Television The Traitors (BBC) | Series 3 now airing. If you watch episodes on the iPlayer that haven't aired on the BBC television, put discussion in spoilers

Thought Jake was going to miss out right at the end, glad he didn't though as I think he probably deserved it the most of the last three.

Not sure any of the faithfuls played a great game, just had some luck towards the end which swung it their way. Minah did okay up to a point but she made some poor decisions along the way and then attracted suspicion on her last mission by her comment which was stupid for the sake of an extra £2000. Charlotte made it far too complicated with the shield thing when Freddie would have more than likely been banished before the end anyway.

The seer came too late in the game really. If you're going to allow that then which ended up effectively ending any chance of the traitor winning, you might as well accept a possible all-faithful final and not force the recruit in the penultimate episode. You'd still end up with the drama of people getting voted out, if by some miracle they work out that the last 4 or 5 are all faithful and trust each other that would also make an interesting ending.
 
IRN-BRUno said:
Thought Jake was going to miss out right at the end, glad he didn't though as I think he probably deserved it the most of the last three.

Not sure any of the faithfuls played a great game, just had some luck towards the end which swung it their way. Minah did okay up to a point but she made some poor decisions along the way and then attracted suspicion on her last mission by her comment which was stupid for the sake of an extra £2000. Charlotte made it far too complicated with the shield thing when Freddie would have more than likely been banished before the end anyway.

The seer came too late in the game really. If you're going to allow that then which ended up effectively ending any chance of the traitor winning, you might as well accept a possible all-faithful final and not force the recruit in the penultimate episode. You'd still end up with the drama of people getting voted out, if by some miracle they work out that the last 4 or 5 are all faithful and trust each other that would also make an interesting ending.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Should have been a halfway point thing.
 
P-Nut said:
Enjoyed it up until the forced recruitment.

I think the show runners probably underestimated the greed of the players. If Charlotte has picked someone to try and win together with they would have only needed to get through 1 vote and then would have been at even numbers.

Even if she picked Freddie and then killed someone rather than going for Leanne it would likely have been Alexander going next and then you've got 2v2 and a stalemate win.

I don't mind them having a single shot at recruitment early on in the game, but to force it whenever they go down to 1 just takes the shine off the game and makes a farce of it really.
Click to expand...
Be interesting how they do it going forward. They could maybe do it where 6 traitors are chosen at the start and then only 1 recruitment is allowed the whole game, or something like that.
 
About 20 minutes into the episode and Leanne has already pissed me off. Frankie came in to breakfast and was very clearly shaken to the core, any idiot could see she was being honest about it. But it's going to go exactly as everybody said, they'll believe Charlotte as well and vote both off, then get rid of Alexander just in case and then that moron is going to win and i'm going to be even more pissed off.
 
It’s weird in that I really enjoyed all the series but it just doesn’t make sense.

What’s the point in finding a traitor if they just create another one in the banished place?

Any traitor that gets voted off near the end clearly stitches the other traitor up out of spite at the table. That should be stopped. The ‘parting gift’ from caught traitor that’s happened in a couple of series is nonsense.

No matter how many faithfuls are left at the end they will always just vote people off till there’s only two left as that’s an obvious thing to do to increase your own chance.

That seer thing was fecked, poor Frankie got totaly stitched with that.

And the worst of all is the duller you are the more chance you have of staying and winning.
 
It makes the show more interesting to have roles like The Seer, but they should be incorporated into the show either right from the start or after the first week.

I still think an Assassin role would be brilliant. A player (serial killer in WW) who is neither faithful or traitor. The Traitors kill every other turn, they still make a selection but it won't go through. Instead the assassin chooses who to kill.

The assassin can also jump to a new player but only once after the assassin dies. (the assassin nominates a player each evening who they want to be their successor).

From the Faithfuls perspective they'll think it's a normal game. But the Traitors will know something is up after the second day when their murder doesn't go through. There's also the possibility that the assassin could name a traitor as their successor too. It'd be glorious. :lol:
 
Need to get some caf members to be producers on the show let alone players.
 
My browser history shows I usually root for the pretty blonde lesbian to have a happy ending. Not this time though.
 
RedSky said:
It makes the show more interesting to have roles like The Seer, but they should be incorporated into the show either right from the start or after the first week.

I still think an Assassin role would be brilliant. A player (serial killer in WW) who is neither faithful or traitor. The Traitors kill every other turn, they still make a selection but it won't go through. Instead the assassin chooses who to kill.

The assassin can also jump to a new player but only once after the assassin dies. (the assassin nominates a player each evening who they want to be their successor).

From the Faithfuls perspective they'll think it's a normal game. But the Traitors will know something is up after the second day when their murder doesn't go through. There's also the possibility that the assassin could name a traitor as their successor too. It'd be glorious. :lol:
Click to expand...
So it’s just another separate traitor? I guess traitor v separate traitor adds something to the mix though.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
It’s weird in that I really enjoyed all the series but it just doesn’t make sense.

What’s the point in finding a traitor if they just create another one in the banished place?

Any traitor that gets voted off near the end clearly stitches the other traitor up out of spite at the table. That should be stopped. The ‘parting gift’ from caught traitor that’s happened in a couple of series is nonsense.

No matter how many faithfuls are left at the end they will always just vote people off till there’s only two left as that’s an obvious thing to do to increase your own chance.

That seer thing was fecked, poor Frankie got totaly stitched with that.

And the worst of all is the duller you are the more chance you have of staying and winning.
Click to expand...
They should stop one of the most entertaining moves in the game? Why?

Serves her right. She was too passive. Offering Charlotte a cup of tea instead of going straight on the offensive and outing her as a traitor was just stupid. She didn't deserve a penny.
 
VeevaVee said:
So it’s just another separate traitor? I guess traitor v separate traitor adds something to the mix though.
Click to expand...

The difference is they know exactly whats happening and has the ability to transfer the role onto someone else when they die. Which could mean that they share the prize fund if the new assassin wins. It also creates a problem for the Traitors as they don't have all the information for once.

You could even provide the Assassin with a one time use power of being able to kill someone directly before the Round Table. The producers love their drama so having a secret role like this provokes a massive amount of drama in the show.
 
RedSky said:
The difference is they know exactly whats happening and has the ability to transfer the role onto someone else when they die. Which could mean that they share the prize fund if the new assassin wins. It also creates a problem for the Traitors as they don't have all the information for once.

You could even provide the Assassin with a one time use power of being able to kill someone directly before the Round Table. The producers love their drama so having a secret role like this provokes a massive amount of drama in the show.
Click to expand...
This is the only decent suggestion I’ve seen so far. Be a head feck to be in there though :lol:
 
AdamColeBebe said:
They should stop one of the most entertaining moves in the game? Why?

Serves her right. She was too passive. Offering Charlotte a cup of tea instead of going straight on the offensive and outing her as a traitor was just stupid. She didn't deserve a penny.
Click to expand...
Why is that entertaining? Look at the guy in the first series. Played it perfect right through just to be stitched up out of spite by a traitor who’d been caught. It’s not in the spirit of the game
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Why is that entertaining? Look at the guy in the first series. Played it perfect right through just to be stitched up out of spite by a traitor who’d been caught. It’s not in the spirit of the game
Click to expand...

Wilf yeah he totally deserved the win
 
lsd said:
Wilf yeah he totally deserved the win
Click to expand...

Still makes me really annoyed that season. He deserved the win. He is what that idiot in season 2 thought he was but was actually shit
 
LARulz said:
Still makes me really annoyed that season. He deserved the win. He is what that idiot in season 2 thought he was but was actually shit
Click to expand...
And me :lol:
I don’t how know they can stop it but you shouldn’t really be allowed to basically go, yep I’m a traitor but before I go so is so and so
 
That was utter shite. What we all knew was going to happen, happened and all the dramatic music and moody camera shots in the world couldn't make it feel any other way.

I don't necessarily agree that it was always going to be boring either. Linda was shite, but Minah was decent up until the producers started over influencing everything. The last two seasons had plenty of morons early on but things always worked out in the end when they just let the game happen more naturally.

I get that they can't have it work the same each year, but spending 3/4 of the game giving the traitors massive advantages, only to turn that on its head with a game breaking advantage to the faithfuls right at the end doesn't make for satisfying TV.
 
hobbers said:
They'd never add a serial killer for obvious reasons.

I doubt they have the sense to fix the seer either. It's never been a good role but at least make it anonymous so there's some element of skill to it.
Click to expand...

What reasons? The problem I see is that they don't seem to want to give people's roles, just one use abilities. Which tend to make games imbalanced but we all know they don't give a damn about the actual balance of the game. All they really care about is drama.

The integrity of the game and it's rules don't really seem to come into it. I can't remember from previous seasons but were traitors allowed to recruit and kill on the same night before? The players didn't seem to know that could happen?
 
RedSky said:
Well, that's up to the Traitors to not behave like assholes then and throw people under the bus that they just recruited.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you’d have to go against a fellow traitor, beforehand, at the table and vote out when everyone has clicked on and voting that way or you’ll stand out like a sore thumb. Thats what happened to wilf if my memory is right, then just gets pointed at as a parting gift.
Charlotte this time was too heavy handed yeah but it’s still shit how no one suspects her but then a fellow traitor puts her name on the card out of nowhere. It’s too obvious to ignore.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Why is that entertaining? Look at the guy in the first series. Played it perfect right through just to be stitched up out of spite by a traitor who’d been caught. It’s not in the spirit of the game
Click to expand...

It absolutely is in the spirit of the game. It's the whole point. It isn't out of spite, it's to win more of the money. If as a contestant you think you're there to make friends, you're not paying attention.

Anything goes. If you get screwed over then that's on you.
 
AdamColeBebe said:
It absolutely is in the spirit of the game. It's the whole point. It isn't out of spite, it's to win more of the money. If as a contestant you think you're there to make friends, you're not paying attention.

Anything goes. If you get screwed over then that's on you.
Click to expand...
But the people he's talking about had no chance of winning any money.
 
AdamColeBebe said:
It absolutely is in the spirit of the game. It's the whole point. It isn't out of spite, it's to win more of the money. If as a contestant you think you're there to make friends, you're not paying attention.

Anything goes. If you get screwed over then that's on you.
Click to expand...
They’d already been voted out, what’s winning more money got to do with it, they had no money to win
 
For me Wilf did get screwed over by Kieran but thats because he of what he said after he got voted out - "parting gift". Freddie in my view was in his rights to put down Charlotte's name and try to go after her in the roundtable, all fair then. If you're a traitor and you backstab someone, you have to accept they may have a go back when the game is in play. It's a skill if you're a traitor to bring people along which Charlotte didn't really do.
 
I think if you're going to put the seer in that late, make it anonymous. I don't think Frankie would have been skilled enough to out Charlotte if they didn't know she was the seer. She was too nice, and Charlotte too ruthless, I think Charlotte would have got them onside. It would have been interesting to see what she would have done, as if she'd tried to turn it on Frankie too quickly the others may have twigged, or indeed, thought she was the seer

I think Alexander and Frankie were also victims of them not being able to say whether they were a traitor or not on leaving, had Charlotte said what she was, would they have voted to end the game? I certainly think Frankie would have been a lot safer, they all seemed to mistrust Alexander so may still have gone for him

The seer could be really interesting, if it was anonymous and introduced in the middle of the competition. Even not anonymous could work, as imagine they pick another faithful, but then that person gets recruited. Although maybe it would have to be anonymous, as the seer may give away they are a faithful, so the traitors would just murder to get rid of a clear faithful and break up an alliance

I don't think this season was as good, although its harder because last seasons ending was so good, it would have been hard to top. It did feel like they wanted a faithful win as people were so aggrieved by Harry's use of Molly (personally i thought he played a blinder).
 
LARulz said:
Still makes me really annoyed that season. He deserved the win. He is what that idiot in season 2 thought he was but was actually shit
Click to expand...

Paul? I wonder if they have changed the rules now that you can't just drop a fellow traitor in it after you are banished the way Kieran did Wilf.

I know Freddy voted for Charlotte but it was nowhere near what Kieran did.

I don't think it would have mattered who Frankie chose to find out what they were as Jake and Leanne would have still went after her and Alexander anyway.

Charlotte might have had a better chance if she wasn't asked by Frankie as Jake is the world's dumbest person but Leanne seemed to clock what Freddy was doing by voting for her
 
RedSky said:
Zero reasoning or sense behind there being 6 fecking traitors in the game. It's just laughably stupid which is why it's clear it was greed.
Click to expand...

I think Charlotte could've won if she didn't recruit Freddie, and did the "trick" on him by making him try to kill Leanne.
She had no suspicion on her before he voted for her in revenge.
 
Alexander admittedly screwed himself at that last roundtable, but still gutted was wasn't a winner, but he never really gained trust from anyone so he wasn't ever going to be there at the end.

As for just voting people off, it makes sense if you have enough support in the final four and enough doubt about others. I think it's fair to say Leanne and Jake never really had any trust in Alexander (based on idiotic assumptions, but still), and Frankie was probably suspecting everyone after that Charlotte reveal.

Then, not knowing Charlotte was a traitor, it made sense to vote off Frankie.

So I don't see a problem with them continuing to vote, everyone at the pit voted to banish in every round they were in, so there was clearly a massive lack of confidence. And as a faithful, it just makes more sense to reduce the chance to as small a percentage as possible.

I don't know, that actually felt like the most cynical group of the three series so far. I still can't get over Leanne's reaction to Alexander voting for her, right after she voted for him. Of all the people in that game she seemed the most incapable of seeing it from someone else's perspective. Which probably worked in her favour in the end, sad as it is to say.
 
I found it a bit strange that the seer chose to check Charlotte, who she trusted the most, instead of Alexander who noone really ever trusted.
 
Grylte said:
I found it a bit strange that the seer chose to check Charlotte, who she trusted the most, instead of Alexander who noone really ever trusted.
Click to expand...

Is it better to go into the final rounds knowing the person you're trusting is trustworthy or not, or the person you aren't is trustworthy or not? It might be better to know if your support is solid or not, rather than people you'd be looking to vote out.

And if she'd picked Alexander gone back and and said he was Faithful, they probably would have just assumed they're both traitors and she was covering for him. Doesn't seem like there was a huge amount of trust of Frankie.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
Alexander admittedly screwed himself at that last roundtable, but still gutted was wasn't a winner, but he never really gained trust from anyone so he wasn't ever going to be there at the end.

As for just voting people off, it makes sense if you have enough support in the final four and enough doubt about others. I think it's fair to say Leanne and Jake never really had any trust in Alexander (based on idiotic assumptions, but still), and Frankie was probably suspecting everyone after that Charlotte reveal.

Then, not knowing Charlotte was a traitor, it made sense to vote off Frankie.

So I don't see a problem with them continuing to vote, everyone at the pit voted to banish in every round they were in, so there was clearly a massive lack of confidence. And as a faithful, it just makes more sense to reduce the chance to as small a percentage as possible.

I don't know, that actually felt like the most cynical group of the three series so far. I still can't get over Leanne's reaction to Alexander voting for her, right after she voted for him. Of all the people in that game she seemed the most incapable of seeing it from someone else's perspective. Which probably worked in her favour in the end, sad as it is to say.
Click to expand...

Oh, and the lack of confirmations after banishments meant there wasn't any reason to particularly trust anyone. Another reason it went down to two.

The Seer role being thrown in, I guess kind of made that necessary. But it also made the ending a damp squib. Just a procession of obvious banishments and no real reaction.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
Is it better to go into the final rounds knowing the person you're trusting is trustworthy or not, or the person you aren't is trustworthy or not? It might be better to know if your support is solid or not, rather than people you'd be looking to vote out.

And if she'd picked Alexander gone back and and said he was Faithful, they probably would have just assumed they're both traitors and she was covering for him. Doesn't seem like there was a huge amount of trust of Frankie.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in hindsight it obviously looks genious, but it didn't really make sense to me at the time when she did it.
I would definitely check someone i wasn't sure about.

The vote from Freddie (i think that was his name) did probably affect them quite a bit too, it's weird being in that bubble they're in in games like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.