The game is afoot! The castle doors have opened once again, and the Celebrity Traitors emerge with a new season of gripping competition. With bigger personalities, familiar faces and plenty of egos packed into a castle, the second season Celebrity Traitors promises to bring a new star-studded appeal to the show. But do celebrities actually make for better (game show) television?
Fundamentally, the celebrity version of the classic Traitors follows the same winning formula as the original. Contestants are secretly divided into Traitors and Faithfuls, with the Faithfuls attempting to identify and banish the Traitors before they are eliminated themselves. The format remains successful because of the agile tension between trust and suspicion. Nevertheless, replacing ordinary contestants with media-trained celebrities inevitably alters the atmosphere, especially when Claudia Winkelman risks being overshadowed by other well-known figures (just kidding – that’s not possible).
In the original series, part of the appeal comes from watching candid strangers become increasingly suspicious of one another. The discovery of the players personalities is experienced by the contestants and the audience simultaneously, whereas with celebrities much of their image has already been crafted prior to their appearance on the show. We already know the comedian, the actor, the athlete, and the television personality. We know who is likely to be loud, competitive, dramatic or suspiciously good at lying. Their public personas therefore invariably become part of the game. It becomes difficult to tell whether someone is genuinely suspicious by the contestants, or if they are simply leaning into their type-cast role that we have seen on television before.
This familiarity can however make Celebrity Traitors all the more entertaining in some ways. Watching a familiar and charismatic figure appear in an unscripted show (or at least that’s the assumption) can make the experience funnier and more enjoyable for many, yet The Traitors has always been funny precisely because its contestants are ordinary people. Their accidental one-liners, bizarre theories and over-the-top reactions have become some of the show’s most memorable moments. The ability to relate to the ordinary person on the screen and imagine yourself in their position – because you could be – was indeed its primary appeal, at least initially. The unexpectedly comedic moments in the original Traitors is also something that is admittedly lost when professional comedians participate; watching a group of relatively normal people participate in what seems like a social experiment is not feasible with high-profile celebrities.
Another major difference is the prize money. In the original format, contestants are competing for money for their own gain, creating a legitimate personal stake. This personal financial incentive makes every betrayal, banishment and murder potentially takes a contestant closer to a tangible and life-altering amount of money. When the money is going to charity instead, the stakes arguably become lower on a personal level. Nobody is going home without a potential fortune that could have paid their rent or funded a holiday; this is likely hardly a concern for most of the celebrities on the show. Still, the charitable element could make the celebrities easier to root for and make you feel less guilty for watching a game show instead of completing your coursework.
Ultimately, Celebrity Traitors cannot completely recreate what makes the original so compelling, but it does not need to. Whether it is actually ‘better’ comes down to what you want from the show. If you watch The Traitors for psychological tension and genuine high stakes, the original will remain unsurpassable. But if you want to watch faces you recognise lie, panic, and turn on each other inside a Scottish castle, then Celebrity Traitors is the show for you.
Illustration by Amelia Patterson @patt_paints
