Compare & Contrast The Traitors International: Betrayal Has No Boundaries

[Door County Cherry]

Use this thread to discuss, compare and contrast versions of The Traitors: Foreign and Domestic. By reading and posting in this thread, you agree to be spoiled to seasons that have aired in other countries.

Reportedly Peacock has picked up both the UK and Australian versions of the show, with both iterations set to launch on the Comcast-owned platform Wednesday Feb 15th.

If you want to discuss the UK and/or Australian versions by themselves, please go here:

 

[Meredith Quill]

Responding to a post in the UK thread made me want to elaborate a little more, so I figured it'd be best to do that in here.

Quote

While seeing a certain version first can create bias, it doesn't necessarily follow. I watched them in the following order: UK, Aussie, US, with my favourites in order being - Aussie, UK, US. 

While each version had things that were better or worse than the other two, if I had to give overall rankings, I'd say:

1. Aus - 9/10
2. UK - 8/10
3. US - 7/10

For me -

Example 1: AC was the most entertaining host but Claudia was good in a much different way. 

Example 2: I preferred the Australian, slightly different, format to the UK or US versions. The masks were awesome!

Example 3: The UK players were the least annoying, except for Wilf and one or two others, lol.

Example 4: Mixing 'celebs' with civilians didn't work as well as having either all civilian or all celebs imo. (To expand a bit on this point - having people who really cared about winning the money (civvies + a few 'celebs') play against those whose main motivation obviously wasn't money - i.e. coughKatecough - but rather 'exposure', made the whole thing feel pretty lopsided compared to the other 2 versions).

[BradandJanet]

I agree that the Australian version is the best. It seems to be inspired by Squid Game, but fortunately nobody really dies. I couldn't do some of those challenges. 

I'm watching the British version now, and find the contestants annoying. There are too many emo young men crying at any given moment, and too many women acting like their mothers. I was spoiled on the outcome, so that affects my viewing. 

I hope the US version will skip the celebrities next time. They got too much airtime. I can see how having them might be good for the launch of a new show, but "regular" players are more interesting to me. 

All the hosts are effective and fun, but different. Claudia has an air of evil mystery, and Rodger fits the sophisticated setting of the Australian version. Alan Cumming is wonderful in anything. 

 

[peachmangosteen]

I've started the UK version and it's exactly the same as the US one; is the Australian one the same challenges and twists, too?

[BradandJanet]

The AU version is set in a posh hotel in the Souther Highlands of NSW and has a slightly different vibe, to me anyway. The game is the same with murders, banishment, and immunity shields. The challenges are different. I can't remember if there is any overlap in challenges with the other versions, but I didn't feel as if I was watching a repeat of the US and UK shows. 

[Door County Cherry]

3 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I've started the UK version and it's exactly the same as the US one; is the Australian one the same challenges and twists, too?

The Australian has some different challenges.  It was filmed first and in a different location to the US  and UK one.  The US and UK versions were filmed back-to-back (US version was filmed first but aired second).  

I ended up liking the Australian version the most.  It felt like there was more strategic thinking that went into the Australian version.  And yet, there were some surprising similarities (not in challenges) to the US version.  For instance, both the US and AU version had a traitor who could best be described as a doofus and made some pretty dumb errors.  Christian got carried along close to the end while the Australian didn't. 

And one of the Australian traitors made the exact same mistake as Cody.  I literally gasped when it happened. 

One thing I didn't love with both the UK version and the AU version is how late they forced the traitors to recruit.  I think the show should stop having a murder with maybe 10 people left?  Or 8?  I haven't quite thought it through but I do think there should be a scenario where it's possible the faithful have booted all of the traitors.  Recruiting someone with only a vote or two left, as they did with Kate in Australia, feels unfair to the faithful.  

I said this in the UK thread but I didn't like the UK more than the US.  It was messier than the US, for sure, but I think the US had a bit better strategy that I enjoyed.  The UK just felt like them repeating "we must do something different" and then doing the same darn thing.

I really want to watch the Spanish version.  I hear that the faithfuls took the strategy I would have taken.  Reportedly, the faithfuls who won took the position that they didn't care if they voted out the traitors.  That wasn't their goal.  They wanted to eliminate the faithfuls or their competition while identifying the traitors.  Then, as you get closer to the final and traitors start to turn on one another, you start voting them out.  The way the show is set up, the traitors have an advantage but they're also primed to "win it all" because it's possible.  It's not possible for a faithful to win it all so their mentality is to share.  Keeping the traitors around prevents a recruitment and less need to reevaluate people that have already been identified. 

One thing is true of all three series I saw--people forget the traitors usually don't have a choice whether or not to become a traitor.  They got too worked up about who could do it.  

[BradandJanet]

Thanks for mentioning the Spanish version. I didn't know about it. 

Until about the middle or so of the game, the Faithful really have no useful information to vote people off unless a traitor makes a ridiculous mistake. It would work just to vote off anybody until the numbers get small and the traitors have to act.  However, then there wouldn't be all the drama among the Faithful voting off "one of us" or "my best friend here" or "such a wonderful person who's  so nice to me." This would be the most logical way to play, but does it make compelling television?  

[curbcrusher]

I agree with @SilverStormm's ranking of the other versions.

I liked the host of the UK the best, and the US the least.

I liked the contestants of AUS the best and the US the least. I think AUS was the only one where there never seemed to be any screaming and shouting at breakfast or the round table.  I also thought that the AUS players seemed to put the most time into trying to figure out how a traitor was acting. Once they latched onto the swimming for the shield contest, they pretty much had all the original traitors.

I also liked the AUS version having the pile of silver bars in the middle of the round table each episode.

I think the UK version seemed to show more explanations of how the game was being played given to the players. For instance I think it was in the first episode that the host said that the traitors would be able to recruit.

I also think it was the UK version where one of the Traitors summed up their feelings about "lying" to the others by saying it was no different than sitting around playing poker with these others and bluffing. It's the game and how you play it.

I watched the non-US version spoiled, and it really didn't impact my enjoyment of the show. In fact when and episode started I'd head to the Wikipedia page to see what was going to happen and watch for it.

In reading the Wikipedia, I ended up linking to the Netherlands version. It seems they've had 3 seasons (Netherlands Traitors). I like  how they did the end game:

Quote

In the first season of the show, the contestants played a game to decide the winner of the silver bars in the last episode.[4] The two finalists independently wrote down either the word 'Verraad' (Betrayal) or 'Trouw' (Faithful). If both chose 'Trouw' then they split the prize but if one person chose 'Verraad' then that person won all the silver bars. If both chose 'Verraad' then the runner-up won all the silver bars. In the second season of the show, the team with the most players remaining played this game to decide the winner(s) of the silver bars.[4]

 

I think the game is really tilted towards the Traitor winning it all, so I think I like either of these end games better than the ones shows in the AUS/UK/US versions of the show.

 

 

 

[Stats Queen]

I watched the US and Uk version and am watching the Australia one now.

The UK and Australia versions are so much better IMHO, because it is a bunch of unknowns. I didn’t not like the US one so much because half the contestants have been on numerous reality shows and am tired of their faces (although some kept changing their faces - Brandi) they have had way more than their @5 minutes… it so distracted from the others.

Im tired of this obsession with the US IN TV world (especially Bravo) thinking we want to continue to see these people, no, we don’t. As someone else on these forums said, they were normal people at once.

What I liked about the UK version: 1) non of the contestants had been on TV before - if they had, I wouldn’t know better. 2) not only was there a diversity in terms of gender identity and race, there was also a diversity in terms of other things - size, height which normal people appreciate, and 3) it seemed much more organic (well I hate Brandi Glanville so that didn’t help .

 I am loving the UK version. The people on this are so real and so diverse. - you have a journalist who was held as a hostage in Somalia - and real. I felt more connected to all the players. 
 

To be honest, I have binge watched all of this episodes in the last week as I am laid up it’s an awful arthritis flare up and cannot flow anything that has an semblance to a plot.

In terms of hosts, Alan Cummings is awesome.

[65mickey]

On 2/17/2023 at 12:08 PM, BradandJanet said:

'm watching the British version now, and find the contestants annoying. There are too many emo young men crying at any given moment, and too many women acting like their mothers.

 I watched the US version first and I agree with the reality stars almost making it unwatchable for me. Loved the Australian Version and I am almost finished with the UK.  And I agree with the young men crying and carrying on like they were sentenced to death. It's a game not life. And every time someone said he/she is not a traitor I'll stake my life on that, sure you will. What is that reference to there are none so blind as those who will not see. There are quite a few in this group who need to hear this. 

But it's been fun watching a reality game show that does not involve drunken 20 and 30 somethings hooking up and making fools of themselves like so many of the US reality shows seem to foist on us. 

[65mickey]

Oh wow I just finished watching UK, I am so happy with the ending. I was on on pins and needles like I was on the show. Finally they opened their eyes.

[SourK]

Just go through US, UK and AU, in that order. I liked AU the best overall, because people seemed to want to play and the strategy was more interesting. I liked Claudia the best as host.

On 2/22/2023 at 1:40 PM, Door County Cherry said:

One thing is true of all three series I saw--people forget the traitors usually don't have a choice whether or not to become a traitor.  They got too worked up about who could do it.  

This was really striking to me, too. In every single one of these, people got super hung up on the idea that the Traitors had to be bad. It actually makes me think that, as the game evolves, it might be better if people get used to the idea that they can change teams part way through the season.

I read about one season of, I think, the Dutch version? Not sure. But one season of one of the earlier iterations of this show where one of the Traitors got mad and revealed who the other Traitors were after they got voted out (which I'm surprised doesn't happen more often, honestly). Production decided to reset the game and pick new Traitors at that point -- and I honestly think that might be the healthiest thing. People get way too entrenched in the idea that being Faithful or Traitor shows something about your character.

There's also just a weird dynamic on this show where playing Traitor means you're almost obliged to be sorry if you win and happy if you lose as if you have done something wrong. And that's not how it feels when you play Werewolf or Mafia or something -- and I wonder if it's because the game is so long and that makes it feel like more of a personal betrayal?

[LakeGal]

I do think the players (Faithfuls) forget that the Traitors were chosen by the host.  They did not come into the castle planning to act like a traitor.  But the players get so hung up on thinking all the traitors are mean and nasty.  They want to get rid of all the players they do not like or trust.  But they never want to suspect anyone they like and feel close to.  It is not so simple as looking for the bad people to banish.  I get it is human nature to want to trust your friends and be suspicious of the people you do not like.  But that is not how the traitors are chosen.  The best traitors are those who make friends with everyone.  They surround themselves with people that trust them because they feel close to them.  Meanwhile the loudmouth people that rub people the wrong way get banished.  They are not traitors but everyone wants them out.  

I am really surprised more traitors don't try and take down the other traitors when they are banished.  I would think the scariest moment for the traitors is when one of their own is making their goodbye speech.  Why wouldn't they want to take down another traitor especially if they have just turned on them.  

One big difference with the Aussie version was that the Shield also protected them at the banishment table.  The traitors would truly want to win it for that reason.  In the UK and US version it only helped the traitors to know who did not have it so they could murder anyone.  

[LilyD]

I’ve watched the UK, US and all 3 Dutch seasons and it strikes me to see how quickly the focus shifts from “pure game” to very personal. Every season has a handful of candidates that get absolutely livid and make harsh accusations toward there fellow players when banished. But that’s all part of the game! It’s not real, usually nothing personal and often led by doubts or strategy, but somehow it does become very personal and painful to some.

It’s quite fascinating to watch from a psychological point of view. How do we react when you can’t trust anyone? When someone you trust betrays you? Would you share the big money with someone or throw someone under the bus and keep everything for yourself?

[Meredith Quill]

On 6/2/2023 at 1:59 AM, LilyD said:

It’s quite fascinating to watch from a psychological point of view. How do we react when you can’t trust anyone? When someone you trust betrays you? Would you share the big money with someone or throw someone under the bus and keep everything for yourself?

^

1. It's a high stakes game.
2. The winner(s) can walk away with a significant sum of money.
3. Deception is an inherent part of the game, whether deceiving or being deceived.

They all know those facts going in. If they end up trusting someone, they're playing the game incorrectly/unwisely. Trust no-one. 

The golden rule is; you may like others, get along with others, enjoy their company, be friendly, be nice, sure, even act like you trust them... just don't actually give *anyone your trust when no-one can be 100% trusted, it's pretty simple.

*including fellow Traitors

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[peachmangosteen]

I think that's something most people know but once you're there and living in it, it's harder to actually compartmentalize like that.

[Meredith Quill]

2 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I think that's something most people know but once you're there and living in it, it's harder to actually compartmentalize like that.

I don't think 'trust no-one' is hard to remember esp when the stakes are large sums of money, but maybe that's just me.

[LilyD]

@SilverStormmis spot on with saying trust no one. I’m trying to decide whether the need for honesty and trust we see in quite a few contestants is naive/plain stupid or a desperate attempt to survive. You have to have allies to stay in after all, whatever the word “ally” means in this show. In a way, it brings out the worst in humanity. 

[Meredith Quill]

9 minutes ago, LilyD said:

You have to have allies to stay in after all, whatever the word “ally” means in this show.

!00% hence why I said "you may like others, get along with others, enjoy their company, be friendly, be nice, sure, even act like you trust them" you absolutely need allies, but ally doesn't automatically equal 'friend' in the true sense of the word, and certainly not in an immersive prize-winning game.

[peachmangosteen]

I just think when it’s your actual life 24/7 it’s probably not as easy to just be like ‘it’s a game duh I shouldn’t trust anyone’ like it is if you’re playing monopoly for an hour. Some people are able to do it very easily like Cirie but I think it’s probably more likely for people to have a hard time with it.

[Meredith Quill]

To a large extent it depends of personal levels of ruthlessness (when the situation calls for it) I imagine. I'm sure anyone signing up to play an irl immersive version of a game like Mafia - which this is based on - who doesn't possess, or cannot tap into, a ruthless streak, would absolutely find it much more difficult to play. Those people will either get lucky (luck also plays a massive part) and swim or will end up sunk. Even those who do have, or can tap into, a ruthless streak risk being sunk by poor strategy, poor performance or bad luck. The game of Mafia The Traitors is designed to be pretty dog-eat-dog by its nature and certainly not for the faint-hearted generally speaking.

[Door County Cherry]

But isn't mafia an online or card game?  It's not living 24/7.  I think the isolation of the game makes it more difficult to have that "real life" gut check. 

But I think the biggest issue is that this is ultimately a judgment game.  It's not who you can trust but using your judgment to decide whose behavior is deceptive or who might be preparing to stab you in the back so you can keep them around, use them and get rid of them just before they come for you.

And we're told we need to trust our judgment.  It is hard for people to accept that they have bad judgment.  Ultimately, I think they blame the person they misjudged for being deceptive even if being deceptive is the rule of the game. 

[Meredith Quill]

Actually, Mafia was originally akin to a IRL role-playing board game; yep, I acknowledged it isn't the same as an IRL immersive game, although tbf the principles are identical, and I also agree playing a 24/7 IRL game will be harder. My point was playing an IRL immersive version would be more difficult for those who don't have a ruthless streak to tap into, not that it'll be easy for those who do; difficult either way. Trusting no-one is the wise choice but that doesn't mean not being friendly or nice to others or seeking allies and enjoying the company of fellow contestants, you can still do all those things whilst with-holding your trust. The judgment part is about reading people, watching them, looking for signs of deception or deceptive behaviours. What seems difficult for many in the series aired so far, is separating who they like/dislike from who they trust/distrust and that'll trip you up again and again. The Traitors isn't designed to be a popularity contest as such, but some seem to treat it predominantly as one, which muddies the waters and makes it pretty easy for the real Traitors to target (either by sowing seeds of distrust or direct accusation) those who aren't Traitors.

One of the big differences with The Traitors and the game it's based on (the online version anyway) is the table room. There doesn't seem to be much time allotted to anyone being accused to defend themselves on the show. In the online game, a day or two can pass before a final vote is added to take a player out of the game. So that part I imagine is especially hard; being potentially blindsided and having to defend yourself on the back foot in a relatively short space of time. I wouldn't want to do it.

[Meander]

having now gone through the 3 series, and having truly enjoyed all of them, The Australian one was definitely a better product all around, but i can't rate the UK higher than the US because of some major issue in the production.

 

Though the US has the major issue of having half contestants being Reality players, the UK one had some major events that i took issue how they were handled.  First Nicky becoming "suspect" due to the ableism of the production crew- literally she became suspect because they put her water glass on her amputee side. Next the failure to address bullying by John, and to a lesser degree Kieran; as well as to brushing off the mental states of some of the contestant, Aaron's panic attack was hard to watch.  At least credit to Claudia for stepping in, later in the game.   I also question to selection team in their choices of Traitors.  To be honest Amanda seem to be the only one that was equipped to handle it- actually this is one major success of the Australian production, they had candidates that came to play not just produce over the top TV. 

 

again i enjoyed watching all of them, and the UK did nail the not faking that people were sleeping at the castle, but whereas i have rewatched the Oz game, same as I rewatch the Mole once spoiled, I don't think i'll ever rewatch the other 2 versions.  

[LakeGal]

CTV is planning to do a Canadian Traitors series.  I am curious where they will film it.