Forum menu
Wonder if Reece regrets not mentioning being asked to leave the library by Rachel and Stephen?
It wasn't even mentioned on the uncloaked program!
Amazing how fiona went from likeable to thoroughly unpleasant in a split second.
I think the theory is that Rachel and Reece are related in some way? Hence him not outing her, and the program makers wanting to keep it secret. It would also explain why she was so brazen about asking.
Fiona went the same way as Hugo, victim to hubris. Although in the uncloaked episode afterwards she came off better again. I do think some people are just playing it to have fun, rather than concentrating on winning.
I do think some people are just playing it to have fun, rather than concentrating on winning.
Clear split between older, financially comfortable folk who keep trotting out 'remember, it is just a game' and younger people who winning 100k could change their life.
Well Harriet went from calm, composed and destructive when she took down Hugo - to ranty, odd and with no plan when she went after Rachel. Like two different people.
There's a pattern there that the team don't like. Hugo, Fiona and now Harriet suddenly get all excited and a little aggressive - boom, gone.
I do get annoyed by all this talk of 'evidence'. Even the 2 lawyers and copper were presenting theories, rumours and supposition as evidence. I'm not sure how Harriet falling on her sword proves that Rachel is a traitor either, she was better at her analysis than Amanda though!
Hugo, Fiona and Harriet have all fallen to Hubris. Rachel may go the same way. Stephen FTW.
Harriet was very good on 'uncloaked' and said she knew before she went into the round table that she was going [because a fair proportion of the faithfuls are properly crap] so she went 110%.
If/when Jessie goes I'm going to lose interest. How Stephen is still there is beyond me.
Disappointed with the way Harriet's story ended, wish she had kept things bubbling under a bit longer.
I find myself wondering what part the producers play in all this. Bits to camera and some of the breakfast outbursts seem all the more out of character compared to the resulting appearances on Uncloaked.
But I have no idea what the sense of pressure in the castle is and what it might do to a person.
Rachel and Stephen seem destined to reach the final, interesting to see when and how one turns on the other cos Stephen has the measure of Rachel no doubt; and I don't buy their constant mutual 'I have your back' reassurances for a second.
We thought Rachel was getting a free pass as it were after the show down with Fiona at the round table given it came out that Fiona was indeed was a traitor. However, we were chuffed to hear Harriet had figured Rachel out then doubled down at the traitor questioning.
But then she blew it with how she approached it with the other contestants, really got Roxys back up who lead the charge to rally the sheep against her.
Like Kramer, currently Stephen ftw for us
I think Rachel's card is marked, just not yet, but 2 big outbursts at her. Both Fiona's and Harriet's fallings was the delivery being slightly rude IMO.
I think how this all plays out depends on who they murdered and if that person had a shield. I would have assumed last night recruiting Matty would have meant when the heat comes onto him and if he gets banished the faithful are content they've got someone.
I was disappointed at how Harriet went kamikaze and suspect that she might just have been fed up and wanted to leave. I also thought that she might have had a bit more support given how she had identified and ousted Hugo as a traitor.
I really hope that the traitors have managed to murder someone last night. Those sheep deserve to be culled.
I think Rachel's card is marked, just not yet, but 2 big outbursts at her. Both Fiona's and Harriet's fallings was the delivery being slightly rude IMO.
I think how this all plays out depends on who they murdered and if that person had a shield. I would have assumed last night recruiting Matty would have meant when the heat comes onto him and if he gets banished the faithful are content they've got someone.
But then everyone starts banging on about Matt and someone else? A roundtable where Harriet went mental at targetting one person (albeit with a flimsy reason) but was proven to be a faithful. Seriously, are they all absolutely stupid? Rachel pointing at someone else around the table as being a suspected traitor and then voting for someone else. The traitors trying to figure out who might have a shield - James pretty much told them when he tried to talk at the roundtable and was told not to. All the signs are there.
Well Stephen looked a bobby dazzler tonight didn't he.....
Where does one even get an outfit like that? Asking for a friend.
Reminded me a lot of the jumpsuits worn by the likes of Heatwave and Earth Wind and Fire 🕺🕺🕺
Gulf colours. Mrs Rock noted that it was a tad tight round the goolies.
The faithful fully deserve to lose this one – how on earth the traitors (especially Rachel) have mostly avoided suspicion is beyond me. Even after Harriet flagged her as a traitor, everyone is like "ohh, she's so nice, she can't be a traitor". FFS – THAT IS THE GAME!! Traitors don't go around acting traitorous – they are being careful not to attract suspicion.
Disappointed with the way Harriet's story ended, wish she had kept things bubbling under a bit longer.
I find myself wondering what part the producers play in all this. Bits to camera and some of the breakfast outbursts seem all the more out of character compared to the resulting appearances on Uncloaked.
But I have no idea what the sense of pressure in the castle is and what it might do to a person.
Rachel and Stephen seem destined to reach the final, interesting to see when and how one turns on the other cos Stephen has the measure of Rachel no doubt; and I don't buy their constant mutual 'I have your back' reassurances for a second.
y t
Harriet wasn't playing the game, she was just doing a book promotion advert. She took every opportunity to mention her books and what better way to get more attention than go big in one episode.
Rachel and Stephen seem destined to reach the final, interesting to see when and how one turns on the other cos Stephen has the measure of Rachel no doubt; and I don't buy their constant mutual 'I have your back' reassurances for a second.
I think that, if they do reach the final, it will be Rachel throwing Stephen under the bus.
I'm not sure I buy Rachel doing FBI style profiling on the others, would the production team give her access to their details? I'm thinking Data Protection wise
The FBI bit is on the contestant profiles the BBC posted before the show started. She's not been given personal details...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/the-traitors-series-4-contestants
Ok 👍
Harriet wasn't playing the game, she was just doing a book promotion advert. She took every opportunity to mention her books and what better way to get more attention than go big in one episode.
Exactly what I said while we were watching last night. Ex-barrister, so she probably doesn't need the money. Good move, from a personal POV, but crap from a game/viewer POV.
A little dusty watching the dinner party. The double vote dagger is an interesting choice to make
Unless something drastically changes I can't see anybody beating Rachel . She's cold and calculating shrugged off Harriet and Fiona's OTT outburst and undoubtedly will throw Stephen under the bus if he makes it that far . How did he get no votes at the roundtable tonight ?
Won't giving the dagger to themselves be the obvious move ?
Yep, I think Rachel sees Stephen as cannon fodder when the time comes. Her not letting him know her daily tactics reeks of selfish (competitive ) action, and he needs to start looking at Rachel as a threat as I think she will bin him off when it suits.
He’s being very lucky at the moment but I think it wouldn’t take much to put him in the frame and Rachel does seem to be keeping his name in the frame, albeit on the lowdown.
I think Stephen knows what he's dealing with, and is going along to see how far it can get him on the chance that being the junior partner will give him some protection.
Rachel apparently not warning him of her actions (assuming the edits we see are accurate) does make his reactions genuine.
Yep, I think Rachel sees Stephen as cannon fodder when the time comes. Her not letting him know her daily tactics reeks of selfish (competitive ) action, and he needs to start looking at Rachel as a threat as I think she will bin him off when it suits.
i hope not. mrs ex-p doesnt like either of them but i quite like them both, and its been an intriguing series so far. i like the fact that they made the early vow to each other not to put the other ones name down for banishment, and i hope they stick to it.
yes i know theres a lot of money involved, and that can change things when it starts getting closer to feeling its within your grasp, but.... a promise is a promise, yeah? 😀 id rather they were open from the start about throwing each other under the bus if need be, then at least they know the score. i guess ive just got more faith in people keeping a promise, and id be disappointed if one of them broke it.
i think theyve both done really well as a close team, and theyve deflected well when we've all thought that the time has come for one of them, and theyve pretty much made the same choices that i would have done. i too wouldnt have recruited and brought in different dynamics, they work well together just as a twosome.
i usually want the faithful to win, but i find myself rooting for these two.
Won't giving the dagger to themselves be the obvious move ?
Maybe too obvious? Maybe better giving the dagger to a faithful they are fairly sure is barking up the wrong tree?
Yes, but when that faithful with the dagger who has the wrong person in their sights, votes that person out, then the remaining will know that the traitors knew that that person knew they knew they were wrong, so might leave them exposed by knowing they knew.
🤔🤔🤔🤔
When they come in for breakfast, a traitor is very rarely in the last group to come in. Should be easy to then work out who is a traitor...................
Is it just me thinking there hasn't been a shred of actual evidence about who any of them are yet, and it's all just supposition? Or am I too thick to see it.
The Library 5 "one of them had to be a traitor cos they said something something about Ross". So?
"Someone left in a cage - must have been a traitor."
Admittedly I was alway rubbish at those "you have two doors" type puzzles, but they've really got nothing have they?
There is rarely any evidence as such. It all comes down to how people react to each other.
Is it just me thinking there hasn't been a shred of actual evidence about who any of them are yet, and it's all just supposition? Or am I too thick to see it.
I made the same point a few days ago. Even the barristers and ex-detective were banging on about 'evidence'. pretty sure it wouldn't stand up in court!
There is never any evidence and that is the point. It created paranoia.
Perhaps the only pointers are where you have small groups of people who know about something the rest don't (e.g. hidden shields, conversations). Its interesting how fickle people are with their opinions. It might be the TV edit but it didn't take them long to forget about Harriet and the accusations when she left.
Did seem Harriet's exit was just for her own sake. Didn't seem very thought through in terms of the game. She could have persuaded others and built more of a case without the performance in the morning and at the round table.
I love the format. It does make me a little uncomfortable. It brings back childhood trauma about getting picked for sports at football and the fickle nature of childhood friendship groups. Scarily also mimics plenty of people's behaviour in more professional settings too. Think the format is getting tired now though. Its mostly the same stories playing out with different characters. They are trying a bit hard with partners and other relations, people with hidden pasts etc. Also the people they pick are becoming less normal and more outrageous to make more of the story. The celebrities one was fantastic but I think some of that was feeling that you knew the people's character and how they would behave.
I love the format.
Then
Think the format is getting tired now though.
?
Ex-barrister, so she probably doesn't need the money.
Yes, but not so much because of the ex-barrister bit...
"Her husband Nathaniel reportedly rakes in £3.5 million annually at Japanese bank Nomura, where he serves as head of global markets for Europe, the Middle East and Africa."
Her book are not exactly a hobby, turns out my wife has read some of them, she's pretty high profile. I believe it's no secret that she was actively recruited by the Traitors producers, rather than her applying.
Her book are not exactly a hobby, turns out my wife has read some of them, she's pretty high profile. I believe it's no secret that she was actively recruited by the Traitors producers, rather than her applying.
I had her books in my Amazon saved list at the start of this series as ones for future reading.
After her raging rant that led to her banishment I decided I really didn't care for her so deleted them from my list. I think her true persona came through in the end.
Both barristers have come across quite poorly in this show.
Not great at deductive reasoning and putting across a compelling argument. It must be why Harriet took up writing potboilers.