• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • TV Shows: Reality
  • The Apprentice
'The Apprentice USA' starting Oct 26th,late on BBC1.
<<
<
11 of 11
>>
>
Jo09
12-12-2009
Originally Posted by tennisman:
“Maybe this tells us something?

From what I can pick up, none, or very few of the UK or the US winners have stayed very long in the Trump/Sugar organisations.

Perhaps this show is an end in itself?

We get the window on the world of a contrived elongated and at times, ruthlessly competitive (read good TV) job-hire.

The Trump/Sugar organisations get a massive amount of pretty much free advertsing (how much would it cost Trump Inc to advertise for 1 hour each week over 13 weeks on national prime time US TV? Millions). They might get a really good employee also. But in some ways, that might almost be a secondary consideration.

And for the candidates, especially the winner, but also the final 16, when the show is over, they can tout their wares around the job market after being exposed to an enormous number of potential employers both domestically and then internationally, through the programme.

And then also, what would the current turnover rate be in the medium / big corporate sector from where many of the candidates have come?

Maybe its not a suprise at all that people, including the Apprentice winners, move on? That's what people do.

PS Just had a look at www.Trump.com. Very interesting.”

Hi - my first post!
I heard that the pay is made up of prize money and salary and the reason loads of them leave is cos they will take a massive pay cut after the first year - like half.
NightSwimmer
12-12-2009
Did anyone else wonder about the comment the guy from Yahoo made at the end? He said something like, we were expecting a large amount of money to be raised for both charities, but as both failed to do this we are going to donate $100,000 to be split between the two charities.

I found it interesting that he said that *both* candidates hadn't raised the amount of money they were expecting them to. Why wasn't this mentioned by Trump, cos surely that means they both failed the task at hand?
sveknu
13-12-2009
Originally Posted by NightSwimmer:
“I found it interesting that he said that *both* candidates hadn't raised the amount of money they were expecting them to. Why wasn't this mentioned by Trump, cos surely that means they both failed the task at hand?”

No, Randall and his team raised more than $11,000. I think that is quite good.

Yahoo just had to appear in the final the way they did and donate a huge sum because they already had made an embarrasment of themselves urging Rebecca not to raise any money at the event.
NightSwimmer
13-12-2009
Originally Posted by sveknu:
“No, Randall and his team raised more than $11,000. I think that is quite good.

Yahoo just had to appear in the final the way they did and donate a huge sum because they already had made an embarrasment of themselves urging Rebecca not to raise any money at the event.”

Yeah, Irealise it was a partly save face exercise, but you would normally expect a "they both did well and we appreciate their efforts so much that we're going to add a further..." kind of speech (i.e. everything positive).

Instead he specifically said that neither of them raised as much as they expected them to. Which I can well believe because given the resources they had, $11,000 isn't that great of an amount.
thenetworkbabe
13-12-2009
Originally Posted by sveknu:
“No, Randall and his team raised more than $11,000. I think that is quite good.

Yahoo just had to appear in the final the way they did and donate a huge sum because they already had made an embarrasment of themselves urging Rebecca not to raise any money at the event.”

there was a mystery too. There seems to have been a timelag so were we meant to believe that, having been told about the charity, precisely no one used the contribution pack they were given? You wouldn't assume people would be that forgetful or downright mean would you?
NightSwimmer
13-12-2009
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“there was a mystery too. There seems to have been a timelag so were we meant to believe that, having been told about the charity, precisely no one used the contribution pack they were given? You wouldn't assume people would be that forgetful or downright mean would you?”

Yeah, that was weird too. Trump said he knew how much Rebecca had raised, but never said an amount.
That Bloke
13-12-2009
Originally Posted by NightSwimmer:
“Bit late I know, but I've just finished watching the final. I thought this series has been really good, and as much as I prefered Rebecca, I felt objectively Randall deserved to win.

However, two things spoiled the final for me. One, which has been talked about a lot is obviously Randall saying Trump should only hire one person. This to me was just mean. He wasn't being asked to share the prize, he *was* the winner, he was being asked whether Rebecca should also get a job. Given how good Rebecca had been, and given that Randall himself had said she was good, if I was Trump I would question his judgment on refusing to bring on board another excellent employee just because he wanted it to be all about him.

The second thing that spoilt it for me, was the behaviour of some of the other contestants during the show. There was an almost mob mentality going on amongst some of them, especially when Randall won. I know we saw this ganging up earlier in the series, but given that it would appear to have carried on throughout the whole season, to me that makes Rebecca's achievements and the fact that she managed to keep her composure throughout every task, even greater.”

The most sensible answer that Randall could have given was that if he was being asked as the winner of The Apprentice then the answer would be that no, she shouldn't be given the job because the point of the show is to find ONE apprentice. However, if he was being asked as an employee of Trump then the answer was yes, they should employ her because she would be an asset to the company.

Randall was VERY good and I always preferred him to Rebecca, but I honestly felt that moment showed his biggest error of judgement in the series.
Sweet FA
14-12-2009
Originally Posted by That Bloke:
“The most sensible answer that Randall could have given was that if he was being asked as the winner of The Apprentice then the answer would be that no, she shouldn't be given the job because the point of the show is to find ONE apprentice. However, if he was being asked as an employee of Trump then the answer was yes, they should employ her because she would be an asset to the company.

Randall was VERY good and I always preferred him to Rebecca, but I honestly felt that moment showed his biggest error of judgement in the series.”

He shouldn't have been put in that position at all though so big thumbs down to Trump.
benriggers
17-12-2009
Good news! season 5 of The Apprentice USA is on BBC1 Tuesday 5th January (2010) at 12.10am starting with a double bill.
Faceman
17-12-2009
Originally Posted by benriggers:
“Good news! season 5 of The Apprentice USA is on BBC1 Tuesday 5th January (2010) at 12.10am starting with a double bill.”

great news

been doing a proper catch up on you tube of seasons 1-3 in recent days.
WillowFae
17-12-2009
So what has happened to season 4?
Faceman
17-12-2009
Originally Posted by WillowFae:
“So what has happened to season 4?”

we just had it on BBC1, lol.
WillowFae
17-12-2009
Originally Posted by Faceman:
“we just had it on BBC1, lol.”

Oh. I thought that was season 3.
oulandy
18-12-2009
So they are putting it on in the middle of the night? Hm...that's big of them, isn't it? Is there something they are afraid of? Such as...that people might actually get to see it.

Is it a celebrity version?
Faceman
19-12-2009
Originally Posted by oulandy:
“So they are putting it on in the middle of the night? Hm...that's big of them, isn't it? Is there something they are afraid of? Such as...that people might actually get to see it.

Is it a celebrity version?”

no, this is a normal version.

tbf who cares what time of night they put it on... sky + or V + are your friends

just be grateful they are actually putting it on full stop.
oulandy
22-12-2009
Originally Posted by Faceman:
“no, this is a normal version.

tbf who cares what time of night they put it on... sky + or V + are your friends

just be grateful they are actually putting it on full stop.”

Thanks for the info.

Who cares - presumably the mass audience who would like to see a good programme at a reasonable viewing time of night.

"Friends" unknown to me, my friend!

Why should I be grateful: they have a contract, don't they? And who pays for the BBC? Grateful, my foot.

Are they deliberately and cynically burying it in the depths of night because it would take the shine off our homegrown variety, showing it up as inferior and something of a farce, as far as business goes?
sveknu
22-12-2009
Originally Posted by oulandy:
“ Are they deliberately and cynically burying it in the depths of night because it would take the shine off our homegrown variety, showing it up as inferior and something of a farce, as far as business goes?”

If that's your theory, just wait until it's time for season 6 and they will definitely broadcast it prime time. In that season, the losing team had to live and sleep in TENTS outside, while the winning team could enjoy a luxurious villa.
oulandy
22-12-2009
Originally Posted by sveknu:
“If that's your theory, just wait until it's time for season 6 and they will definitely broadcast it prime time. In that season, the losing team had to live and sleep in TENTS outside, while the winning team could enjoy a luxurious villa.”

Almost sounds as if it is mutating into Big Brother with its rich / poor divide.
Yobaba**
23-12-2009
The fourth season is the last good season, so I hope people enjoyed it.

I just saw the fifth on youtube, its very boring. And the sixth is even worse with the rich/poor thing.
sveknu
23-12-2009
Originally Posted by Yobaba**:
“The fourth season is the last good season, so I hope people enjoyed it.

I just saw the fifth on youtube, its very boring. And the sixth is even worse with the rich/poor thing.”

I agree with you, but would like to add that season 7 (The first celebrity season) is great.
Yobaba**
23-12-2009
Originally Posted by sveknu:
“I agree with you, but would like to add that season 7 (The first celebrity season) is great.”

I never watched it. I tried to, but the episodes are far too long.
sveknu
23-12-2009
Originally Posted by Yobaba**:
“I never watched it. I tried to, but the episodes are far too long.”

I guess you're talking about season 8 (celebrity 2). Season 7 had episodes of normal length, except for one episode.
Season 8 sucked anyway.
Keiō Line
20-01-2010
Season 8 was a let down after the surprisingly good season 7. However I would find it better if the celebrities were doing proper tasks without the reliance of personal contacts.

My view is that season 3 was the best season and contained the most entertaining of all the US apprentice episodes, "soap dopes:".
<<
<
11 of 11
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map