DS Forums

 
 

Does Sir Alan choose who goes?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-04-2009, 12:10
DevilsAngel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 332

Or is it the producers of the show who tell him who to fire?
DevilsAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-04-2009, 12:31
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
It's hard to say for sure.

I would expect that for the first few weeks they producers get some say but their input diminishes during the later stages.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2009, 13:09
GonzoTheGreat
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,410
It's hard to say for sure.

I would expect that for the first few weeks they producers get some say but their input diminishes during the later stages.
I would agree, what with him actually having to employ the winner.
GonzoTheGreat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2009, 15:23
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Sir Alan chooses. That's the whole point.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2009, 15:29
OUTLAW_48
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 172
When he was on the JRoss show he said that the only thing the BBC do is arrange the tasks. He does everything else.
OUTLAW_48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2009, 15:37
Davonator
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,645
He picks them.....But it is obvious Sugar takes into account 'who makes good TV'. You can tell he purposefully keeps 'loose cannons' going longer than they should do because they're good for viewing figures (Syed, Katie and Tre come to mind).
Davonator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2009, 19:50
andyhargreaves
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 513
I was thinking about this, and wondering if maybe the producers ask Sralun not to fire certain people, knowing what tasks are coming up and what might make best TV etc....
andyhargreaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 08:40
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Sir Alan chooses. That's the whole point.
You sound as if you are speaking with inside knowledge.

Are you?

Or is that just a guess the same as everyone else?
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 15:19
justsend
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 542
Sir Alan chooses. That's the whole point.
And you actually believe that?

They're in the entertainment business. Certain pantomime villains for instance emerge every year. They are incompetent and occasionally even corrupt, but they make good TV and are preserved until near to the end. We are following the same formula this year: keep the @rsehole until close to the end, but make sure a 'nice guy' wins.

Sugar couldn't give a monkeys about having to employ them. He knows full well they won't hang around for long, as they're essentially media-hungry wannabes.
justsend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 16:11
duryea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,304
Maybe in the first series. But there is no way that, at least in the first half of the series, he isn't influenced by who the producers believe will be good for ratings. To believe otherwise is a bit naive, imo.
duryea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 16:31
Willie Wontie
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,847
Sugar couldn't give a monkeys about having to employ them. He knows full well they won't hang around for long, as they're essentially media-hungry wannabes.
Well, Simon Ambrose is still working for him, two years down the line.
Willie Wontie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 16:38
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
Well, Simon Ambrose is still working for him, two years down the line.
I think Sugar doesn't need to worry about hiring someone he doesn't like because he can veto any suggestion to fire his prefered candidate and then pick that candidate at the very end.

It is, however, quite obvious that he sometimes has to twist reality quite considerably and make some very strange decisions in order to fire certain candidates.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 17:30
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
You sound as if you are speaking with inside knowledge.
I'm not employed by the show, if that's what you mean. I'm just an avid watcher, and have been from the beginning, and have paid attention to most of the auxiliary materials available (comments from candidates, etc). It's interesting, for example, to compare the kind of firings that Sir Alan makes with those made by Trump, his opposite number in the American version. They are different, reflecting the different styles of the men.

Also the conspiracy theories usually don't make much sense, and often contradict themselves. For example, Rory was entertaining in s3, and according to the theory ought to have been kept, but he got fired almost immediately. Majid was entertaining this year apparently, according to the other candidates quite a joker, but most of that got edited out and he was fired early. Paula, too, could have been kept for entertainment purposes, because of her catty remarks (eg about Debra's make-up being like painting the Sydney Bridge). With hostile editing she could have been another Katie.

The people who do well in business side of the show tend to have energy, enthusiasm, originality, flair, self-confidence, etc. This also tends to make them big characters and good TV.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 17:48
Book_Junkie
 
Posts: n/a
He picks them.....But it is obvious Sugar takes into account 'who makes good TV'. You can tell he purposefully keeps 'loose cannons' going longer than they should do because they're good for viewing figures (Syed, Katie and Tre come to mind).
That's my take on it. It's an entertainment show first, a job interview second. They don't want to be left with a bunch of people who never cause any ructions, never get anyone's feathers ruffled. They want the drama and the in-fighting. I'm sure Sir Alan is canny enough to realise that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 17:49
Tern
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
I'm not employed by the show, if that's what you mean. I'm just an avid watcher, and have been from the beginning, and have paid attention to most of the auxiliary materials available (comments from candidates, etc). It's interesting, for example, to compare the kind of firings that Sir Alan makes with those made by Trump, his opposite number in the American version. They are different, reflecting the different styles of the men.

Also the conspiracy theories usually don't make much sense, and often contradict themselves. For example, Rory was entertaining in s3, and according to the theory ought to have been kept, but he got fired almost immediately. Majid was entertaining this year apparently, according to the other candidates quite a joker, but most of that got edited out and he was fired early. Paula, too, could have been kept for entertainment purposes, because of her catty remarks (eg about Debra's make-up being like painting the Sydney Bridge). With hostile editing she could have been another Katie.

The people who do well in business side of the show tend to have energy, enthusiasm, originality, flair, self-confidence, etc. This also tends to make them big characters and good TV.
I don't really think it's a conspiracy theory. It is, after all, primarily a TV programme, not a fly on the wall documentary.

I think a lot of the unease about how 'genuine' things are comes from two sources: The clumsy way the very selective editing shows through (for example the way they edited the start of last weeks task to make it look as if Noorul didn't speak at all during the initial meeting could almost have been a parody). This gives the feeling that we are being manipulated by the production company.

The other oddity is the way there always seems to be one candidate that is appalling and yet seems to have nine lives whilst Sugar seems to chop and change the rules in order to fire one particular candidate.

It may be that it's all entirely kosher but we know that they need to keep the ratings high to survive and given that AS probably knows within a few weeks which are the top 2/3 likely candidates he has plenty of room to manouver to retain candidates that he and/or the production company think make the best TV.
Tern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2009, 17:51
Book_Junkie
 
Posts: n/a
I'm not employed by the show, if that's what you mean. I'm just an avid watcher, and have been from the beginning, and have paid attention to most of the auxiliary materials available (comments from candidates, etc). It's interesting, for example, to compare the kind of firings that Sir Alan makes with those made by Trump, his opposite number in the American version. They are different, reflecting the different styles of the men.

Also the conspiracy theories usually don't make much sense, and often contradict themselves. For example, Rory was entertaining in s3, and according to the theory ought to have been kept, but he got fired almost immediately. Majid was entertaining this year apparently, according to the other candidates quite a joker, but most of that got edited out and he was fired early. Paula, too, could have been kept for entertainment purposes, because of her catty remarks (eg about Debra's make-up being like painting the Sydney Bridge). With hostile editing she could have been another Katie.

The people who do well in business side of the show tend to have energy, enthusiasm, originality, flair, self-confidence, etc. This also tends to make them big characters and good TV.
Maj and Paula didn't ruffle any feathers, didn't cause any friction; that much was obvious by the other contestants' attitudes towards them. So they were therefore expendable in terms of an entertainment show. Which this programme is. If Sir Alan merely wanted to hire another apprentice, he doesn't have to do it in front of the cameras - this is all about the entertainment factor (well maybe not all - he's obviously going to have some idea of who he wants, but I'm sure the entertainment aspect has a lot to do with who he fires). So yes, I would say that Sir Alan chooses who goes each week - but his choice isn't purely about who is to blame for that week's task.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2009, 08:03
WinterFire
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,230
Well, Simon Ambrose is still working for him, two years down the line.
His role doesn't seem very prominent.

http://www.amsprop.com/about_amsprop.html
WinterFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2009, 19:08
fat jez
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 144
That just means he's not a director of the company.
fat jez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2009, 20:11
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
I don't really think it's a conspiracy theory. It is, after all, primarily a TV programme, not a fly on the wall documentary.
There are things about the show which are an open secret, eg that the office isn't his real office, his secretary not his real secretary, the taxi walk is filmed before the first task, etc. This isn't one of them. Sir Alan has confirmed in interviews (eg with JRoss) that he makes the decisions. So to believe this theory we have to believe Sir Alan himself is lying. Not impossible, of course, but it does put it into the realms of conspiracy for me.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2009, 20:25
paddyirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23
I think producers do say who is the best for entertainment which is why some useless people sometimes stay.

But in the last few weeks I reckon he makes the decision himself.
paddyirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2009, 22:43
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
Yeah, I think TV entertainment is taken into account. Look at series 4, episode 2. We have probably the 2 biggest personalities in series 4 in the boardroom, and Shazia. Shazia did, nothing wrong (although she didn't actually explain in the boardroom how she didn't actually do what she was accused of). Lucinda was more at fault, being difficult for Jenny to manage, and for fueling arguements, but Jenny was the worst for being completely vile to Lucinda, and being a disatrous project manager.

Who goes? Shazia! The one who didn't make much impact.

The good thing though, is that the don't have the 'He's always right' mentality. On You're Fired, for instance, they're all comfortable saying that they think the wrong decision was made (they seem to say that every week lol).
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2009, 07:36
Book_Junkie
 
Posts: n/a
There are things about the show which are an open secret, eg that the office isn't his real office, his secretary not his real secretary, the taxi walk is filmed before the first task, etc. This isn't one of them. Sir Alan has confirmed in interviews (eg with JRoss) that he makes the decisions. So to believe this theory we have to believe Sir Alan himself is lying. Not impossible, of course, but it does put it into the realms of conspiracy for me.
Those things - such as the taxi walk, the 'fake' office - don't really affect the idea of the programme. The idea is that SAS picks a new apprentice, and if it was revealed that it was anything other than a business decision, the show would be a laughing stock. But I think it's very naive of anyone to assume that he is not taking viewing figures and entertainment value into account. It is after all an entertainment show. If he genuinely wanted a new apprentice and that was the only reason he was doing it, he doesn't have to have the process filmed (and of course, the whole process is next to useless in choosing who would be a good apprentice, hence the reason why the finalists still have to work for him for six months prior to him deciding who he will hire). It's an entertainment show first. And then a search for an apprentice second. That's obvious isn't it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2009, 08:36
Dix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,337
I would agree, what with him actually having to employ the winner.
Morning Gonzo, what if the producers wanted him to employ someone they wanted, as he could give them a trial work experience with his company, to see if they could be the type of person Sir Alan would want. I think Sir Alan would agree to such a thing, and if the person doesn't work out then he/she's gone pronto.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2009, 09:39
Dix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,337
There are things about the show which are an open secret, eg that the office isn't his real office, his secretary not his real secretary, the taxi walk is filmed before the first task, etc. This isn't one of them. Sir Alan has confirmed in interviews (eg with JRoss) that he makes the decisions. So to believe this theory we have to believe Sir Alan himself is lying. Not impossible, of course, but it does put it into the realms of conspiracy for me.
Hi brand, I believe it's very simple. The Producers want the show to run one way and SA wants it another way, where he has the final say, and the Producers also want the same final say, so both are at loggerheads over it, then talk it over, with SA agreeing to do certain things, and show goes on, but what can happen too is, that SA can change his mind and nothing the Producers can do about that, and can only tell him he promised to do this or that, but SA isn't a push-over and wants the best for his company. SA's character is a lot stronger than the Producers and must be *fun* to work with him.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2009, 09:42
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
Or is it the producers of the show who tell him who to fire?
I suspect Sir Alan has a good idea from the outset which of the candidates he thinks he can work with in the job.. and the rest is just reducing the numbers until he gets to those people in the final.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10.