Options
Mark Wright blaming other people
Stuart1000
Posts: 1,275
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I'm not liking the negativity of Mark Wright. Every single clip of him that I've seen he's been blaming someone for something. It's almost as if he's constantly looking for someone to turn on in the boardroom to cover my own back.
First he was criticising Phillipe and Robert for the hot dogs. Then he was criticising Steven. In the second task, he over exaggerated how bad Daniel's Firebox pitch was. In the boardroom he immediately turned on Scott.
Is that his tactic to get through the competition? If he blames other people, he will never be in the wrong.
First he was criticising Phillipe and Robert for the hot dogs. Then he was criticising Steven. In the second task, he over exaggerated how bad Daniel's Firebox pitch was. In the boardroom he immediately turned on Scott.
Is that his tactic to get through the competition? If he blames other people, he will never be in the wrong.
0
Comments
Simple answer is, we don't!.
As George says, the edit is everything. The producers have to assign particular roles to people early on to give us a view on them - either because they leave early or because it is foreshadowing for later on. In Tom's case, for me it was to show that he was intelligent and a thinker (which he was) rather than a practical leader or doer (which he wasn't). That foreshadowed the fact that Sugar liked him because he was an inventor with a product that had already generated some sales, not because he was a great PM, task performer or had a good business plan (in all three of those respects he was poor).
It could be that Mark is just one of those armchair critics who says rather than does. Or it could be a way of quietly showing that he understands what's going on and is articulate and doesn't need to shout to get a point across (compare him to James, for instance). We'll find out in due course, but he's one to watch for me.
He does seem very unhappy and moody (even if most of his points are accurate and the PMs have never considered bringing him back) - could be a classic case of a redemption later on for him as he relaxes a bit.
The thing with with Tom was that he did it in a more positive way or at least visibly seen to try to. Tom's problem was that he just wasn't being listened to where as Mark is coming off as complaining for the sake of complaining. Of course as has already been pointed out it could just be editing skew but I'm just a bit doubtful, I'm sure that if he was putting out suggestions we would be seeing some sort of skew towards that. The point I'm making is Tom's tone was very different to what Mark's is which I think is the more telling thing. We're hearing a lot of hot air but not seeing much from Mark where as we saw that despite his weakness in sales Tom clearly had a positive influence on the teams and generally he was the reason that the lose wasn't as bad as it could have been. I am kind of a bit warey that I do seem to pipe up a lot where Tom's concerned and maybe I do but mneh I can live with it.
As with every Apprentice I usually dislike them all but in the love to hate way, whereas, with this guy I just want him gone. Doesn't seem like a nice person at all. Sugar and Mark would make fine business partners but screw that.