I just need to say this... we finished the episode when they gotta do a live TV ad. (Season 3)
For some reason, I find that Sir Alan is giving Simon preferential treatment. He made the point in the boardroom that the items he chose sold, and the ones that Naomi chose didn't sell...
The day before, when Tre and Naomi complained about the wheelchair being a very niche product, he said "Don't worry, I chose the product, if it fails, it's my ass in the firing line not yours". Even Sir Alan made a comment about the person who chose the wheelchair being a braindead (not sure if he knew or not that it was Simon's choice)
Results: Two wheelchairs are sold, pitched by Naomi and Tre. No Naomi's trampolines are sold.
Boardroom: Simon made the point that Naomi and Tre were being very negative about the product he chose and Sir Alan buys it, and suddenly he thinks that the wheelchair wasn't a bad idea because a couple of them were sold.
Why nobody pointed out that maybe it was because of Naomi and Tre's pitch that those items were sold? Or no trampolins were sold because Simon's pitch was awful? Which it was and all those innuendos embarrassed Nick (:mad:).
So far I think it's the firing I disagree the most from season 3. The other ones were pretty fair to me. It is now about to end, I hope Cristina wins, I think she has a lot of chances, she's bold and I'm sure she'd do great if she gets hired. I would've predicted Cristina vs Katie in the final, but I already got spoiled that she resigns, so I guess it'll be Cristina vs Simon. If he spared him in this task when he had so much to answer for... there must be a good reason behind it. Tre has such a personality (I like him really), and no way the invisible man is surviving the interviews.... anyway... it's been over for years, I'll discover tomorrow though.
I'd like to say, we really have enjoyed watching this season, I bet it's been difficult for Sir Alan to get rid of contestants because there were so many talented and gifted people in the process. It's been a pleasant experience! I never understood when people said "The new apprentice seasons suck! This program used to be awesome..." but now I understand it. They focus on what went wrong all the time, and people get fired because of their mistakes. Now, a good business plan can save your ass, even if you screwed it up (If you are useless, you'll get fired anyway but at least it can give you one or maybe two chances), and it's a bit confusing sometimes, lots of -apparently- nonsense decisions when firing candidates. Simon has some good traits for business, maybe failing on leadership and experience, but overall he's also a good candidate.
On a funny note, I found Sir Alan comments were more caustic than usual... and I ended up crying with laughter when he thought Katie was talking about life in jail when she was talking about the shoes, and then he said "Jam" in a tone of disbelief. I know it sounds silly but we had to pause the video several times. I haven't laughed so much in a long time!
Without watching the interviews and the final, I can say that this was my most favourite episode ever from the series, along with the "I love the lips!" one.
Phew, that was a lot of writting! Not sure if someone has read it all, sorry I had to say it!
The sacking in the tv selling task did seem rather unfair based on this task performance alone, but by this stage Lord Sid clearly knew who he wanted in the final, if not who was going to be The Apprentice. IIRC Naomi herself admitted to having run out of steam by this stage.
What always makes me laugh is when it's pointed out in the boardroom that Secret Signals was outvoted but she still decided to go with it, and her defence is, 'Well, our sources of data to make the decision were not our own personal opinions...' her decision was entirely on her own opinion!
Usually when dreadful product decisions are made, the issue is that there weren't any better ideas, so that was the best thing they had in the circumstances. It's pretty sad that on this occasion, they had an alternative that would be really good! Still, she was marginally better than Rory from Series 3... at least she didn't make people get undressed in the brainstorm.
To be fair although they've been some bad PMs & Lindsay's stint is up there in the top 10, i doubt nobody can be as bad as a PM as Rory was in series 3, imo Rory is the worst ever PM in the history of The Apprentice.
I'm watching episode 6 from series 1 (the advertising task) - oh how the mighty have fallen! Paul showed such promise in the week 1 selling task...........
I am watching series 2 - just finishes week 3. Karen's firing was so horribly unfair she could've gone to week 9, 10, 11 IMHO.
Karen is an interesting one. When I watched the You're Fired! episode for Week 2, Nargis was asked if she was doing what she was accused of in the boardroom (bringing in Karen to set Jo up for a firing) and Nargis said no, because it was actually Karen, and not Jo, that she wanted to be fired. She said that Karen had been manipulative and dishonest, and that actually before the boardroom she had approached Nargis and said, 'Just so you know, I have been saying some quite negative things about you on camera,' which Nargis thought that Karen only said to wind her up and distract her before they went into the boardroom. So I thought Karen was being set up as a silent assassin, and then she was fired the following week and I thought, 'Oh! That's that then.' But I wasn't hugely disappointed.
I think that because Karen went instead of Jo, who really messed up, she has become really overrated. I didn't think that she was that brilliant. She won as PM in the first week, but her strategy was very dodgy and almost got the team disqualified. In the second week, while she wasn't the right person to be fired, I have no objection to her being brought into the boardroom, as although Nargis was the one who messed up the pitches, Karen was the one who wrote them. In Week 3, her negotiation for the dinner jacket was very poor. She was the second weakest on that team after Jo in my opinion, and in the boardroom she was so convinced that she was staying and Jo (or possibly Alexa) would go that she didn't bother to defend herself very well. Sir Alan gave her a chance. He said, 'Are you just a corporate lawyer?' and she didn't tell him what was good about her and why she should stay. Jo and Alexa both defended themselves very well; Karen didn't. And Karen was already on thin ice by that point, because she'd been in the boardroom in Week 2, and had been very heavily criticised in Week 1, even though their team won. I think that purely on that task Jo should have gone, but I can see it from Sir Alan's perspective and I can't completely object to Karen's firing actually.
Karen is an interesting one. When I watched the You're Fired! episode for Week 2, Nargis was asked if she was doing what she was accused of in the boardroom (bringing in Karen to set Jo up for a firing) and Nargis said no, because it was actually Karen, and not Jo, that she wanted to be fired. She said that Karen had been manipulative and dishonest, and that actually before the boardroom she had approached Nargis and said, 'Just so you know, I have been saying some quite negative things about you on camera,' which Nargis thought that Karen only said to wind her up and distract her before they went into the boardroom. So I thought Karen was being set up as a silent assassin, and then she was fired the following week and I thought, 'Oh! That's that then.' But I wasn't hugely disappointed.
I think that because Karen went instead of Jo, who really messed up, she has become really overrated. I didn't think that she was that brilliant. She won as PM in the first week, but her strategy was very dodgy and almost got the team disqualified. In the second week, while she wasn't the right person to be fired, I have no objection to her being brought into the boardroom, as although Nargis was the one who messed up the pitches, Karen was the one who wrote them. In Week 3, her negotiation for the dinner jacket was very poor. She was the second weakest on that team after Jo in my opinion, and in the boardroom she was so convinced that she was staying and Jo (or possibly Alexa) would go that she didn't bother to defend herself very well. Sir Alan gave her a chance. He said, 'Are you just a corporate lawyer?' and she didn't tell him what was good about her and why she should stay. Jo and Alexa both defended themselves very well; Karen didn't. And Karen was already on thin ice by that point, because she'd been in the boardroom in Week 2, and had been very heavily criticised in Week 1, even though their team won. I think that purely on that task Jo should have gone, but I can see it from Sir Alan's perspective and I can't completely object to Karen's firing actually.
Didn't Lord Sugar warn the teams not to use their charms to get free or well discounted stuff before the first task of series 2 started, & the Girls ignored that warning?
When Jo finally got fired that series was quite embarrassing watching her beg for reinstatement, although that tactic did work for the equally useless Sophocles in series 4.
Didn't Lord Sugar warn the teams not to use their charms to get free or well discounted stuff before the first task of series 2 started, & the Girls ignored that warning?
Yes he did, although it's not so much that that I object to, because you use whatever advantages you have to win the task. What I object to was that they were selling fruit to the public that was very much past its best and wouldn't be edible if it wasn't eaten very quickly. There didn't appear to be any indication to their customers about the quality of the fruit. I think that that's unacceptable, and I think Karen and the girls had a lot to answer for there.
When Jo finally got fired that series was quite embarrassing watching her beg for reinstatement, although that tactic did work for the equally useless Sophocles in series 4.
I don't know Series 4 as well as I know all the other series, but I don't recall Lord Sugar ever changing his mind after he'd actually said 'You're Fired!' to someone.
I have been re-watching Series 2 and I have finished episode 10. How grossly unfair was it for Michelle to go on to win the whole thing? :eek: All she did the whole series was take a backseat on most tasks, win as project manager once, bitch behind people's backs and impress Suralan with her 'humble beginnings' story.
I am watching the series with my brother and he doesn't know the end result. This was his prediction.
4th: Michelle
3rd: Ansell
2nd: Paul
1st: Ruth
And TBH, I totally agree with him - Ruth was robbed
Ruth was a selling machine, but really that was all. She lacked the imagination and people skills that someone who would've been in charge of a department/business would need.
If anyone were robbed I'd say it was Paul - his on-task record was far and away the best but the interviewers clearly took against him for some reason.
Anyway of the final four I liked Ansell the best though I doubt if he would've flourished in an organisation like Lord Sugars.
I'm watching Series 2 now (just onto episode 3) - Paul really stands out from the first 2 episodes. I only watched the very end of this series so hadn't seen any of these episodes - watching them now, I swear I've barely seen Michelle on camera yet, let alone see her do anything to make her stand out as a potential winner.....
Comments
For some reason, I find that Sir Alan is giving Simon preferential treatment. He made the point in the boardroom that the items he chose sold, and the ones that Naomi chose didn't sell...
The day before, when Tre and Naomi complained about the wheelchair being a very niche product, he said "Don't worry, I chose the product, if it fails, it's my ass in the firing line not yours". Even Sir Alan made a comment about the person who chose the wheelchair being a braindead (not sure if he knew or not that it was Simon's choice)
Results: Two wheelchairs are sold, pitched by Naomi and Tre. No Naomi's trampolines are sold.
Boardroom: Simon made the point that Naomi and Tre were being very negative about the product he chose and Sir Alan buys it, and suddenly he thinks that the wheelchair wasn't a bad idea because a couple of them were sold.
Why nobody pointed out that maybe it was because of Naomi and Tre's pitch that those items were sold? Or no trampolins were sold because Simon's pitch was awful? Which it was and all those innuendos embarrassed Nick (:mad:).
So far I think it's the firing I disagree the most from season 3. The other ones were pretty fair to me. It is now about to end, I hope Cristina wins, I think she has a lot of chances, she's bold and I'm sure she'd do great if she gets hired. I would've predicted Cristina vs Katie in the final, but I already got spoiled that she resigns, so I guess it'll be Cristina vs Simon. If he spared him in this task when he had so much to answer for... there must be a good reason behind it. Tre has such a personality (I like him really), and no way the invisible man is surviving the interviews.... anyway... it's been over for years, I'll discover tomorrow though.
I'd like to say, we really have enjoyed watching this season, I bet it's been difficult for Sir Alan to get rid of contestants because there were so many talented and gifted people in the process. It's been a pleasant experience! I never understood when people said "The new apprentice seasons suck! This program used to be awesome..." but now I understand it. They focus on what went wrong all the time, and people get fired because of their mistakes. Now, a good business plan can save your ass, even if you screwed it up (If you are useless, you'll get fired anyway but at least it can give you one or maybe two chances), and it's a bit confusing sometimes, lots of -apparently- nonsense decisions when firing candidates. Simon has some good traits for business, maybe failing on leadership and experience, but overall he's also a good candidate.
On a funny note, I found Sir Alan comments were more caustic than usual... and I ended up crying with laughter when he thought Katie was talking about life in jail when she was talking about the shoes, and then he said "Jam" in a tone of disbelief. I know it sounds silly but we had to pause the video several times. I haven't laughed so much in a long time!
Without watching the interviews and the final, I can say that this was my most favourite episode ever from the series, along with the "I love the lips!" one.
Phew, that was a lot of writting! Not sure if someone has read it all, sorry I had to say it!
To be fair although they've been some bad PMs & Lindsay's stint is up there in the top 10, i doubt nobody can be as bad as a PM as Rory was in series 3, imo Rory is the worst ever PM in the history of The Apprentice.
In a good way or a bad way? She is annoying, but kind of awesome with it, though that task was her weakest task.
Karen is an interesting one. When I watched the You're Fired! episode for Week 2, Nargis was asked if she was doing what she was accused of in the boardroom (bringing in Karen to set Jo up for a firing) and Nargis said no, because it was actually Karen, and not Jo, that she wanted to be fired. She said that Karen had been manipulative and dishonest, and that actually before the boardroom she had approached Nargis and said, 'Just so you know, I have been saying some quite negative things about you on camera,' which Nargis thought that Karen only said to wind her up and distract her before they went into the boardroom. So I thought Karen was being set up as a silent assassin, and then she was fired the following week and I thought, 'Oh! That's that then.' But I wasn't hugely disappointed.
I think that because Karen went instead of Jo, who really messed up, she has become really overrated. I didn't think that she was that brilliant. She won as PM in the first week, but her strategy was very dodgy and almost got the team disqualified. In the second week, while she wasn't the right person to be fired, I have no objection to her being brought into the boardroom, as although Nargis was the one who messed up the pitches, Karen was the one who wrote them. In Week 3, her negotiation for the dinner jacket was very poor. She was the second weakest on that team after Jo in my opinion, and in the boardroom she was so convinced that she was staying and Jo (or possibly Alexa) would go that she didn't bother to defend herself very well. Sir Alan gave her a chance. He said, 'Are you just a corporate lawyer?' and she didn't tell him what was good about her and why she should stay. Jo and Alexa both defended themselves very well; Karen didn't. And Karen was already on thin ice by that point, because she'd been in the boardroom in Week 2, and had been very heavily criticised in Week 1, even though their team won. I think that purely on that task Jo should have gone, but I can see it from Sir Alan's perspective and I can't completely object to Karen's firing actually.
Didn't Lord Sugar warn the teams not to use their charms to get free or well discounted stuff before the first task of series 2 started, & the Girls ignored that warning?
When Jo finally got fired that series was quite embarrassing watching her beg for reinstatement, although that tactic did work for the equally useless Sophocles in series 4.
Yes he did, although it's not so much that that I object to, because you use whatever advantages you have to win the task. What I object to was that they were selling fruit to the public that was very much past its best and wouldn't be edible if it wasn't eaten very quickly. There didn't appear to be any indication to their customers about the quality of the fruit. I think that that's unacceptable, and I think Karen and the girls had a lot to answer for there.
I don't know Series 4 as well as I know all the other series, but I don't recall Lord Sugar ever changing his mind after he'd actually said 'You're Fired!' to someone.
I am watching the series with my brother and he doesn't know the end result. This was his prediction.
4th: Michelle
3rd: Ansell
2nd: Paul
1st: Ruth
And TBH, I totally agree with him - Ruth was robbed
If anyone were robbed I'd say it was Paul - his on-task record was far and away the best but the interviewers clearly took against him for some reason.
Anyway of the final four I liked Ansell the best though I doubt if he would've flourished in an organisation like Lord Sugars.
I'd swap Ansell and Paul around.