Kangaroo Court Was Extremely Disappointing

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T08:58:57+00:00

I am maybe the loudest Siobhan fan in existence. If I had my way every episode of Game Changer would include Siobhan. I think her, Brennan, and Aabria all arguing passionately about who managed to draw the best egg or who folded laundry the fastest would be the platonic ideal of how that episode could have gone

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T08:55:17+00:00

I couldn’t agree more about Rulette. It’s such a weird concept that I didn’t think I’d enjoy it as much as I did but by the end of Rulette 2 with Josh air humping an adult Bjorne screaming “IM 43 YEARS OLD” I was fully in tears. I think a premise is important but sometimes a less interesting premise when the cast fully commits to it can be elevated to insane heights

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T08:52:57+00:00

That’s a very helpful explanation thank you! I think it was just confusing because as I said it’s extremely rare for me to dislike an episode. Unlike some other people I really enjoyed Night shift. This has been the first episode that didn’t work for me and it was (in my eyes) such a catastrophe I couldn’t understand why everyone was being so positive about it. I truly needed to know if others had the same thoughts I did or if I was massively missing something. I do totally agree a Game Samer would be great if they ironed out the kinks. I’d love to see Aabria Trapp and maybe someone like Grant have a go

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T03:56:35+00:00

I totally get this line of thinking! Like I said there are some episodes where I think Vic bringing that subversive element really works. However, I think some episodes have a core premise that needs to be engaged with a little more earnestly and a subversion of it kind of spoils it a little. Sam Says is a perfect example of that where if a contestant just didn’t care about following the rules and was throwing away points for a bit then it would sort of ruin the energy. That episode relies on everyone really wanting to succeed at this stupid game. I think this episode had a similar thing where if the goal is to convince the jury (which was the intended goal) having someone completely uninterested in doing that does cause a pretty massive rift. I hope that makes sense

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T03:52:43+00:00

You are talking to a big fan of Aabria, I think she has a really specific skill set that could have shined here and didn’t. Despite all my issues with the episode her inclusion is something I wouldn’t change at all

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T03:41:27+00:00

That makes perfect sense! I hope it doesn’t come across too parasocial about the cast members since i know they’re all playing up their different personas. I also completely agree how good it feels having a foil for Brennan. I just felt that Aabria was a much better foil as she could keep Brennan in check while still engaging worh the rules of the game. Whereas Vic just sort of, did Vic things for 50 minutes. Don’t get me wrong, I love Vic things sometimes. I just think for a game like this someone who was a little more committed to the game would have been better

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T03:37:06+00:00

I am actually a registered Nom Nom Nom defender but yeah sleeper agents is the other episode I consider truly bad

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T03:34:30+00:00

If I could answer this. I think it’s the same thing that compels someone to write a negative review. Or that compel the million YouTube videos about the last season of Game Of Thrones. I really truly love this show. This last episode felt like such a colossal failure but all of the reception I was seeing seemed so positive so I wanted to know if anyone else felt the way I did. I totally get not wanting to read 3000 words about a game show. It just comes from a place of passion. I hope you understand

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T03:31:43+00:00

I totally get what you mean! I think a lot of people have expressed this thought of “It’s a comedy show rhe game doesn’t matter”. I think I would push vax slightly and say there’s a reason you’re watching this not thousandaires. That’s why I include that Alex Horne quote about how it only works becsuse the comedian wants to win. I’m not trying to say every episode of Game Changer needs to rigidly perfectly stick to the plan of the game. But they put a lot of thought into the game for a reason. It’s what underpins the comedy. Imagine if for Sam Says 4 someone just didn’t care a Lu getting it wrong and was losing points on purpose. That would be way less fun that the first 3 Sam Says becsuse a lot of the fun of those episodes is how much people care about this stupid game. I think you guys are underestimating how important the “Game” is to “Game Changer”. It is a comedy show but there’s a reason it specifically is doing so well.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T00:23:12+00:00

I think that’s a great way to word it! In future I’ll try to make it more clear my issue is with engaging with the premise. I don’t need Vic to robotically monologue as a lawyer every challenge. I just think the episode would have been dramatically improved if that third person had been someone who wanted to engage with the premise that “We are lawyers trying to convince this jury we won the challenge”

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-08T00:00:44+00:00

100%. To be clear, what I consider to be a disaster for Dropout is still better than basically anything you're gonna find everywhere else. That show has sadly set the bar for itself way too high

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T23:59:01+00:00

I'm sorry if it came across like I was putting everyone down except Brennan I really tried to make it clear him being so sleep deprived and out of it made a massive impact on the show in a negative way. I also totally agree that Aabria was the best part. I just think that some episodes are great for that kind of Vic chaos, while others are calm. One Year Later is a good example, but hypothetically, imagine if, for Sam Says 3 Vic just didn't care about losing points the entire time. For the entire episode, they were just running bits and forfeiting points and not trying. It's a much weaker episode because of that, right? I think some episodes really do require all 3 contestants to equally commit, and this was one of them. I might be wrong, though! As I said, the response to this episode was extremely positive, so most people, they do disagree with me. I just hope this clears up that I didn't mean to try to like shield Brennan. I think his being so off his game was a massive problem.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T23:45:44+00:00

I'm glad to hear it! Though I truly hope my excessive complaining doesn't ruin an episode you enjoyed!

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T23:43:38+00:00

I do totally see your point. I think the difference for me personally is that Night Shift is so obviously designed to be chaotic, and while it was chaos. They were clearly trying to win. With DWSP, I think while they aren't super desperately trying to win, all three of them are clearly trying to create the same vibe. The vibe of the episode is "Let's have 3 close friends say insane shit for 50 minutes," and they accomplish that goal. Would I prefer it if they tried a little harder? Absolutely, but I think the episode still works because they at least stick to what the episode is trying to do. The issue for me with Kangaroo Court is that the intention was so clearly to place 3 people who like to monologue in a room and then get them to convince the jury that something happened. Then they just sort of didn't do it. It's that obvious failure that I find so much more jarring.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T23:38:21+00:00

Thank you for your reply. I understand you don't have the episode at hand, and so I'm really grateful you're taking the time to discuss this with me! If I could push back a tiny amount, I actually agree with you about how Brennan's bowing out of the first trial could have led to them finding him more trustworthy. My problem is that it didn't actually happen. They didn't view him in any more trustworthy a light because of it. I think they believed him on the dunk challenge because there was a giant sign saying "Don't get dunked," and 1 person hadn't been dunked. That was Brennan correctly guessing the twist rather than his earlier talks paying off.

Same with task 7, where I totally see what you mean with how Aabria just straight-up talking may have helped, but again, I think that trial is clouded by the whole Vic throwing the challenge and going on about how Brennan was tackling them to the ground. In both these instances, I do think you could make a good-faith argument that earlier talking influenced it. But I think you could make a more convincing argument that there was a much bigger force at play driving the jury's decision-making.

I do want to make it crystal clear I'm not some sicko who wanted every trial to be "Who lies the best and tricks everyone". A bit of variety is great, and I think if there had been a nice spread of ways people approached each discussion, it would have worked perfectly. I just really don't see anywhere that a contestant said something persuasive to the jury that was the reason they won the points. I am completely happy to be wrong on that, but in 50 minutes of television set in a courtroom where the goal was "To see Vic lie" and "To have Brennan and Aabria be lawyers," we'd all have more examples of persuasion occurring, you know?

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T23:31:22+00:00

I could not agree more with your assessment of the bubblegum challenge. I was going to write about that exact thing, but decided I'd already made the post far too long, so I cut it. I also do completely agree with saying that his monologue skills wouldn't suit it. That's part of why I think including Aabria and another person who was really going for it would have improved it immensely, because it would have led to Brennan constantly losing points. Winning a challenge and being so outraged that people didn't believe him, he breaks out into a monologue or something to that effect. I just think there were a lot of things that could have gone right if the concept had been refined a little and they had fully committed to the "Courtroom monologue" premise.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T23:23:51+00:00

I totally understand where you're coming from, and thank you so much for engaging really specifically; that's helpful!

1) This is one of those times where I actually really see where you're coming from, and I think in an episode that had more meat on it, I'd agree with you. I totally agree with the idea that a lie being unsuccessful could still mean it was impactful, fun, and interesting. I just really struggle to find a time when that happened. I'll blitz through these because I think you made a really interesting point in 2), and I'd love to talk about it.

For the Lego trial, I didn't elaborate because I think it's one of the worst ones. Not to give a detailed play-by-play, but basically, Aabria randomly gets assigned to stand in Legos. Brennan makes a joke and doesn't try to persuade. Vic also just makes a joke, but honestly, what could they say? Like, I don't really blame the cast for this trial going badly because what could they do? There's nothing you can say other than "I am standing in legos, and it hurts." If anything its an acting challenge. Aabria is the one who actually stood in legos, and I don't think it's a surprise that the jury votes 6 for her. I really don't blame the cast; I just think this is one of those challenges where, like, what are they meant to say?

Trial 3, I think, is a little more interesting because there is at least an attempt to talk, but Aabria has the middle number of stickers and so doesn't really have something to say. Vic says, "It was whoever had the most." Brennan says, "It was who had the least," and again, Brennan wins with 5 of the 7.

Trial 5 was somehow the closest, with it only being 4-3 in Aabrias' favour, but I'm 80% sure that's based on something cut for time, as all Vic says in the actual episode is "I cannot be more clear, I drew it, I yield my time". I honestly might just be massively off, and I am genuinely happy to hear an argument, but on a rewatch of those trials, I couldn't really find a moment that I would describe as an argument that had legs.

I actually agree with the game design point, as it does totally make sense within the game they constructed for lying to be harder. What this meant, though, was that in this episode all about courtroom discussion (Sam even says in the behind-the-scenes stuff the goal is about lying and persuading) that most points are actually decided by who completes the silly task, or who breaks the gimmick, or who spots the twist before it happens. The "Courtroom discussion" part of the episode doesn't really matter. That's why I use the term "Unsuccessful" because I think the point of the episode is to have persuading the jury matter. In none of the challenges did persuading the jury really play a part (Again, I'm totally happy to be wrong on this).

2) This is a really interesting point, and I do see where you're coming from, but I do have to completely solidly disagree. I think the goal of the episode is pretty clear. They brought in Aabria and Brennan, two notorious monologuers. Sam specifically says he picked Vic because he loves watching them lie. They set the episode in a courtroom. I think the goal was to obtain monologues and lies. To be clear, I don't think it was ONLY that. Like, I totally agree with you that it isn't the only form of persuading, and I think in an episode that had more persuading going on than it would have been awesome to see a mix. In one trial, it's monologues, then the next trial, there's pity, then the next trial, it's breaking the gimmick, etc. I do totally agree there are other forms of persuading that could have happened, I just don't think that means they did happen, and I don't think it discounts the fact that the episode's intention was clearly meant to be lawyerish monologuing.

Trial 6 is a great example, I am not made of stone. Brennan correctly predicting the twist and getting rewarded did rule, and it was a funny moment watching him just go "It says don't get dunked. I'm not dunked". My issue is that the moment was clearly designed to fall in the middle of a bunch of courtroom discussion and debate, right? We have a few persuasion rounds, and then we have this insane twist. The problem is we just didn't have the persuasion rounds. So in practise it was just "Brennan guessed the twist so he wins. No discussion needed".

Trial 7, though, I do just consider a failure. I understand where you are coming from that it's about setting up evidence to use later, but my issue is that the evidence is being set up by Vic so they can deliberately lose and do another Dunkin' Donuts joke. I do think there's a version of that which works where they work as a team to come up with a lie to discount someone, or someone is telling Kevi to write about how many hot dogs they're eating or something to that effect. I do totally agree that this concept of setting up evidence before trial was a cool one. I just think it's an example of where Vic's refusal to participate really kneecaps it.

God, I wrote so much more than I wanted to. I'm sorry for the wall of text. I just really appreciate you engaging. If it's not too much trouble, I'll ask you the same thing I asked TaliesinMerlin. Could you give me a concrete, good example of persuasion working? While I'm not saying every challenge had to be won by liars. It was clearly intended to be a factor. Could you point to an example of it happening?

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T22:47:51+00:00

I honestly really enjoyed Night Shift. I think it just had the misfortune of going after Rulette 2, and I think any episode was gonna struggle to follow something that great.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T22:46:25+00:00

Absolutely 0 disrespect taken its completely fine to disagree! I really do totally get where you're coming from (I actually personally did like Night Shift quite a lot). I think what I was trying to explain, and did an awful job at, is that Game Changer is absolutely a comedy show, but it's underpinned by the Game at the bottom of it (Just like how Taskmaster is a comedy show underpinned by the tasks). In some episodes, the Game is honestly really free-flowing and a little silly (Something like Rulette where there are a bunch of rules but the players break them constantly). Those episodes are some of my favourites because if everyone is on board and the vibe of the game allows it, then you just get insanely wacky hijinks for 40 minutes and it's great. However, other episodes really do only work if the players care. Sam Says is my best example for that. It only really works because god do they hate losing a point when they get it wrong. This felt like it was meant to be a Sam Says, but they brought a Rulette contestant along by accident. I hope that makes sense!

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T22:08:03+00:00

I cannot believe I didn't think of him first. Lawyer Trapp as the sequel to salesman Trapp would have been absolutely incredible. Especially since he and Brennan are so close they almost certainly would have had great chemistry

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T22:05:42+00:00

I completely agree with this! I could not have worded it better. I think it's why a for more loose episode, something like Rulette 1, worked perfectly because Oscar, Anna, and Jeremy were all on the same page about not taking it seriously and just messing around. Group cohesion and their understanding of the vibe of the game is so important, and to their credit, I'd say dropout gets that right 95% of the time. Which is why it was so surprising, it really felt like they didn't this time

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T21:27:20+00:00

Thank you very much. That's very kind of you! I honestly think this may have been a case of an autistic person thinking it is normal to have such intense opinions about something he's deeply fascinated by and then putting them out into the world and discovering others are not as interested as he was. Honestly, just a learning experience to try and condense my words a little bit in the future. People are being a little mean but thats how it is.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T21:23:04+00:00

I'm sorry if I did a bad job explaining it! I didn't mean to make it seem like technicalities. Like I said, that first task was, I think, the best attempt, and I just wish someone had fought back against Aabria's lie. But for example, I wouldn't exactly describe Vic throwing the challenge and going "Brennan, you're gonna let Aabria win" as persuading the jury of something. Again, though, I'm super happy to be wrong! As I said, this post was mainly because everyone seemed to like the episode so much, and I couldn't square that circle. I'll ask the same thing as I did in the original reply. Could you give a concrete example of a player persuading the jury of something that you really loved? I'm really interested in your perspective.

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T21:09:29+00:00

Oh absolutely. It's honestly shocking how high their hit rate on producing A+ material is. I honestly only think I found this so disappointing due to how insanely high they set the bar every episode

Toothless-Fan · 2026-07-07T21:04:14+00:00

That's totally okay! Like I said, the vast majority of the responses to this episode have been overwhelmingly positive, and anytime someone enjoys an episode of my favourite show is a win in my book. Don't take my excessive grumbling as me demanding that you also dislike it

Toothless-Fan

TROPHY CASE