|
||||||||
Does Sir Alan choose who goes? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 332
|
Does Sir Alan choose who goes?
Or is it the producers of the show who tell him who to fire?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,410
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Sir Alan chooses. That's the whole point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
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....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Sir Alan chooses. That's the whole point.
Are you? Or is that just a guess the same as everyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 542
|
Quote:
Sir Alan chooses. That's the whole point.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,847
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Well, Simon Ambrose is still working for him, two years down the line.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
You sound as if you are speaking with inside knowledge.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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).
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,230
|
Quote:
Well, Simon Ambrose is still working for him, two years down the line.
http://www.amsprop.com/about_amsprop.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 144
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,337
|
Quote:
I would agree, what with him actually having to employ the winner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,337
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
|
Quote:
Or is it the producers of the show who tell him who to fire?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10.


