SourK

Eh. I still like this show, but I would have found it more interesting if Marshall had been a talented writer who had legitimate grievances with Hollywood instead of a pretender full of sour grapes. Also, I felt like it was kind of cheap to have Jan just shoot him from the window. I really liked the Amy Ryan performance in the first season, but that's a character who doesn't serve a purpose anymore. And having Jan kill Marshall doesn't symbolize anything or advance the themes of the story -- it's just, like, a way to get out of that scene. I'm also kind of weirded out that they drew attention to the plot holes from season one and acted like this season would retcon them into the mystery and then... didn't do that at all? Like, I had forgotten all that stuff about notes and poisonings, and I was briefly impressed that they were going to make it relevant somehow, and then I was like, "Why even bring it up?"

I just watched this, super late as usual -- and it was my favourite series I've seen in a long time. I probably wouldn't classify it was a comedy, primarily, but I did find it very funny at times -- in a super dark way. I also just really, really dug how uncomfortable it was. One thing that I found weird about the series is that I think it started off by focusing the negative impact Asher was having on other people and ended by hyper-focusing on Asher -- to the point that other people are an afterthought and almost the whole last episode is about empathizing with him while he get sucked into the sky. It kind of shifted my understanding of the show -- like, "Is this story about class stratification, or is it about Asher?" And I was left with a nagging feeling that the series might have always been about Asher -- and about maybe revealing that, despite initial appearances, Asher is not the worst person in this marriage.

I'm only at the start of season two, but, from what I can gather, according to The Bear, being loud and energetic = hero, whether or not any of the things you loudly, energetically do make any sense. I thought the worst moment was episode 1.7, where Carmy saw that they had to fill hundreds of orders in 10 minutes -- like, orders they literally could not fill, because they did not have enough food -- and then he... seriously attempted to do that, and got all pissed off when it didn't work. But then I came back for the first episode of season two, where Carmy promises to pay his uncle back in 18 months -- a number of months he comes up with, that nobody else suggested -- and then he has a meeting where he apparently learns for the first time what the timeline will be to open his restaurant and make a profit. And then he's like, "Oh, no. That's really intense time pressure, given that I just set an arbitrary timeline of 18 months! Let's just accept that as the situation and start scrambling again." I cannot.

This was frustrating to watch -- for me, it was just a repetitive argument between people who are all kind of wrong. YMMV. I thought Peppermint spoke well when she was talking about how she felt hurt and disappointed and, for her, it was about more than the show and had to do with past experiences she'd had and her fears about the current political situation, etc. I think it's understandable that MJ is also hurt and disappointed, maybe for reasons that go beyond what happened in the show -- like, she had mentioned knowing what it was like to feel left out of a group, for example. I get why she would be upset to get to the end of the game and think, "We're all on the same team, we all like each other, everything's cool," and then have the other two people vote her out, basically just because they like each other more. I think the issue she had at the reunion is just that she didn't know how to express any of that in the same way that Peppermint did, so she did the passive-aggressive thing where she was like, "I'm mad at you; I'm interrupting to show I'm still mad at you; I'm mad at you; acknowledge me; show me that you care about how I feel." And then the response she got was the least helpful response, which is people saying, "Well, U shouldn't B mad." I've said it in other Traitor's threads, and I'll say it again: this show is basically designed to hurt people's feelings and make them feel bad, and that's one aspect of it that maybe isn't awesome. I think it's fair to share that, if that's what your experience was -- I just don't think she knew how. As far as Dan/Phaedra, I actually believe he thought he could throw Phaedra under the bus to save himself. It was a move that didn't work, and it was a move that tanked her game unnecessarily because it didn't work, but I don't think he did it out of spite. I think he was just bad at being a Traitor.

This season kind of sucked, but the last ten minutes were shocking and hilarious. Like, suddenly it turned into this weird, misguided Hallmark movie about how Trishelle and CT healed their toxic friendship by throwing MJ under the bus.

Oof. For a show that's so much about talking to people, we don't have a lot of great talkers this season. LOL at the scene were Trishelle made such a huge deal of confronting the Bravo alliance and then she just kind of stood there going, "I don't know you, you know. I feel like you have a group." I was pleasantly surprised that MJ voted for Peter, just because I think it's more interesting if Peter gets banished instead of the obvious Traitor and I thought, by the way the show was dragging it out, that she'd pick Phaedra. I had forgotten, though, that Peter hurt her feelings -- and that's a good motivation for wanting it to be him and not being terribly sorry to get rid of him if it isn't. The pontoon task was kind of sad. I feel like, if your challenge is so hard that most of the cast can't do it, maybe the challenge should be easier. Those platforms looked really far apart. Also, I noticed that Trishelle and CT both did well in that challenge and won it by themselves, but, at least in the edit we saw, the reaction to Trishelle doing well was, "Yeah, well, she has long legs," and the reaction to CT doing well was, "Oooo CT, he's the hero of the challenge!" (I'm paraphrasing.) I don't have any pre-existing feelings about Trishelle and I've never seen her other show, but I feel like her narrative on this show is that she's playing pretty well but everyone ignores her.

I found it interesting that Peter came out and said that the way to win is to take a known Traitor to the finals with you because "no one will vote to end the game if Parvati's there." To a certain extent that's true, but I think it only works if a) you're sure that it's not you and TWO Traitors in the final, and b) the Traitors don't know that you know who they are. The problem with this season is that the Traitors all got exposed, so now you need a different play style. I also thought it was interesting that Kate said she was disappointed that Phaedra was the only Traitor -- which means they were at least entertaining the idea that someone got recruited. Dan definitely blew things up for everyone when he pushed to murder someone with a shield and then started going after Phaedra, and I would be annoyed if I were on team Traitor with him. But also there were three people in that tower and the other two could have put their feet down and refused to murder someone who could have a shield. They all made that mistake together. I think the same. If she had voted for Peter that would be a huge upset in the way things have been going, and very exciting TV, so I feel like they wouldn't have cut. I think they ended the episode here because they know it's boring if the Faithful pick off the last obvious Traitor so they're trying to create suspense where there is none. I hope I'm wrong. Yeah, I was always confused about where the line was. I the first season, they seemed to play as if they were forbidden from directly accusing another Traitor ever, but this season it seems do be, "Don't stand in the circle and say 'these are the other Traitors.'" And, to be fair, if you WERE forbidden from ever accusing another Traitor, that could become a quick way to find out who the Traitors are because you could just go around the table and see who refuses to accuse the obvious Traitor.

I don't think Phaedra's the best ever Traitor, but I respect how well she defends herself at the round table. When Trishelle was like, "I'll start with the least convincing reason and move to the most," and then Phaedra immediately started making nitpicky arguments about the least convincing reason, I was like, "OMG, this is the chef's kiss of stalling and hoping everyone gets bored." I didn't think that John was fooled by Parvati, but I thought it was socially skillful of him to be like, "You know what? You play really hard," in that moment. I get a slightly different vibe, like Alan's opinion of John might not be totally friendly. I know nothing about John -- to me, he's just some guy -- but, during the bird call task, there was a moment where I was like, "Shit, imagine if this was a politician in your country." I do think that, when the two of them interact, I'm more consciously aware that this is Alan's job and he's working -- whether it's good or bad, the mood certainly changes.

I still don't love that we're playing this like it's Survivor, but LOL at Sandra using billiard balls to explain how vote against an enemy alliance, and double LOL at the shot of Kate's mouth hanging open in amazement while she did that. For the purpose of maintaining Phaedra's cover, it would have been a bad move, but, for the purpose of getting rid of Peter -- which is all Parvati seems to care about, now -- it would have been a good move, because it would be another person who definitely wouldn't save Peter. That reaction made sense to me, but I can't explain what it is. I've met people with that personality type before where it's like, even if they feel annoyed or insulted, they're just like, "Oh? Tell me more," in a very pragmatic way. Like, they're still angry, but they're gathering information. I think Dan and Parvati are both playing this -- or played this, in Dan's case -- like you can argue your way out of banishment on a technicality. The vibe Parvati's giving off is like, "Okay, we all know I'm a Traitor, but, if I can give you a good enough argument that some other random person is a Traitor, then you should pick that one instead." Which is also the vibe Dan was giving off toward the end. She's actually benefiting more from Sandra explaining to everyone that they need to guard against a scenario where the Traitor is actually in the other alliance, as unlikely as that may be. I'm sure Sandra fully knows that it's probably Parvati, but this is their way of making a temporary alliance with Parvati while they protect themselves. Speaking of temporary alliances, I'm very curious about what Parvati and Peter had to say to each other in the creepy coat closet room. I feel like we didn't see the whole conversation. I agree. If they get caught in a scenario where, every week, a new person gets blackmailed to be a Traitor and then one of the Traitors gets voted off, that's also interesting to see because of how it would change the game. I understand why she didn't, but I wish MJ had refused to leave the room. If you're so desperate to have a private conversation, you can be the ones who leave the room each time. Same. She didn't say it directly, but I think she was reading the situation correctly -- she thought they respected each other as competitors and he's like, "She's okay or whatever, but I'd rather have this random guy as a teammate."

I never watched Big Brother, but I read an article this week about the Dan's Funeral thing: https://ew.com/tv/2019/08/29/big-brother-14-oral-history-dan-funeral/ What's interesting about it, in light of how he tried to save himself on this show, is that they're describing a situation where he made a big speech and threw one of his allies under the bus, but half of the people there weren't really convinced by the speech, and the thing that really improved his standing in the game was a one-on-one conversation with someone who had strategic reasons for making an alliance with him. Which, IIRC, was what Phaedra suggested Dan do to take some of the heat off of himself. There's a trend this season that I don't like where the competitive reality show vets are treating this as a pure numbers game where you just group up and eliminate someone from an opposing alliance. It might be a smart way to play -- I'm not sure yet -- but it's boring, because it's just like every other show. I'm finding it a lot more fun to watch seasons where no one has been on a reality show before and they're learning to play Traitors as its own thing.

I am late, but this is important: I loved Alan's funeral outfit so much!

Spoilers for season 2 finale. Anyway, I enjoyed this season and I'm curious to see how the gameplay evolves as we start seeing more contestants who have already watched the show and been able to think about strategies.

This season has made me think a lot more about the strategy in the game, beyond the surface level of traitors vs faithfuls. Because the game takes place over a set number of rounds, and the traitors keep getting replenished during those rounds, and the contestants get a bigger prize if they have fewer teammates standing at the end -- there's also a traitors vs traitors and faithfuls vs faithfuls element. If you're a faithful and you think you know who the traitors are, I'm genuinely unsure of whether it's in your interest to vote them out -- knowing that a) they will be replaced by someone who you might NOT know is a traitor, and b) you have to eliminate the other faithfuls anyway in order to get the prize. (Also, you could end up being forced to be a traitor, and it could mess up your game.) If you genuinely think you've clocked the traitors, the smarter strategy might be to keep that to yourself and focus on trying to not get murdered/banished before the final rounds. Not that I think anyone's doing that. Just, the traitors this season are not subtle, and people are starting to clock them -- so it just makes me think, "What's the optimal thing to do with that information, if you're faithful?"

I'm watching, too. Maybe we should start a thread for the second season. It seems like we can just do that, now? IDK. It feels sacrilegious or something. For now:

Well, I was surprised. I thought for sure we were headed into an anti-climactic ending where Leroy and Gurleen eliminated the other players and Mike and split the prize two ways, but Gurleen surprised me. I feel for her. She went against her instincts and over-thought what she should do, and it's hard to feel like you failed yourself that way. I also get that Leroy's upset that they lost, but it's not really fair to try to shame her for making a bad play. It's not like she deliberately screwed him over -- she made what she thought was the correct move and the consequence of choosing wrong was just as bad for her. Same. It seemed like the contestants had a pretty good idea that there had to be one Traitor left, so I get why revealing who they banished would actually be giving them a lot of information... but then why reveal who they've banished during the fire segment? Why not just say, "No reveals from here until the end?" The contestants also use their circle moment as a chance to say goodbye and have closure, and it feels kind of mean to me not to let Trevon have that.