|
||||||||
Episode 3 - who should have gone? |
| View Poll Results: Who should have been fired? | |||
| Sophie |
|
29 | 18.59% |
| Natalie |
|
65 | 41.67% |
| Uzma |
|
69 | 44.23% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 156. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Purgatorium
Posts: 17,627
|
Uzma.
All three were useless in their own ways but Uzma lied
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
I would have fired Natalie, and then made Sophie PM in the next task to force her to show what she could do (or couldn't if that ended up to be the case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
I hate it when that happens. Almost always the person does a terrible job as PM and gets fired in the next episode anyway. If they're bad, they're bad. Sophie had three tasks to make her mark. As far as we can tell, she had nothing to offer.
So I would have given Sophie one more chance and probably fired Natalie (Though maybe Uzma as she was also responsible for the failure and hadn't improved that much since her Week 1 BR appearance) |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
Had Natalie or Uzma though?
The team may not have won with Natalie in charge, but it hasn't won with anyone else, either. It's a difficult team to manage. It's not her fault no-one had a good product idea. The results of the market research were useless, being vague and contradictory. They tried to instil the product with magic, and she couldn't realise what a failure that was until she had the actual prototype. Then it was too late to fix and nothing good would have come from criticising it. The pitches, and everything else on the second day, seemed to go well. They didn't make mistakes like going to China Town when it was closed and they shouldn't have been there anyway; or trying to sell beer in a winebar, or forgetting to do beer taps or take beer samples, or showing their bum to the buyer during a pitch. Natalie wasn't a great PM, or even an average one, but she wasn't as bad as some we've seen. It's usually better to have someone who does something, than someone who does nothing, because then at least you have a chance of a result. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
I haven't figured Uzma out yet. She seems to say a lot, and even though she annoys the others I don't think she talks rubbish all the time. For example, as I recall it was her who told Rebecca she shouldn't have asked a buyer for their location when they already had the address from the phone book - she was basically right.
Who should have gone? Rebecca possibly for sabotaging the market research, had she been taken to the boardroom. Natalie for losing control of the brainstorming session which set the women on the wrong track. Uzma for being weak at what she claimed was her strength: design. Lord Sugar does have an unfortunate habit of firing people for "hiding away" when in reality they have simply carried out the backroom roles assigned to them. However, here Sophie authored her own demise when reciting to Lord Sugar the littany of things she could not do: design, create, pitch or sell. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
Who should have gone? Rebecca possibly for sabotaging the market research, had she been taken to the boardroom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
I completely missed this. How exactly did she sabotage it [the market research]?
It is far too common on The Apprentice for the market research team to look for reasons for not doing what has previously been agreed, rather than looking to improve the design of the chosen product. In this case, Rebecca was sceptical about the cube and preferred a desk. Her market research was aimed at eliciting support for desk-like features, and nothing that would have improved the cube. All the design team could do with her feedback was either ditch the cube and build a desk, or ignore it completely, which is what they did. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
|
I would have fired Natalie I think. To be honest, the real weak link on the girls' team is Luisa. She needs to learn to shut up and stop shouting over people who are more talented, intellligent or experienced than she is. She really is an arrogant idiot. Natalie let her away with this and didn't listen to Rebecca when she tried to speak up earlier on or to the results of the market research. I agree Uzma talks a lot but doesn't do anything very impressive, but on this occasion I really think Natalie was a very poor leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,320
|
Quote:
I hate it when that happens. Almost always the person does a terrible job as PM and gets fired in the next episode anyway. If they're bad, they're bad. Sophie had three tasks to make her mark. As far as we can tell, she had nothing to offer.
Yes, Sophie was bad in terms of being a team member, I think most of us saw see she seemed to not offer much, but only because she (for whatever reason) says she only does or doesn't do certain things. We had seen all angles of Natalie (who seemed to have more confidence in herself and her abilities) and yet while she tried to talk the talk and walk the walk she failed, both as a team member and PM also. She didn't fail because she was in secure or was holding back (like for some reason Sophie) but because she did talked aplenty, shouted abit too and was still average despite all of it. So why not get rid of hopeless Natalie and stick Sophie in as PM just to see whether she had any redeeming qualities like we've seen Natalie doesn't. No harm seeing as Sophie's time (like Natalie's still) was running out. Then we'd have seen both Natalie and Sophie be fired because we'd seen both of them as average PM's along with being average team members when not PM. Sophie pretty much made out via a poor excuse that she couldn't talk or do better because of some of the other girls and the way they were. But if she had got PM (as one last chance) then we'd have seen whether any change would have occurred in her (as it's possible it might have) as she'd have no one to hide behind and the last say on everything (on top of having to actually speak and give instructions). Then we'd have seen for def whether she really was was kept quite by some of the other girls (and hence couldn't perform to her best) or see if she was just plain lying and used it as an excuse because she has no real skills to offer. She didn't o much on this task, but I don't think she held less blame for the poor design and overall idea that was steam rolled by other people that in comparison were the opposite of her and tried to do and say too much. You might not have wanted to see Sophie as PM but I did, and I can feel that if I want to, I don't need you permission to have my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 13
|
Confessing that you dont pitch, sell or design was a bad idea - poses the question: what do you actually do then? In terms of the task, she should have stayed, but she would never have won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,221
|
I said Sophie, in the first task she was told to do more after it and she never did, she just hid in the background. You could make a good argument for Uzma cause she created it and the box was awful but she did some things in the other tasks and at least contributed to this one unlike Sophie. Natalie wasn't a great PM either but Sophie didn't do much. Plus saying I can't pitch, sell, design etc didn't help and her defense in the boardroom was weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
Yes, Sophie was bad in terms of being a team member, I think most of us saw see she seemed to not offer much, but only because she (for whatever reason) says she only does or doesn't do certain things.
Part of my background here is that I don't want the PM role to become a poisoned chalice. In the American show, the losing PM gets fired so often that sensible candidates avoid it. The producers had to offer a bribe, in the form of immunity from being fired in the following task if they win, to get them to consider the role at all. In the UK we've avoided that, partly because Lord Sugar does not fire losing PMs as often as Trump does. That may be part of why he saved Natalie: he'd just fired two PMs in a row, and three in a row would have been too many. It is also why I don't like to see poorly performing candidates made PM and then fired as PM; it affects the statistics of more PMs getting fired. So I think it's important for the long term health of the show that candidates not be punished for being PM. PMs should get the benefit of any doubt. Quote:
You might not have wanted to see Sophie as PM but I did, and I can feel that if I want to, I don't need you permission to have my opinion.
Absolutely. I hope nothing I've written implies otherwise. I wasn't attacking you or trying to intimidate you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 14,737
|
Quote:
Uzma for me. Amazing how much she's gone on about being a great designer yet the box on wheels looked absolutely awful! If designing is her best asset then I worry for her...
Can understand why Sophie went though, she has done nothing for three weeks and it didn't help when she said she can't pitch, design or sell ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,773
|
Toxic Uzma should have gone, but I suspect they're keeping her because they think she's good tv.
![]() In addition to her obnoxiousness, she seems to be one of those people who gets away with saying she's 'creative' and has design ability only because she hadn't really been tested. Her 'design' contribution to the task was laughable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
It wasn't just that speech. We've seen almost nothing from her over the previous two tasks. To the point where last week some people were saying Tim should have brought her into the boardroom instead of Rebecca. At that time I defended her, on the grounds that she might have done stuff which didn't make the edit. However, it now seems she didn't.
Part of my background here is that I don't want the PM role to become a poisoned chalice. In the American show, the losing PM gets fired so often that sensible candidates avoid it. The producers had to offer a bribe, in the form of immunity from being fired in the following task if they win, to get them to consider the role at all. In the UK we've avoided that, partly because Lord Sugar does not fire losing PMs as often as Trump does. That may be part of why he saved Natalie: he'd just fired two PMs in a row, and three in a row would have been too many. It is also why I don't like to see poorly performing candidates made PM and then fired as PM; it affects the statistics of more PMs getting fired. So I think it's important for the long term health of the show that candidates not be punished for being PM. PMs should get the benefit of any doubt. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05.




