We’ll Meet You At The Fire Pit | Traitors 2026 | Thread 13 | THERE WILL BE SPOILERS

[CaveMum]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/5480370-end-game-the-battle-of-ardross-castle-who-will-triumph-the-pouting-milk-maid-the-interchangeables-jade-or-the-traitors-traitors-2026-thread-12-spoiler-free?page=1

Thread to continue discussions of Traitors 2026 (UK Version)

If you haven’t seen the Final of this year’s Traitors then stop right there and get yourself over to iPlayer.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Players, the floor is yours…

Sounds like we narrowly avoided another Harry/ Molly situation, although I doubt Jack would have garnered the sympathy Molly did.

It really does sound horrible. There must be lots of waiting around. I bet there's a lot of time spent repeating and re-recording things too, to get it right for camera..
It's no wonder Harriet was desperate to leave!

I'd love to appear on the show if the camera lingered lovingly on my sultry bubble bath scenes in a castle setting, or featured all my best moments. The reality, not so enticing...

Lovely bit of free advertising for that knitwear company on the BBC then it surprises me that that’s been allowed.

So is it the same for 32 year old man Stephen who describes himself in that embarrassingly twee way, "I'm just a wee boy from the Isle of Lewis, this kind of stuff doesn't happen to me," and his £860 jumpsuit?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c301jg2dlmdo

Really sorry but all this massively puts me off. It’s not the celebrity Traitors. Fine that ordinary people are extremely wealthy millionaires and then come on the show. Also fine that they try to be relatable by lying on the show to each other about needing the money.

But don’t stand around in a bought, loaned, gifted, whatever £860 jumpsuit or £400 jumper and speak directly to the public pretending that you think 40K will allow you to help your family financially and get you a deposit for a flat in London. We’re not stupid.

I really don’t want to watch professional contestants who are just using game shows as a vehicle to get other gigs. It’s supposed to be ordinary people pitting their wits against each other, which is interesting and fun to watch. Stop monetising it. It’s not Made in Chelsea.

I agree. When Roxy asked her if she was a traitor and got upset, Rachel herself looked genuinely upset for her, and was quick to offer a hug and an 'I love you.' And she said that she hoped to be able to be a traitor with at least a bit of kindness and respect for others. Which I think she achieved.
She was chosen to be one, she didn't volunteer. She could hardly turn it down once tapped on the shoulder.
I found her focus and her articulacy highly impressive. It's sheer double standards and sexism that people judge her for not smiling, having hard eyes etc.

I just saw Stephen and Rachel talking and he said everyone warmed to Rachel and because she was a leader just followed her every word.

That's also the Rachel I saw.

Whilst I agree with most of your post. She did volunteer. Only those who say they want to be traitors are picked.

i also saw that, they all listened to her, they had solid belief in her

There’s going to be a Traitors-themed West End show! The fact that it’s going to be written by John Finnemore makes me even keener to see it!

He’d be great on Celebrity Traitors - he can play dumb very well!

The Traitors moves from TV to theatre with 'bold' West End show https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r4jwkl2vqo

I tried the first episode. It will be my last! Utterly vile nobodies. Dont want them in my living room.
At least in the celeb one they are entertainers who are keeping an eye on how they come across as their career depends on being liked to an extent.

These "things" on the American one, no talent and a career built on being scandalous or over the top. Doesnt matter if they are vile , as long as they get camera time they make money. Actually turned my stomach watching them, it was visceral!
Will keep on with the Irish one although the castle and scenery isnt as good!

Beat me to it! I wouldn't have high hopes if I hadn't seen his name.

It's such a ridiculously tense situation to be in. He seemed to genuinely believe Stephen was a faithful and must have thought he was on the cusp of £50k. Whether that comes out as anger or shock or upset I can't blame him from having a strong reaction. I've read a longer version of that interview that said he pulled himself together after a few minutes and has made his peace with it.

How can you possibly know her emotional response based on seeing somebody for a few minutes in a highly edited program?
Its such a cliche to cast a woman doing exactly the same as a man as a bad person.
Stephen was lying and deceiving too, perhaps more so, doing the fluffy bewildered island thing. Of course, we have no way of knowing his true, character either, but he is always going to get a better press than a "wicked woman". Stephen was arguably more deceitful as he was playing a likeable little boy lost character to get through. making friends to get through.

Rachels crime, not being ditzy, not being emotional , not being bubbly. I kind of prefer that to winning by making people like you.

I don't grudge either of them the win, they did well. But really tired of the spin on Rachel.

It sounds like Stephen had a decent career and a comfortable life before this an adult but it doesn't sound like his childhood was well off and it IS a big shift from growing up Lewis to being one of the most recognised people in the country - it's just not something that's happened overnight, he's been "successful" in an everyday sense of the word before the Traitors.

Yes - there is the character in the story created by the edit (and we wouldn't watch the show if there were no narrative arc) and there are real people.

Better not to confuse the two.

I think Rachel has purposely eliminated all those micro expressions in the parts of the show we saw most - serious discussion, breakfast, round table etc. and that made her seem cold. She may have been different at other times but her facial expressions were quite flat on camera.

In real terms, he’s not BU to be pissed

But also he should never have even made it to the final and he robbed Faraaz of his own please money with his naive vote. How court he think he deserve to win doing absolutely nothing😂

I think as well that Rachel as part of being a natural leader, was probably quite a difficult person to cross. She was obviously very strong - didn't she say Stephen would pay if he went against her or similar - even adults can find someone like that hard to go against and it feels nicer and safer to be in her in-group.

Rachels crime, not being ditzy, not being emotional , not being bubbly

For me personally, her "crime" was reminding me of people I've worked with, who adopt the "senior adult" role in any situation, so everyone naturally defers to them, and take credit for everyone else's input. Stephen's analytical approach in the turret was impressive (his cybersecurity background helpful here), yet he is often seen as just a jolly little boy who pulls funny faces and wears silly clothes.

In fairness, Farazz robbed himself by saying he wasn't sure about Rachel to Rachel after the last RT. That was crazy thinking and she capitalised on it the next day and got him to vote Jade. All he had to do was vote R again and he, Jack and jade had the majority. Then he had planned to go for Stephen. It was his to lose at that stage.

Yes, you're right. Still, once you've got the role you have to play it with conviction, or it's not fair on viewers, the game or the other people who wanted to be a traitor and weren't picked.
She was just playing it as she was cast and chosen to do.

That’s exactly what I think happened - she learned about micro expressions so tries to be expressionless on the moments that counted

Rachels crime, not being ditzy, not being emotional , not being bubbly. I kind of prefer that to winning by making people like you.
Agree, but I'd also say that people DID genuinely like her, and I think that's because she's a decent person.

i don’t think she adopted it rather than people put her in it by deferring to her because what she said was reasonable - I never saw her talking over anyone or demanding that they see her view - she was always open to discussion. Very different to those people your thinking of at work

Faraaz wouldn’t have made it through the final murder if he hadn’t accused Rachel when he did. There was no rationale for killing Roxy, he just forced their hand