LeDucDiableBleu

Sam and Blake wanted to use Camille as a patsy. They thought she was weak and a follower. How many times did Sam say that he has Camille in his pocket and Camille will do anything he says. He got overconfident and underestimated her, so from my pov he didn't deserve the money. He got out-played and out-witted by a woman who he believed should have just handed it over to him on a platter, and thank him for the privilege. I have nothing but respect for Camille saying no, I won't be your patsy.

I'm getting a little annoyed with the cliffhanger endings. This time, they wouldn't even show us the roundtable reaction after we already knew who was banished. "I'm a....." cut. I really wanted Paul to eat some humble pie too, and I was bummed that he didn't get banished. But his time is coming soon. His behavior screams Traitor and I don't know why most of them aren't seeing it. And it's worse because Paul thinks he's playing a great game and that it's his to lose. I thought Miles made some key masterful statements at the roundtable that went completely under the radar. Him and Harry are doing well but I think Harry will crack soon. Rooting for Miles.

But what if the faithful didn't want to eliminate another faithful but were forced to vote because the others threw red fire? I don't think they should be punished for that. And this final banishment could have gone very differently. MJ could have changed it by being in game mode, and she wasn't. If she were in game mode she would have seen a huge red flag when CT wrote her name down. She should have pivoted and teamed up with Trishelle on the next vote and tried to talk her into voting for CT again, and the two of them vote for CT. The previous vote being a three-way split was a gift to MJ that she didn't capitalize on. Instead it was like she just walked right into her own grave voluntarily. If MJ had successfully contributed to eliminating CT, then I don't think she should be punished for eliminating a faithful when she was forced to vote in the first place. She threw green, she didn't want to vote again.

In the UK and Australia season 1 they recruited at this same point. I don't think the producers want only one traitor at the final banishment.

It was crazy to see Trishelle and CT take the gold to pot when everyone else was standing around and talking and laughing. If I remember correctly CT and Trishelle were also the ones who did the majority of the work in the tunnel challenge. In future seasons they should keep the more physical players around until the end because relying on one or two people to do the work in the challenges is too risky. I think Kate wanted to keep Phaedra in until the final banishment because that takes the heat off her. Before her remarks at the roundtable no one was suspecting Kate. Although they should have suspected Kate when she tried to deflect votes to Sandra, but they didn't seem to pick up on that. I think that's why Kate was so upset with her at the roundtable. She felt like Phaedra could have done more to throw people off. But really the arguments from CT, John, Peter and Trishelle from the previous round were ironclad and couldn't be refuted. The only reason Phaedra was even there one more day was because of her Bravo protection alliance. It'll be interesting to see how Sandra comes into play at the end. Either as being murdered or being the key to voting out Kate. I'm rooting for her, but it also seems unlikely that two Survivors would win in a row. Also I wonder if there'll be another recruitment. If so, Kate might even recruit Sandra. Because Kate was aggressively steering people toward her, it would be easy to continue to do that and the rest of them would feel like they voted out a traitor without looking at Kate being one, too.

The bit that CT did with the "snake in his pants" was hysterical.

Maybe not as far as "icy" but she wasn't warm and cuddly on Survivor.

Even though I love Phaedra I thought it was a little weird when she was telling Parvati that her facial expressions were turning people off, and her mimicking of them in a mocking way. I don't think Phaedra has seen Parvati on Survivor, because her personality is generally icy and trademark is backstabbing people (specifically men). If Parvati suddenly started acting nice and sweet people would be suspicious. Both Parvati and Sandra have toned down their usual over-the-top confidence here in Traitors. When Parvati asked Phaedra something like "how should I act?" I was really thrown off, I don't know if that was Parvati humoring her or if she really was asking. I might have to watch again. I liked that Parvati was actively trying to regain some control and actively played and had a strategy, even if it would have failed in an actual roundtable. Peter is bugging big time with his alliance and shutting people out of the room. I so wish he could have been banished.

Dan really should have guessed that Peter was lying about the shield. The quote mentioned above from him makes sense when he says he thought the non-gamers couldn't play, but that doesn't mean he himself shouldn't play. His game lacked any kind of two-steps forward thinking. Even when Parvati explicitly said Peter may be lying about the shield, he didn't take it into account. He had tunnel vision and was like a deer in headlights. I think Cirie thrived in the Traitors because it's a fast-moving game like Survivor. You vote out people every couple of days or even daily, and in a matter of hours after the immunity challenge. You don't have a chance to have long conversations with anyone, and information doesn't have a lot of time to change and be manipulated. Big Brother is the opposite.

Yes, that's how it worked in season 1. The same person kept getting the shield though, and when that person was recruited to be a traitor and they got the shield again, the traitors decided to murder someone from the shield group and it threw the rest of the faithfuls off. So as far as I remember, the traitors never actually tried to murder someone who had a shield and they didn't know. I'm just assuming that the person just walks into breakfast.

I just wanted to mention that I heard of lardy cakes on an episode of "Escape to the Country" where the potential homebuyers visited a local bakery and made them. The story was that the region was known for its hog farming and used every bit of the pig as they could a long time ago. I think it was Wiltshire but not completely sure. On a past GBBO someone made twist on a lardy cake in the signature. But I've always been excited to see lardy cakes anywhere since that episode.

I think cheering for your favorite horse and jockey as a far away audience member is different than yelling at your father to move his ass (as if he doesn't know that he should) in a one-on-one, currently in the race situation. It would be like yelling at someone to cook dinner, cook dinner, cook dinner over and over while they're in the kitchen cooking dinner. Once or twice would have been enough. I think she wanted the world to know that if they lost, it would be his fault. She's on record telling him to go faster 100 times, so she did her part. It would also be different if Steve was intentionally going slow, or lazy. He's proven that he's neither of these, so berating him as if he were, was unwarranted.

He know it's a race and he was going as fast as he could. Everyone was going as fast as they could. Yelling the same phrase over and over doesn't make someone go faster.

I think she was also a dancer for Madonna. I just saw an article a few days ago where she was quoted that Madonna charged $100 for every minute a dancer was late to rehearsal.

Jag definitely deserved to win. I don't necessarily agree with him when he said he played an honest and loyal game, but he certainly deserved it. I was entirely unimpressed and actually disappointed in Matt's answers to the jury questions and his speech. He was unprepared and expected everyone just to hand him the win. He didn't anticipate that Jag could have prepared. Jag didn't even have to go that hard in his answers and speech. He could have just said about 5% of what he did and still got the win because Matt did so poorly. Matt completely wasted the opportunity and Jag fully took it and made sure he didn't let go. If I were a juror I couldn't in good conscience vote for Matt after that performance.