When The Celebrity Traitors arrived, myself and many other viewers wondered if the show could work when everyone already knew each other. The original version thrived on strangers building trust and being able to fool one another because of their lack of prior knowledge. It was questioned whether the same tension could exist, or if the game would even work when the contestants were friends, colleagues, or at least aware of each other due to their fame.
Ultimately the celebrity version became a huge success, but arguably for entirely different reasons as the regular show. The psychology of the game shifted entirely.
In the regular Traitors, contestants start with no history, but in the celebrity version, the players already had fully formed relationships. Many had worked together, or at least knew of each other through the entertainment world.
This changed the game from the very beginning because people’s preconceptions of one another shaped every decision that they made. For example, players leaned heavily on Stephen Fry’s reputation for being an extremely intelligent individual and therefore expected him to be an expert faithful. Ironically, he was a terrible detective and was very poor at identifying Traitors.
The opposite happened with rugby player Joe Marler, who was often dismissed even when his instincts were correct. His suspicions could have led the Faithfuls to victory, but his ideas were repeatedly overlooked. In the final round, Nick Mohammed voted him out, wrongly believing Joe was a Traitor despite trusting him for most of the game. That single misstep allowed for a traitor victory. It appeared as though strategy was not at the forefront of the game and people were quick to trust their instincts rather than logic.
One of the most iconic moments that came from the season was when Alan Carr “murdered” Paloma Faith, his real-life friend. Due to all of the celebrities being aware of their existing friendship outside of the show, Carr was written off as a traitor from very early on because no one believed he would kill his friend. This was obviously a major oversight as Carr ended up winning the entire show, but is a clear example of how the dynamics have switched up in this version.
In the regular series, players compete for life-changing money, and the stakes feel personal. The emotional investment, betrayal and arguments at the round table are all parts of what makes the show great. However, for the celebrities, everyone seemed aware of the performance aspect and that it was a game designed for fun. This would most likely be because they were playing for a chosen charity so the personal investment is not as evident within the game. They are able to play with the knowledge that no matter who wins, the money would be going to a good cause, and so could focus on winning purely for the pride and enjoyment of the show.
Another refreshing change was how the Traitors themselves behaved. In previous series, Traitors often turned on one another in order to grant themselves the most amount of money to win at the end. However, the celebrity game turned into one of two opposing teams, the traitors versus the faithfuls, and they would work together to achieve victory.
Jonathan Ross and Cat Burns both said that they were rooting for Alan Carr to go on and win it for the Traitors after they had been banished. Jonathan even said in the reunion episode that the celebrity version felt more like “Traitors versus Faithfuls” rather than every person just looking out for themselves. This could be due to the lack of personal investment in the game but also it should be recognised that these celebrities do have a public persona and would probably be less inclined to look ruthless or be the villain on national television.
What made the celebrity version so enjoyable was that everyone seemed to be in on the joke.
It’s still The Traitors, but it’s The Traitors with self-awareness, humour, and camaraderie.