DS Forums

 
 

Joanna - I don't like her.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-12-2010, 20:55
Socha
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laich Kintraes
Posts: 4,086
[...]
And...... its not important to me


It's not important to me either....

Good night everyone....
Socha is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-12-2010, 21:24
Sylvia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14,231
We already know that there's a prima facie case for Joanna nagging Jamie. as PM she is entitled to certain information to do her job and if Jamie was being willfully obstructive she had good reason to press him.
It doesn't matter what Joanna's problem with Jamie was, her manner of dealing with it was appalling. She needs to treat people with more respect in order to get their co-operation.
Sylvia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 21:40
soulmate61
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
Have not read 126 postings.
I do not like the sound of her voice, even worse than Alesha's laugh. I cannot do business with her if i am in pain.
soulmate61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 05:15
cherryred
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 230
She's pushy, aggressive, slippery and out of her depth. She's only still there through a combination of luck and not really having been involved in making any of the pivotal decisions that have shaped the results of the tasks lately. Baggs is probably a cert to spectacularly balls up at interview stage so he's probably next but she'll go after...
cherryred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 13:32
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
a) Jamie could have got Joanna to stop asking him questions by simply answering them and generally keeping her in the loop. Why did he not do this?
We don't know all the things he did, so you're making assumptions there. Indeed, he mentions answering them "about 100 times". It seems like she just kept on at him until he lost patience.

During the flare-up, her concern seems to be, not that he isn't communicating, but that they are not moving fast enough. She wants to get the tour planned quickly so she can get onto selling tickets. Jamie is trying to do a good job of the tour.

When they are in the doorway, she has another go at him for being too slow, and he points out that they are waiting, and Joanna says she was talking about earlier: but obviously there's nothing he can do about earlier now, so she seems to be whinging for the sake of it. He calls her on this, "Why are you asking?" and then when he proceeds to answer her yet again, she suddenly says he's scaring her and should calm down, and doesn't listen to what he's saying.

b) What could Joanna do except to keep pressing him for answers given that she was PM ad would undoubtedly have been called to account if he'd cocked up and, even if he hadn't cocked up, had they lost Sugar would have asked her why she did nothing that day?
She should have let him do his job and not distracted him by trying to micro-manage him.

Incidentally, I doubt Lord Sugar would have blamed the PM for Jamie doing a poor job. He didn't blame Stuart for the poor job Stella did.

Look at the hate threads for Laura, Stella and Liz, in addition to this one and you'll see people who post nothing constructive, just comments of the 'Oh, God, she's awful' variety.
Some people want to express themselves but aren't articulate.

It's not against the rules and they are entitled to express themselves but I think the need to jump on the bandwagon and join a long queue of people bad mouthing someone tells us more about them than it does about the person they are bad mouthing.
"Me too" posts don't necessarily mean they are jumping on a bandwagon. They could be sincere.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 13:55
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
We don't know all the things he did, so you're making assumptions there. Indeed, he mentions answering them "about 100 times". It seems like she just kept on at him until he lost patience.
So why do we never see him giving her a clear and informative answer? He just keeps brushing her off. If he'd been answering her properly I'm pretty sure that that would have been shown as it's clear that the edit was trying to give the impression that Joanna was nagging.

During the flare-up, her concern seems to be, not that he isn't communicating, but that they are not moving fast enough.
Yes, a few seconds earlier you see him dawdling looking at a sheet of paper.

She wants to get the tour planned quickly so she can get onto selling tickets. Jamie is trying to do a good job of the tour.
It's not clear why he needed to read whatever was on that piece of paper whilst they were on the walkabout. Whatever it was would still have been there later.

When they are in the doorway, she has another go at him for being too slow, and he points out that they are waiting, and Joanna says she was talking about earlier: but obviously there's nothing he can do about earlier now, so she seems to be whinging for the sake of it.
Or, to spin it another way, trying to impress on him the need to get a move on.

He calls her on this, "Why are you asking?" and then when he proceeds to answer her yet again, she suddenly says he's scaring her and should calm down
Look at it carefully!

He's standing with is head about 2 feet away from hers and with unrestrained aggression makes punching movement that must have come within a foot of her.

At this point she says he's scaring her.

A moment later he accuses her of aggression and that's when she says that actually, he'd been quite aggressive and she felt threatened.

She should have let him do his job and not distracted him by trying to micro-manage him.
As PM she was perfectly entitled to want to speed up one part of the process if she felt another was more important. That's not 'micro managing' that's fulfilling the assigned role of manager.

Incidentally, I doubt Lord Sugar would have blamed the PM for Jamie doing a poor job. He didn't blame Stuart for the poor job Stella did.
No but he might well have asked why she wasn't doing anything and why she left it entirely up to him.

He's commented many times in that past about people not pulling their weight.

"Me too" posts don't necessarily mean they are jumping on a bandwagon. They could be sincere.
The two things are not mutually incompatible.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 15:21
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
So why do we never see him giving her a clear and informative answer? He just keeps brushing her off. If he'd been answering her properly I'm pretty sure that that would have been shown as it's clear that the edit was trying to give the impression that Joanna was nagging.
That's a question for the editors. They may have felt that mixing her nagging with his answers would have diluted the impact of her nagging. Also, they have a time budget and they used the time they saved to show more of Stuart and Chris.

It's not clear why he needed to read whatever was on that piece of paper whilst they were on the walkabout. Whatever it was would still have been there later.
He's trying to plan the tour, what he'll talk about etc. What was written on the paper was probably an aide to his short-term memory to help him think. It's not unreasonable. He gave a much better tour than Stella and that was partly because he was more diligent in his preparation.

Why do you think he was "dawdling"?

Look at it carefully!
I have. I have it on TiVo. Don't assume others disagree with you because they are ignorant.

He's standing with is head about 2 feet away from hers and with unrestrained aggression makes punching movement that must have come within a foot of her.
They are standing a little apart. The camera is virtually between them; she isn't even in shot. His hand comes nowhere near her. It's not aggressive; it's not miming an attempt to hit her or anything like that. It's just an emphatic hand gesture. He's angry and frustrated and he's trying to convey that (because she didn't pick up on the more subtle signs), but he's not trying to intimidate her.

At this point she says he's scaring her.
Yes; and she says he's acting like a madman.

I think she's over-reacting, but if that's how she feels then fair enough. Actually it's interesting that she should be so taken by surprise by his outburst. It seems she isn't very good at reading people - she has low emotional intelligence.

Notice how he turns and moves away when she tells him to calm down. He's in control, and doesn't want to scare her.

A moment later he accuses her of aggression
Jamie had perceived her continual harassment of him as aggressive. Also fair enough under the circumstances. Especially as she hadn't been able to explain why else she was still going on about it.

and that's when she says that actually, he'd been quite aggressive and she felt threatened.
I'm not sure why you are emphasising the sequence. She was the first to complain about his scary behaviour, even if she didn't use the word "aggressive" the first time she said it.

As PM she was perfectly entitled to want to speed up one part of the process if she felt another was more important.
Yes. Much of the time with Joanna you can see her motives are good. Her problem is that she doesn't just make her point and stop; she keeps going beyond what is reasonable. She doesn't realise when she is going too far.

We've seen it lots of times. For example, it was reasonable for her to talk to the agency about Chris's deal, to see for herself if there was a misunderstanding or if there was any flexibility. For all she knew, the agency could have known it was a mistake and been waiting for her to turn up to fix it. If you don't ask, you don't get. Her problem was that when they said, no, no mistake and no flexibility, she kept going. And so it was with Jamie. She doesn't know when its time to pull back and move on.

It's obviously a thin line. Sometimes persistence, not taking "no" for an answer, helps get a good sale. Stella had the opposite fault, of giving up too early. All part of life's rich tapestry.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 15:49
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
I liked her up until that episode but what she did really put me off her , this was beyond nagging and I can't stand nags .

sorry if this is sexist - but do women have some sort of nagging gene ?
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 16:11
Shappy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: By the window
Posts: 14,154
It's funny how a simple edit can make people turn on a contestant. It happened with Liz (and her exchange with Stella in the lounge - purely included to make the Lord seem less senseless when he fired her over Stuart the next episode), and it seems Joanna is being setup for an early fall on Wednesday's show.
Shappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 17:19
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
It's funny how a simple edit can make people turn on a contestant. It happened with Liz (and her exchange with Stella in the lounge - purely included to make the Lord seem less senseless when he fired her over Stuart the next episode), and it seems Joanna is being setup for an early fall on Wednesday's show.
but they can't invent stuff , they showed so many clips of her nagging and it all happened in the one day and whassisname was driven up the wall by it .

I'd agree if it was one scene , they can edit that with a look from someone to look like something , but this was a long list of the same behaviour .
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2010, 17:24
Shappy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: By the window
Posts: 14,154
but they can't invent stuff , they showed so many clips of her nagging and it all happened in the one day and whassisname was driven up the wall by it .

I'd agree if it was one scene , they can edit that with a look from someone to look like something , but this was a long list of the same behaviour .
All I'm saying is that Joanna seemed a nightmare in the beginning of the series, she suddenly seemed to be all sweetness and light in the middle, and now her original persona is coming out again. Either she genuienly changed and is now slipping back to old ways, or they didn't bother showing the overbearing side of her character in the middle episodes because they weren't relevant to the "story" the editors were weaving. Now that her time is nearly up, they edit in her dominating side again.

Just a theory.
Shappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2010, 10:44
rwebster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,231
Then we have to ask ourselves this: "Are the production company so incompetent that they left out a vital piece of of the scene accidentally or were they trying to manipulate the viewers in some way."
Well, yeah, you have to ask yourself that if you want to load it with spin.

More salient question would be along the lines of "is the Apprentice an hour long programme," and "does the task stuff only last thirty minutes, requiring a good 48 hours of footage to be chomped down to its bare bones while still retaining a coherent narrative?"

Have you ever tried editing a TV show? It's ****ing hard. Just 'cause the bits that paint your pet candidate in a bad light aren't given their own half-hour slots, it doesn't mean anyone's being duplicitous. Some altercations would need their own spin-off shows for the whole story to make sense.

Meanwhile, you've got to show: Critical successes, critical failures, the approximate input of each candidate, the relationships and working dynamics of each candidate with the other candidates, the product they're selling, the process of that sale, the background to the product, market research.

A lot of stuff hits the cutting room floor. You can only really accept the narrative as presented. Don't get all upset and call it incompetence, that's absolutely what they're paid to do.

What would be incompetent would be if they spent five minutes of the programme laboriously spelling out the exact nature of an argument that, ultimately, didn't swing the task either way and was only really necessary to serve as a quick glance at Jamie and Joanna's working relationship. And even then, five minutes isn't going to cover the whole thing. It's clearly something that'd been building up across the day.

If you're gonna get grumpy and defensive and accuse the production team of incompetence or manipulation whenever they don't SPOOOOOOONFEED every single detail to the viewer then you're gonna have one hell of a tricky time watching reality telly.

The language of The Apprentice is fast and loose. In an hour long timeslot, it's the only language they can really afford to speak.
rwebster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2010, 11:01
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
Well, yeah, you have to ask yourself that if you want to load it with spin.
More salient question would be along the lines of "is the Apprentice an hour long programme," and "does the task stuff only last thirty minutes, requiring a good 48 hours of footage to be chomped down to its bare bones while still retaining a coherent narrative?"
Have you ever tried editing a TV show? It's ****ing hard. Just 'cause the bits that paint your pet candidate in a bad light aren't given their own half-hour slots, it doesn't mean anyone's being duplicitous. Some altercations would need their own spin-off shows for the whole story to make sense.
Meanwhile, you've got to show: Critical successes, critical failures, the approximate input of each candidate, the relationships and working dynamics of each candidate with the other candidates, the product they're selling, the process of that sale, the background to the product, market research.
A lot of stuff hits the cutting room floor. You can only really accept the narrative as presented. Don't get all upset and call it incompetence, that's absolutely what they're paid to do.
What would be incompetent would be if they spent five minutes of the programme laboriously spelling out the exact nature of an argument that, ultimately, didn't swing the task either way and was only really necessary to serve as a quick glance at Jamie and Joanna's working relationship. And even then, five minutes isn't going to cover the whole thing. It's clearly something that'd been building up across the day
If you're gonna get grumpy and defensive and accuse the production team of incompetence or manipulation whenever they don't SPOOOOOOONFEED every single detail to the viewer then you're gonna have one hell of a tricky time watching reality telly.
The language of The Apprentice is fast and loose. In an hour long timeslot, it's the only language they can really afford to speak.
Yeah, it's dead easy to make excuses but a well edited programme does not leave out vital information. This wasn't even the worst example in this task. That was the right balls-up they made of Chris's negotiation where we didn't even get enough information to make an informed decision.

On this task, they had a choice of either showing us a proper conversation or being clever and doing an edit which made it look as if one party was at fault so that stupid/lazy people would take it at face value and get manipulated by the producers.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2010, 20:04
Fireball XL5
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,282
Yeah, it's dead easy to make excuses but a well edited programme does not leave out vital information. This wasn't even the worst example in this task. That was the right balls-up they made of Chris's negotiation where we didn't even get enough information to make an informed decision.

On this task, they had a choice of either showing us a proper conversation or being clever and doing an edit which made it look as if one party was at fault so that stupid/lazy people would take it at face value and get manipulated by the producers.
Don't be so hard on yourself!
Fireball XL5 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.