Australian Traitors Season 2: Spoilers!! Spoilers!!

[periodiclabel]

For all those who have WATCHED Season 2 on Daily Motion and wish to discuss ... SPOILERS

The ending. What a blinder Camille played! And Sam still trying to talk her out of it. I would have done exactly the same.

I can't remember most contestant's names now but it was extraordinary how every time someone suspected Sam he deflected onto them and off they were banished. I couldn't work out if he was a genius or the rest of them were extraordinarily stupid. I certainly wouldn't be pleased if that psychologist woman was my therapist, dumb to the very last moment.

I binged this at the weekend. I didn't plan to, as I'm a bit Traitored out after the UK final (I was longing for Jaz to win)
But, it was raining at the weekend, and I was in cosy mode, searching for a binge watch!
Oh my goodness! Most of it was maddening to watch. I actually couldn't believe it. The way Annabel was treated by her fellow faithfuls was actually really upsetting to watch. This is where I part company with many here who think Camille was the heroine. She turned it round at the end; but Annabel and Luke were the absolute heroes. To figure out both traitors so early was phenomenal. They were just so unfortunate with their fellow faithfuls. Sam was obviously insufferable. I didn't like Harry in our version, but he's positively angelic by comparison!
Re the ending - a poetic justice for sure. Camille was nobody's prisoner. However, I did feel very sorry for Blake. He seemed genuinely decent; and apparently really needed the money, for family, and to raise awareness about his mum's illness. I personally think better play on Camille's part, would have been to team up with Blake to get Sam out. They had multiple opportunities. So, I don't think Camille was the hero of the piece really. In that last moment, she got her justice, but Blake was huge collateral damage, and needlessly so in my view.
Overall, Annabel and Luke were the true winners; and their fate proves utterly that to win as a good faithful is exceptionally difficult. Jaz kept quiet - didn't win, and accused of not speaking up. Annabel and Luke spoke up - didn't win, and accused of not using their knowledge more subtly. You just can't easily win as a good faithful! It's an incredibly unfair game. So, I think it's unlikely I'll watch another version, unless it's somehow amended to be fairer.

If Blake wanted the money so much... He played really badly. He had a few opportunities to get rid of Sam who he never trusted. He stole at the the end, knowing full well that Sam would steal and assumed that Camille would share... He played it wrong.bhe should have teamed up with Camille, got rid of Sam and she probably would have shared with him.

yes, it is easier to win as a traitor!
But, faithfuls have won before,.so not impossible.

.

@wubwubwub yes, I think both Camille and Blake erred by not banishing Sam when they had the chance. They had multiple chances. When Liam finally realised, they had the numbers then, and I genuinely don't understand why they didn't vote with Liam to get Sam out? Of course Sarah was impossible to rely on, and very fickle! But those two plus Liam was enough. Not sure why they didn't? 🤷
I couldn't help but feel sorry for Blake though. Hard to watch someone so clearly devastated...

Re faithfuls having the chance to win - UK series 1 winners only won because they were essentially directly told who the remaining traitor was! They were lovely people, so I was happy; but they didn't play the game well. Most of the good faithfuls (or potentially good if they had been given a chance) are ousted by the traitors early on. Jaz, Annabel and Luke all stand out to me as exemplary faithfuls, who lasted a good time, and yet couldn't win.
I've got a very strong faithful bias, so I find that injustice really difficult. Probably not the game for me!

S1 was great.
I thought they ruined it by bringing in slebs for s2.

Hannah drove me INSANE.
I loved annabelle who had just jumped the shark and DIDN'T CARE.

The ending was perfect and i love the fact that little shit head psycho Sam didnt get the money. He makes my skin crawl.

I also had zero sympathy for blake he was a total pussy / bitch / delta of a human and the ending was inevitable. He could have gone against sam SO many times but wasnt too chicken. He could even have aligned with camille to vote sam out when there were 4 & shared with camille once sam was gone.

The ONLY thing that surprised me was he voted steal... i was surprised he had it in him.

Camille is an absolute legend.

I heard Camille on a podcast - she said Blake was in thrall to Sam and she knew he'd never go with her against him 🤷🏻‍♀️

We have to remember that Blake couldn't see all the things we could see [about Sam] and I reckon he was pretty horrified when watching it back. Things Sam said when alone.
But, I'm not sure anyway that I agree that Blake wouldn't have voted against Sam. He made it clear on numerous occasions that he didn't believe a word Sam said (as ultimately evidenced by his steal vote). He very nearly voted for Sam to be banished (I think when Simone ended up going) when Camille was also planning to vote Sam out. Blake said he could tell that Camille had changed her mind, and so he kind of had to too.
I think the main problem was miscommunication and misunderstanding between Camille and Blake - a very great pity for them both...

@GreatGateauxsby a bit harsh on Blake 😳

@Ruminate2much noooo he was a total wet weak...

He knew what a snake / bully sam was and perpetually gave in to him.

I'd much rather go in a blaze of glory a la annabelle than live out my days as a "blake"

Although maybe...as Sam pointed out "thats what a rich person would say" 🤭

@GreatGateauxsby you see, I don't think he did know [what a snake Sam was] I think we saw far more of it than he did. Of course, he knew Sam couldn't be trusted; but not the full pathological extent of it!
I didn't see him as weak at all. Just decent, and probably quite nervous, as he really needed the money, so was treading carefully. Unfortunately he slipped up.

Btw, I was totally baffled by Sam's comment about what a rich person would say - do we know for certain that Camille's wealthy? Older doesn't always mean wealthier. I'm over 40 and as poor as a church mouse! Still renting.

Anyway, none of it's life or death - hopefully they'll get some good opportunities from it - I especially hope that for Annabel and Blake 😊

Agree with all you said.
I've recently got into Australian survivor which is sort of similar to traitors but far better in my opinion.
If you haven't watched I recommend it.
Best.of all you can get your luke fix(hes in series 4)

Camille said on the much mentioned podcast that she wasn’t rich – mind you everyone says that because it’s all relative! For sure she was obviously richer than Blake and Sam she’s much older, married, kids, with a career behind her and probably some cash in the bank. But since when should you deliberately lose a game because you have a bit more money than the other contestant? Unfortunately, Blake painted himself into a corner where he knew that there was absolutely no way Sam would ever share with him, so even if they had got Camille out, they would still have ended up going away with nothing

And by the way on the Annabel point, Camille also said in the podcast that Annabel had made equally strong (edited) accusations at some other people which meant they didn’t completely trust her when she went for Sam

Apparently Camille did say at some point in the game that she didn't need the money. Might be true, or might be something you say to make yourself sound more trustworthy.

It doesn't matter though, because the purpose of the game isn't to find the poorest or most deserving person. It does show, though, that pretty much everyone is selective about when they consider it just a game.

Ah, OK, I missed that (the Camille/wealth comment)
That's a really good point about the unique personal point at which it ceases to just be a game; and how selective the players can be about that.
I reckon for Blake, much of his upset was due to being so close to the win. If he'd been banished much earlier, it'd not have been so devastating.

If Camille hadn't got to the final and it was just Sam and Blake... They would have both stolen? I think whatever happened Sam would have stolen. I think Blake would have as well tbh and so Sam would never have got anything because he thought Blake trusted him.

No
I think work 2 results they share? Not do the dilemma.

But we've not seen the secret rules!

I'm not 100% sure it's true...I think I read an interview where someone said she had mentioned it but it wasn't aired. I wouldn't have assumed she was rich just because she was a bit older and a SAHM, plus she hasn't ever refuted it to my knowledge, so I think Sam was basing it on something. But yeah, whether she is or not isn't really the point. And yeah, everyone is selective about how much of a game it is, players and viewers.

Even if she was a billionaire... They are still playing a game, and they lost. Move on!

No, the rules were spelled out clearly - as long as one traitor says steal they get the money. So had Camille dropped out it would have been Blake v Sam and they would have both said steal and ended up with nothing. Then no doubt Sam would have gone off on one at Blake for not allowing the sheriff the cash. The Camille comment - she said she said something like that at some point to make herself seem even more faithful. But again, it's not a charity, it's a gameshow! I think most of Blake's devastation was on realising he should have knived Sam way earlier.

I mean we don't know what hat the rules are lf 2 traitors make it up the end.

Does the traitors dilemma kick in with 2? It's not been mentioned before that I have seen as a possibility so I assume it's just for 3+ traitors at the end.

Bit Australia can have different rules to other countries -it's not a rule that had been explained to the audience before here or in other countries (uk or USA)

Seems unlikely to happen. If there are two Traitors and one Faithful, which has happened, then there's absolutely no reason for the Traitors to banish the Faithful; they'll vote to banish again, go for each other, and the Faithful has the useless deciding vote.

I've read somewhere (can't remember where) that the traitors dilemma is just three or more. If two at the end, it automatically is shared between the two remaining traitors. I might be wrong however...

My memory is Rodger explained it was share or steal to the bitter end but I may well have got it wrong, seems like years since I watched this now!

They havent explained it in the UK or US because they haven't had to use it (yet), they must be hoping they never will ... But it's a franchise and there will be a strict rule book drawn up for all countries that is virtually identical, it's important to the franchise holders that different territories don't go off playing wildly different versions

Of course it's a game, not a charity. But, obviously the extent to which the money is needed would massively affect gameplay. If not needed, you'd probably be willing to take way more risks.
Re moving on - do you mean the players, or do you mean me/other posters? If the latter, I only watched it the day before yesterday, so it's very fresh on my mind. This is a forum to discuss it, and I'm doing just that. But, I don't have anything to move on from. I felt sorry for Blake; and think other stuff I said about Annabel and Luke being the true champions in my view; but apart from here, it's not been on my mind much at all the moment I stopped watching it.
If you mean the players, or especially Blake - I can totally understand why narrowly missing out on a much-needed 100k would take some time to move on from. He wouldn't be human if it didn't...