sure that Kirstie is referring to the scene just beforehand (as they seem to have broken up between scenes), judging by the content of that scene and the lack of immediate animosity from Jim in regards to Laura throughout that scene and how unaware he was of her fate, I doubt what Kirstie says is true.

Kirstie not only assumes Laura's motivations and speaks for her but she places the responsibility on him for his inaction on the same level as own active choice to harm Tony.

Essentially, Jim's lack of action being unlike the point of Macbeth as an underrated bit of foreshadowing for how The Understudy diverts from and completely flips the Macbeth play on it's head, but the obvious parallels in character and story beat act as a good misdirection from this.

(One question I do have is what is up Jim? His visions, which only occur when he seems to picture himself in the role of Macbeth, don't amount to a conclusion besides that misdirection and expanding on his own anxieties about taking up the lead role. But, in the context of the episode itself, what was up with that?)

[go-johnny-go-go-go-go]

Dear mutuals and/or tag visitors, pls give me an episode of Inside No 9 to (re)watch. I'm in that particular state of craving some entertainment yet being too tired to choose what to watch so I'm turning to the tumblr hive mind in hope of answers. thx

[not-xpr-art]

forgot I was gonna go deeper into the meaning behind some of my choices in this piece and since I'm in a bit of a creative rut atm imma do it now!

so I think I've mentioned somewhere else, but fsr I keep going for blue and red in my in9 artworks and I don't 100% know why lol... but specifically in this piece I wanted to create a distinction between what is reality (the blue curtain, the blood) and what is happening in Tom's head (silhouettes of Migg and Gerri) and red and blue act as really nice contrasting colours in this case!

(also not to get all into Colour Theory, but both colours do have v specific connotations that I really wanted to emphasise the real vs fake dichotomy going on in the episode...)

in terms of the silhouettes, idk how obvious it is, but the face coming from Tom is supposed to be Gerri whereas the one from the edge is Migg (creating shockwaves as he's getting closer to Tom) with a bigger band of yellow separating the two, which I was heavily inspired by this amazing bit of analysis from @kookaburrito's review of the ep:

'Gerri is a ray of sunshine, and even though Gerri died that love Tom had for her pulls him out of a dark place and I think that's wonderful and sweet. Love saves all. Love makes you kill your toxic manipulator roomate, how beautiful.'

I just really loved the visual created there so I... created a visual based on it lool??

stylistically I wanted to keep this pretty textural since the whole episode and Tom's character as a whole has a sorta 'spiky' feel to it in my head... (which I did by not using my usual blending brush but the pen brush instead, which creates really fun distinct sections of each colour! it's a technique I don't do super often but do always enjoy how it looks in the end tbhh)

the other versions of the piece are also supposed to be reflections of Tom's splintered self; the way grief breaks you apart from the inside and distorts your entire perception of everything (in9 is SO good at doing this theme and I love it every single time lol)

but uh yeah that's about it pfft? hope this was interesting lol???

[he's not real]

an artwork based on the inside no 9 episode tom & gerri

(11/2024)

this ep is so devastating & beautiful & brutal tbhh I really hope I captured the vibe of it here!

[silverview]

maybe the details of art are common knowledge, but i only read up about it yesterday. it's interesting! it opened in the west end in 96 & was something of a popular hit

it's about three old friends who fall out when one of them buys an expensive painting that's an almost-blank white canvas (a quiet night in); one of them aggressively disapproves, calling it pretentious; and the third is caught in the middle trying to keep the peace

had a ton of casts – a new one every three months. (the effect of this is interesting – more on that below.) tlog were selected to be the last lot before it closed in 02. if you don't already know, who do you suppose played each role? it has nothing to do with the weirdly deceptive promo pics. answers & more below the cut

mark played the friend who buys the painting, steve played the one who disapproves, and reece played the guy caught in the middle. i wonder how that decision was made. i wonder if they considered any alternative configurations (bf had steve & reece switched, which i think makes a lot of sense). as always i'm like. but what does the character say about YOU

they got mixed reviews. nearly every review singles out reece's delivery of this monologue, though they disagree on whether it was good or not. perhaps surprisingly, they don't uniformly characterise it (or his performance in general) as particularly angry. not to be dramatic but i would kill and die to have seen it, just that monologue alone

so below i've collected the most interesting parts of surviving reviews. the last one is my fav. some of them have interesting things to say on the effect of the rotating cast, sort of the opposite of the in9 meta-character effect, which i think is pretty funny & fitting

BBC

Reece Shearsmith is a little too giddy with Yvan's furious diatribe about his impending wedding - the laughs are landing so hard that some others are being lost in the process. But he is a particularly touching and vulnerable go-between, desperately sitting on the fence in the conflict that erupts between his friends Serge (Mark Gatiss) and Marc (Steve Pemberton), and finding - as you do - that those who sit on fences are liable to get splinters.

GUARDIAN

[A] play as bland and flimsy as this requires actors who are not only heroically talented but who also have formidable technical skills. Pemberton, Gatiss and Shearsmith don't. They are likeable, even mildly engaging but you are always aware that they are putting on a performance. What's more, they are far less funny than the two other casts I've seen. Shearsmith, for example, flunks the timing of his long monologue so instead of making an audience rock with waves of laughter, he gets only one big laugh right at the end. The silences in the evening, in particular the famous olive scene, are not eloquent, just empty.

THEATREGUIDE

I've heard, though, that other casts have had other dynamics. With some, it plays as light comedy, satirising everyone's pretensions to high passions. Others make it a touching study in the fragility of friendship and all three men's hitherto-unrealised need for it. The cast changes every three months or so [...] Just be prepared for the fact that the show you see will be different in tone and effect from the one your friends saw last year, and will probably be a glib skating over the emotional issues and implications it raises. [...] And while the laidback, indeed colloquial, approach of Mark Gatiss (perky Serge), Steve Pemberton (laconic Marc) and Reece Shearsmith (wickedly neurotic Yvan) may not be to everyone's taste, it's undeniably perfect casting to complete the spectrum of wall-to-wall talent that's made the show such a feature of London's theatrical landscape. [...] Playing cheekily with rhythms of speech and timing, they create a very English rendition of what is essentially a French play, substituting the de rigueur dramatic devices and flourishes with frighteningly real personalities that transcend the dramatic crutch of Yasmina Reza's Continental-style philosophizing text and sub-text. Admittedly the first ever cast of Courtenay, Finney and Stott all those years ago set the benchmark for the production (though I found them yawnsome and wooden) - and the League have the advantage of tapping into the accumulated performances that followed.

i think "laidback," "colloquial," "cheeky," "English" and "real" might be euphemisms for northern – more on that below

CIX

Having now seen Art three or four times (to be honest, I forget which), I've begun to muse that in some strange way it's a metaphor for itself. It's not just the performance dynamics, our impression of the trio's relationship, that varies from cast to cast... it's the very sense of how much real content there is in Reza's play, of whether it takes its thematic concerns about inherent versus attributed qualities (whether of a painting or a person) very far or not. In a sense, the performers are the series of diagonal white lines painted on to the white canvas of the play. And like the lines in the painting on stage (or so we're told), they're not pure white: some are vaguely yellow, some are sort of ochre-ish... In the case of the League, the bizarrely unrelated publicity images make clear that what's hoped for is a kind of fake-blood crimson tinge. So although there's no real indulgence, director Jennie Darnell allows the three to turn in a slight caricature of the naturalism with which the piece has usually been played, that little unreality often seen in the kind of sketch comedy where the group cut their teeth. The elegant apartment set is a world away from the League's fictional town of Royston Vasey, but the casting of the individual members plays to respective strengths familiar from their various screen guises. As Serge, who has paid 200,000 francs for the picture, Mark Gatiss exudes an appropriately smug and supercilious cleverness. As Marc, who faces off against Serge by declaring the canvas "shit", Steve Pemberton is more mercurial, with an air of suppressed violence. Reece Shearsmith, the relatively cuddly one [sic], succeeds in focusing audience identification on Yvan, the less smart piggy-in-the-middle. All three are of course skilled performers, and you can see the rapport gained from up to fifteen years' collaboration in, for instance, the way Gatiss and Pemberton trade facial "mugs" as they first consider the painting. However, this very affinity with each other enables them to skim over deeper elements in the play. When Shearsmith gabbles out Yvan's great bewildered set-piece about the complications of his wedding arrangements, we applaud the high-speed delivery but don't pick up enough of what he says to engage with Yvan's travails.

kissing this reviewer on the mouth for specifically describing what he thinks their respective strengths are & especially for describing reece as THE CUDDLY ONE like... idk if it shows but i'm obsessed with how people see them, and how they see themselves & each other

EVENING STANDARD

Not so much a piece of headline-grabbing stunt casting as three trained actors flexing their thespian muscles [...] bona fide drama graduates, not comedy chancers. This immediately shows, from their poise, projection and presence. Only the dimple-chinned Pemberton as intolerant Marc comes close to his rogues' gallery of BBC2 personae during moments of rage when he cannot come to terms with Serge's purchase of an overpriced minimalist painting. By contrast, Mark Gatiss as the punctilious, pretentious Serge is the epitome of restraint, as cool as his sharp, charcoal suit. The comic moments are all in context. Shearsmith, as the boyish Yvan, is increasingly troubled by his imminent nuptials. This eventually spills out in a breathless pseudo-Pythonesque rant against marriage that is as funny to witness as it is difficult to say. But throughout, the trio respect Reza's text, sidelining their insatiable appetite for the grotesque that has made their their brand of humour so distinctive. This may, however, be problematic. Having sold out in the West End with their sketch show a couple of years ago, some of the threesome's intensely passionate fans may see Art as a follow-up and feel shortchanged. The eye-catching poster may compound the deception, the chopper, axe and chainsaw being wielded suggesting some Grand Guignol flourishes which never materialise.

BBC AGAIN

The northern accents do not quite ring true in the sophisticated setting of a Paris apartment and often lead to flat performances, where one gets the feeling their brand of wit is not quite enough to portray Parisian conceit. The strongest display by far comes from Mark Gatiss (Serge) - the eerie butcher in League of Gentlemen - as the tall, slightly effeminate doctor who acquires the painting, striking just the right balance of preciousness and acerbic wit. The diminutive Reece Shearsmith is adequate in his portrayal of Yvan, the put-down-upon soon-to-be-married stationer caught in the middle of the feud between his two friends. But the biggest disappointment comes from Steve Pemberton, who plays Marc, the critical compadre who takes Serge's indulgence for contemporary art as a personal slight. Pemberton, normally the trio's strongest performer, well-known for his brilliant turn as Pauline in the League of Gentlemen, seems ill at ease in the role. His northern persona cannot quite stretch far enough to inhabit the part of Marc, an angry homeopathic freak whose insecurity finds it hard to cope with his friend's show of independence over the painting. Like the painting, the play does not remain colourless throughout however. One of the highlights is Shearsmith's 10-minute tirade about the difficulties of coping with the women in his life ahead of his impending wedding.

yeah this one is definitely my favourite. casually calls them ALL scallies, then calls each of them out INDIVIDUALLY for being a) gay b) short c) shit. absolute legend. did they ever find this reviewer's body

related, from this article in the guardian:

"When we first did Art, a review said 'Yes, but can they act?' and that made me angry," said Shearsmith. "I remember thinking 'What have we been doing in The League of Gentlemen? It's not standup."

in 2013, reece said art was his favourite ever play to do. highlights from the replies

[so-am-smyme9540]

Someone give me an In9 episode to watch

I'm about to go to a random number generator because I can't choose which one I want to watch lol

[the-20th-century-girl]

I would say I am so sorry for causing this, but then we wouldn’t have the secret Reece channel in the server. It’s my new favourite place in the hivemind now.

one second you see someone mention a man you've never heard of before and two weeks later you have a screenshot folder, tiktok folder and phone gallery folder dedicated to him

[panelshowsource]

i have to be dead honest and admit i'm really no an in9 person personally ㄒ∩ㄒ there are definitely some episode i've liked, but in general the horror homage stuff — like garth marenghi's darkplace — just isn't for me most of the time (this is iconic tho don't get me wrong), plus i have a serious beef with mark gatiss and want to crush his little head like a grape :)

THAT SAID if there is an ep you hiiighly recommend then pls send bc i would be interested to see!

and fr EVERY ONE EVER has been a guest or cameo on that series and it's very fun picking them out like easter eggs!

in9 and any new episodes are regularly posted in r/tv_bunny — it's super easy to make a request there so anyone who wants to check out the series absolutely should!

doing my best to get as much joe wilkinson content on this blue site as i can!!! you know that's my guy!! 💙

omg this is so true

are you one of those people who LOVES laughers? like miles jupp, daisy may cooper, joe wilkinson, etc? that is some of my fave kind of energy 🥹

lucy is SUCH a giggler and i love when they're like that together! do you have a fave moment from the pod so far? it seemed like a pod that didn't know quite what it was supposed to be but has really started sorting itself out :")

hmm i mean, it wouldn't surprise me if claudia was asked and then talked to victoria about her experience before agreeing to do it, but i doubt victoria had anything to do with claudia being approached. not only does greg love claudia, but she's so tv famous, even more these days with the rise of traitors. i always thought she was an inevitable casting! but knowing victoria had such a good experience could have helped her :')

anon LMAOOO did you send this in the middle of the afternoon? tsk tsk... you are not the only here are your people

omg LMAO i knew this but idr how i found out initially. i love richard bringing this up as a lowkey brag. her voice would have been SO perf it's that uncannily perfect balance of calm & warm and confident

i...have a crush on her

yes of courseee you can that is my mans!! but do you just mean like a random gifs set or do you have a specific moment in mind?

i wish more people were interested in hog gifs 🥲 i love the show and love giffing it, but those sets barely get any notes boooo

she just hosted hignfy and i'm about to post gifs from that!! eeeee

thee sean lock

💜

—

PANEL SHOW WATCH LINKS / NON-PANEL SHOW WATCH LINKS FAQ / TAGS / ASK

[bluvlet]

top 5 in9 eps? :3

5. How Do You Plead?

Urban is one of my favourite in9 characters. I’m really empathetic towards him and the character he plays for his patients, and the reasons why he does it. I’m also just such a sucker for religious imagery, depictions of the devil and the classic tale of selling your soul. The atmosphere of the episode just generally really appeals to me. The gradual dimming of the lights into this green-blue darkness is just brilliant, and when Urban and Webster swap places in the lift the fluidity of that movement just itches my brain. And of course, the monologues! Love this episode!

4. Tom & Gerri

Migg is one of the scariest in9 characters to me. Steve’s performance is just so…chilling. Like Urban, Tom is another character I feel like I just get. I’ll get into it in a moment when I start talking about Diddle Diddle Dumpling, but I just am really impacted by depictions of grief and mental illness in media. Tom is one of my favourite Reece in9 performances, I just really feel for him. Also, I love Stevie’s character.

3. Cold Comfort

I love how uncomfortable this entire episode is. The camera never moves, never looks away, and in turn the viewer has to sit there and watch just as Andy has to sit there and listen. It feels hopeless. Andy is one of my favourite Steve performances + characters. All of the characters in this episode are on top of each other in this awful, cramped, emotionally charged space, yet they’re all completely disconnected and alien to one another. The only character who you feel understands the others is George, and George is…George. I’m a sucker for ambiguity and there is so much to rifle through and ponder about in this episode. Plus the sound design is so good at matching that horrible, invasive atmosphere.

2. Diddle Diddle Dumpling

I love the mise-en-scène for this episode; that sanitised, shining-esque mirroring throughout the whole house just suggests so much of what is left unsaid about David and Louise’s grief. And I do really like how little is actually said about Joseph in this episode. I’m always really invested in media where an object is so clearly representative of something else, especially when that something else is a loss or an absence of sorts. David is a very relatable character to me and I just feel so strongly for both him and Louise. What a devastating episode.

1. Wise Owl

No surprises here I don’t think! Wise Owl was the first in9 episode I ever watched, and it’s stayed my favourite unwaveringly throughout me watching the entire show. I’ve had an anxious obsession with Public Information Films ever since I was a kid - especially the fire safety ones - so having an episode modelled around them is just a narrative decision that gets me invested from the get-go. I think this episode has an entirely different feeling to it compared to the rest of the show, and I’m so happy they went with the ending that they did and I’m so happy with how Ronnie was written and performed - especially when I think about how easily they could’ve gone down a different route. Also there’s no competition in my mind for the best in9 episode ending. Such an important episode.

[benjaminbadger]

S9 E3 fucking banged!!!!!!!!!!!!

My thoughts (might be incoherent bc I literally JUST watch it):

I really love whenever In9 does something unique with the filming or camera work and this episode did NOT disappoint in that regard. They picked a really clever way to show the story and used it to their advantage, and I love how it serves the general story (the camera always being fixed on the neighbours' house and never letting you see what's happening inside Damon's, which kinda gets you into their perspective by making them more familiar to you and directing you to the same conclusions as they do)

I figured immediately that Damon wouldn't have actually killed Val (that would be wayyy too obvious for In9 I mean his name is Demon for God's sake 😭) but that's not to say I knew where the episode was going. The slow dripfeed of info did keep me guessing on some sort of other big reveal, but I actually loved the sorta lack of one. As in, it's made clear from the start that the neighbours are these painfully upper-class out of touch weirdos making huge mental leaps about this guy for the crime of not being a Perfect Neighbour like they are, but then the episode just deciding to build on their paranoia and invasiveness was a lot more satisfying than any Big Twist I was searching for. (It kinda reminds me of the Bill, in that it messes with the overperformance of social niceties that the characters subscribe to and takes them to the extreme, but without the twist that I think ruins it 😭)

Had a very interesting end too that peaks on that building extremity and twists around the neighbours' characters into the very thing they were so worried about. Love that shit. And I like that their story ended w retribution, but also w them getting what they want in a roundabout way. (SnR are so good at hiding foreshadowing and character bits inside of jokes). So far Season 9 is on a big winning streak, would be excellent to end the show w a bang

[sirbogarde]

Can't remember if I've posted this before but here's my Inside Number 9 inspired playlist. Songs that remind me of individual episodes or characters or just the vibes of the show in general.

[stealerofthe2ndbraincell]

In9 rant incoming.

For some god forbid reason, the rats in my brain have connected my thoughts after watching Arcane S2 to one episode of IN9 that I recently rewatched, Tempting Fate, so I'm going to ramble a little.

I've seen differing interpretations of Nick's wish at the very end to help Keith's son.

Mainly about whether or not he had malicious intentions behind it.

Throughout the story, he remains the most vigilant in regards to not making silly wishes because, unlike Maz and especially Keith, he is aware of the massive negative repercussions. He's the first to connect what happened to Frank to the wishes and remains firm on not risking a wish at all. So he should know that wishing anything for Charlie would backfire and harm potentially him and Keith.

(Although, it is ironic that 2/3 of their wishes were made by him)

Not only that, but Nick doesn't have any reason to want to be nice to Keith at this point, with this line only muddling things further.

By this point he's seen Keith attempt to steal £93,000 that Nick knows (and keeps on trying to tell him) is cursed, witnesses him completely roll over and ignore his colleagues death, finds out he's a literal murderer who proceeded to attempt to kill him in a frankly cruel manner (using his alcoholism against him and pouring some into his unconscious mouth to frame Maz's and his own death as a drunken accident that leads to a gas leak (implying he was willing to blow him up in the process)).

At this point, Nick has been lied to and betrayed by a friend of 12 years in such a significant way that it seems wild for his wish to be made out of sincere care for Keith.

However, what I find most interesting about this scene is how clearly out of it Nick is when he breaks the news.

Granted I don't think the drink would have that much of an influence, but you know what would: being smashed directly on the head by a bloody rabbit statue a few minutes beforehand.

From the slurred speech, breaks in breath and general body language, Nick is concussed at the very least.

Now this isn't me siding as to whether or not he intended to hurt Keith and Charlie, the former making the act kind of cruel once again if on purpose, but I don't think it's out of the question that it was done with some semblance of hope.

Not only did he discover and witness all the awful things Keith was willing to do and had done, but he had also seen how all of it was focused on Charlie's recovery. He went to Frank so he could afford the treatment required, he stole the money later for the very same and he got over Maz's death so quickly because he had that money as his top priority. The problem was that Keith wouldn't listen when he told him that money was cursed.

He also doesn't have full faith that all wishes will screw you over as well.

Even back with Maz, he attempts to think of safe and harmless ways the wishes could be used when she wishes for "not too much, but enough to make a difference" amounts of money.

Although Nick states that every wish backfires, he hasn't lost all faith in the idea that they could do good and not cause immense levels of harm.

That still present faith, awareness of how far Keith was willing to go for his son, alongside how clearly not in a decision making state he was in at the end of the story, I think paints a different perspective. Specifically one where he could have genuinely and sincerely wished Charlie back to health potentially for Keith.

Whilst I still think, especially with the "it's what you deserve" line, that Nick could have definitely had cruel intentions wishing to help Charlie, I really like how ambiguous the episode leaves it.

[wowpindrop]

These are all genuine, good faith questions about a lot of the recent inside number 9 posts. Just to say straight up that I'm not trying to cause any problems or arguments here, or say anyone is wrong for how they feel. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion about the episode and the show as a whole.

Surely for something to be representation (either good or bad) it has to be intentional? Like the last weekend wasn't an episode about a queer couple it was an episode about grief and revenge, and the identity of the characters was secondary to the themes driving the plot. The point of the initial vibe seeming like a wholesome love story was to actually deliver a twisted revenge story, it wasn't intended as a negative portrayal of the community.

Also why are queer representation and love stories wanted to be told in in9 specifically? It's not exactly the ideal series for it, since the plots are generally quite dark and the stories aren't always meant to be realistic or meaningful. Plus it's written by two straight men, and S&R have said many times they write the stories that appeal to them, not what might appeal to any particular audience. If people are interested in watching queer stories why not look more to other shows that do aim to tell those stories? Although of course that's not saying that S&R can't or shouldn't make that effort with in9 when it could be done.

The last weekend having a grotesque ending wasn't unexpected, since the twists are a key part of the show. On the whole lgbt+ characters don't seem to be treated differently across the series storytelling-wise as lots of different characters end up as victims, but I understand the frustration with the tired stereotypical acting choices.

Again these are genuine questions/comments to create a conversation, so hopefully this gets a response. Respect to you and everyone else feeling upset by the whole situation.

Yeah I get that but the thing is, S and R have never shown any type of positive queer rep whether that be in tlog or in9.

I don't want to cause arguments either, I just find the situation important to highlight. Especially since a portion of the fanbase of R and S's work are in the community, and I'm fairly sure there may be aware of.

They've shown before that they can make side characters that aren't important to the storyline that are genuinely happy or just aren't arguing with people.

I appreciate that queer people are a minority and I don't expect them to put them in all the time. The only problem I have is when every single time they are in episodes, especially in the relationships and everything, that the relationships are always argumentative or having to be kept secret or have some element of mistrust in them. Which don't happen anywhere near as often in the straight ones.

The only thing that me and the people who agree with me would like is a queer couple, even if it isn't the main characters for the episode, that aren't in some sort of conflict. Or just a queer person that isn't the butt of a load of jokes.

[lapis-lazuliie]

not just because of what the ending turned out to be, but in regards to in9, so many people think that one of their stories revealing themselves to "not be what it seems" makes sense for the narrative, regardless of whether or not it logically fits into said narrative; because that's the reputation the lads have built for themselves since day one. they've marketed their episodes of their show as "always having a sting in the tail", and because of that precedent, they feel a large amount of pressure from their audiences to be clever with it every week.......when they shouldn't be

because an episode of in9 is so much more than its' twist. it always fucking has been. but they've completely lost sight of telling an engaging story in favour of making the ending be as brutal or dark as possible, and that is just.......wrong.

not just with n9, but media in general; unless you're writing something in the crime / mystery genre, not all of your stories need to have a plot twist. but if that's the rod you've made for your own back, then at least write a compelling story to go along with it. fuck sake

anyone who thinks the ending of the last weekend was "clever" has brainrot. genuinely