Options
Terrible, TERRIBLE panellists on the You're Fired show (except Vanessa Feltz)
Krule
Posts: 365 Forum Member
✭
...and yet she hardly got a chance to speak! FFS!
What we saw today is probably one of the most ludicrous and shocking decisions in UK Apprentice history.
The You're Fired show exists to analyze the show and give the public a chance to absorb and take in what's happened, and also to have observant panellists voice the opinions and emotions that the public feel, and ask the questions that the public want. At least that's why I watch it.
Instead, we had one panellist, Vanessa, who was brilliant and tried to make the point that I was dying for someone to highlight....THAT LIZ DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG, HER STRATEGY IN THE TASK, AND ESPECIALLY THE BOARDROOM (which was to let this moron talk himself into an obvious firing) WAS PERFECT!
Instead all we witnessed was just a horribly bad judgement and decision by His Highness Lord Sugar, which reflects really very poorly on him.
Liz being her modest self mentioned that she felt she didn't talk up enough in the boardroom and defend herself....SURELY SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO?
The other two panellists were terrible. That fat guy couldn't articulate any of his points properly and didn't seem passionate about the show or seem to feel any injustice about the firing, and the annoyingly unfunny comedian seemed desparate to get his word into every conversation and make rubbish jokes when others (namely Vanessa) were trying to make some valid points.
What is the need to have a comedian on every bloody show, esp some that don't really seem that interested in the show or its contestants and simply keep trying to be funny?
Were they simply not allowed to criticise Lord Sugar because of his influence over the show??
What we saw today is probably one of the most ludicrous and shocking decisions in UK Apprentice history.
The You're Fired show exists to analyze the show and give the public a chance to absorb and take in what's happened, and also to have observant panellists voice the opinions and emotions that the public feel, and ask the questions that the public want. At least that's why I watch it.
Instead, we had one panellist, Vanessa, who was brilliant and tried to make the point that I was dying for someone to highlight....THAT LIZ DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG, HER STRATEGY IN THE TASK, AND ESPECIALLY THE BOARDROOM (which was to let this moron talk himself into an obvious firing) WAS PERFECT!
Instead all we witnessed was just a horribly bad judgement and decision by His Highness Lord Sugar, which reflects really very poorly on him.
Liz being her modest self mentioned that she felt she didn't talk up enough in the boardroom and defend herself....SURELY SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO?
The other two panellists were terrible. That fat guy couldn't articulate any of his points properly and didn't seem passionate about the show or seem to feel any injustice about the firing, and the annoyingly unfunny comedian seemed desparate to get his word into every conversation and make rubbish jokes when others (namely Vanessa) were trying to make some valid points.
What is the need to have a comedian on every bloody show, esp some that don't really seem that interested in the show or its contestants and simply keep trying to be funny?
Were they simply not allowed to criticise Lord Sugar because of his influence over the show??
0
Comments
With respect this is inaccurate. She never said 35 pounds was too high she just went along with Stuart She's just as culpable for the failure of the task. At least Joanne had the balls (so to speak) to go back to the tour company and say "can't we change the pricing?"
Baggs should have gone because he sold less tickets but in other areas of the task Liz was just at fault. To suggest she did nothing wrong is silly.
Whose judgement shall I go with...
But no seriously, Alan got it right. Being the winner or the best person on a task in a losing team does not give you a guarantee that you won't be up for the chop.
In these late stages it becomes much more about the type of person he is looking for to fill the position he has in mind.
If Liz doesn't fit the position in mind as closely as someone else, as Alan said today, then she rightly has to go.
As much as I would like to see Stuart go, it's not a popularity contest.
Yup, something she herself admitted.
Kinda disagree here. Feltz can be an annoying, attention-seeking gasbag, but she often makes sense and is quite smart. I believe she has an Oxbridge First.
She was standing next to her project manager who made the decision live, at the time of the negotiations, it would have been wrong to jump in and undermine him.
Besides, why should she? He's the boss and if he wants to make a thoughtless decision that should be his head on the line.
The fact that they dropped it afterwards means she may have mentioned it to him offline?
Even though I see some merit in your point about her perhaps not voicing the poor pricing as strongly, surely it was Stuart's price, so however hard you come down on her you should come down on him twice as hard??
You're basically using the argument that it's Alan Sugar that's looking for someone to hire, so, whatever he decides is right because that person is more in line with what he's looking for. I can't really argue with that
...except to say that, he's trying to make out that he's looking for a bright, intelligent, future business superstar with business acumen and leadership skills. And if through his decision making he believes Stuart has that and Liz doesn't, I have a right to voice my opinion that he's a poor judge of character and talent
Although I am pretty sure she has done both an earlier round and the final in the past
I never said she was a good example of humanity. I know nothing about her. I just said I felt she was talking sense and the others weren't
Some guy I forget already.
Sean Locke, who's like a half-funny friend but not remarkable.
And Feltz, who delivers every statement like she has a stick up her ass, and thinks if she somehow delivers it with more ass-stickery that she sounds more important.
Sean Lock is brilliant. Bag's dreams of Lord Sugar with a whip had me in stitches.
This turn of phrase will stay with me for a long time. Genius.
She might have an Oxbridge first but that doesn't stop her coming out with endless stupid drivel. Can't stand the woman, and I can honestly say that I can't ever remember a time when she made sense.
Yeah, apart from that bit when he said LAS was wrong to fire Liz and that he would have hired her then and there.
I agree with this. It was only the second time I've watched YF this series, hoping for some interesting analysis into a surprising decision, and instead we get Sean Locke shouting and looking very pleased with himself, some guy in a suit who rambled a load of unfunny scripted lines ('couldn't sell a kiss in a brothel yadda yadda yadda') and Vanessa Feltz, whose very existence simply escapes me. She seemed to have no sense of humour, didn't listen to what the others were saying, and stuck her nose in the air like she was God's gift. Also, I normally love Dara O'Briain but I felt like he was trying too hard: every time he hit on a vaguely funny joke he squeezed it to within an inch of its life (e.g. the 'death stare')
Vanessa Feltz is a very intelligent person, of that there is no doubt, but I can't stand it when she goes off on one of her righteous rants to which the only result she wants a stirring round of applause from the audience to soothe her ego. Its that annoying botox induced furrowed brow that does it for me - just SHUT UP.
But please invite Mr Lock on regularly! Hilarious!
Sean Locke was great .... Not Simples!!
He'll most likely be in the three-way episode next week, and failing that, 'You're Hired' as one of two, either the runner-up or *GASP* The Winner!