|
||||||||
did anyone else feel for Natalie? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
There's always one double firing per series, there's too many candidates in ratio to weeks in the series run, the only other option is having more in the final than usual.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
I felt it would be, the way Kurt was dismissed before he'd come to the conclusion that the others were NOT being fired, as he usually does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Yes, but nonetheless there was nothing compelling Sugar to fire a second candidate this week. He just clearly decided that it was worth playing his joker (as it were) on Natalie.
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
When is there anything 'compelling' about it?
He fired two this week because the BBC told him to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
When is there anything 'compelling' about it?
He fired two this week because the BBC told him to. I don't quite understand your issue. This was a week when two obviously weak candidates were in the final boardroom, so Sugar chose to fire two. There is nothing that says the double firing has to occur in week 7. He could have done it last week, or next week. When one has occurred in previous series, it has never been in the same week. While the double firing has become a common feature of the series, I very much doubt the BBC tell Sugar to do it on such-and-such a week. That takes us back into the discussion about how much influence the producers have on Sugar's decision-making which none of us can ever agree on and yet everyone is convinced they're right about. Let's not go there. |
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Everything Sugar does is directed to him by the producers, they would have told him to fire two, they would have told him to call back Jason and praise him. The show is a production and Sugar gets his brief just like anyone else.
I have no real issue, only that it was obvious he would fire two from the way he was talking to them all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Everything Sugar does is directed to him by the producers, they would have told him to fire two, they would have told him to call back Jason and praise him. The show is a production and Sugar gets his brief just like anyone else.
I have no real issue, only that it was obvious he would fire two from the way he was talking to them all. And Sugar himself is canny enough to know what makes good telly without being ordered about. He doesn't strike me as the type to take orders from anyone! |
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
And you know this how, exactly?
I don't quite understand your issue. This was a week when two obviously weak candidates were in the final boardroom, so Sugar chose to fire two. There is nothing that says the double firing has to occur in week 7. He could have done it last week, or next week. When one has occurred in previous series, it has never been in the same week. While the double firing has become a common feature of the series, I very much doubt the BBC tell Sugar to do it on such-and-such a week. That takes us back into the discussion about how much influence the producers have on Sugar's decision-making which none of us can ever agree on and yet everyone is convinced they're right about. Let's not go there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
I doubt if there's not a view taken on how many people are wanted at the end to produce a show thats not spread too thin. Five in the final with interviews or a final boardroom is probably too many - I would go for 4 anyway. As soon as you do that, you have to start taking your opportunities to cut the numbers down to the right one. You don't want to do it too early incase someone falls out. Having not done it last week or Dubai week, there's now not many weeks left , though, and you may have a more difficult choice next week.
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328
|
Natalie is one of very few candidates to cry when fired which suggests she's not as 'business ruthless' as 99 percent of the people on the show. She's had personal problems earlier in her life so I don't think her personality was suited to appear on the show.
I wish her good luck in her career after The Apprentice. She seemed quite nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
While I do believe they influence him and make suggestions - I don't believe they make decisions for him. Although I can believe that Jason being called back might have been suggested to him by the producers as a good TV gag.
And Sugar himself is canny enough to know what makes good telly without being ordered about. He doesn't strike me as the type to take orders from anyone! Also I think if too many of one gender have been fired, one of the opposite will go to even things up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,622
|
Quote:
She just told Dara on the spin off show that she wears high heels for 'comfort' ... she's making a bit of a fool of herself all-round really
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,622
|
Quote:
Really. I thought that Natalie was out of her depth and hasn't shown enough to qualify her to stay.
I look at this show now (actually have done for a few years) purely as escapist fictional entertainment. And there can be no doubting its entertainment value. Seriously though - would you have any of these muppets working for you? Having said that - I LOVE Jason! |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 727
|
She had amazing boobage on YF
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,484
|
Quote:
Leah has no bedside manner. The bike lady wasn‘t impressed so if LAS wants a surly partner he’ll have it in Leah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,651
|
She should've been fired a few weeks back when she was in the boardroom and not only turned on the waterworks but also played the gender card.
That was her entire contribution to the series. |
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,637
|
I did like Natalie at first, but she is the only person I can remember crying in the boardroom, so for that alone I think it was right for her to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Everything Sugar does is directed to him by the producers, they would have told him to fire two, they would have told him to call back Jason and praise him. The show is a production and Sugar gets his brief just like anyone else.
I have no real issue, only that it was obvious he would fire two from the way he was talking to them all. 'This whole process has never ever been a joke, as far as I'm concerned, okay? And I don't want any of you to think that I personally am going to be persuaded by what television companies and production companies want to see and want to hear in choosing the person that's going to come and work for me. Okay? Get that right in your heads. Get it right in your heads because I mean it, because seriously, there's a job here for somebody. Okay? And if you might have thought throughout the course of this exercise that it's been a bit of a game, well I can understand you having those feelings, but look at me. Look at my eyes. I'm telling you I don't give a monkey's about what they think, I don't listen to what they tell me and I don't listen to what any television company tells me what to do. I'm looking for somebody to work for me, all right? Serious. Dead serious. Got it?' He did say that back in Series 1 so theoretically I suppose his values may have changed since then, but he has always struck me as a really independent thinker. I don't think he would allow the production team to tell him what to do. In fact, he has been quite vocally critical of the production team at times - like at their decision to axe Young Apprentice, for example. I don't think that he'd openly condemn them if he was in their pocket. I know every time that someone solid is fired over someone a bit more watchable it seems like there is some kind of conspiracy, but there have also been many occasions when someone entertaining was fired at an early point. In the US, apparently it's all on entertainment (I don't watch it, but that's what I've heard.) Maybe that's what Donald Trump values, I don't know. What I do think is that that is not what Lord Sugar is all about. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's what I believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Riverside, motherf*cker!
Posts: 3,802
|
For anyone who agrees with Natalie's ridiculous statement that high heels are comfortable. It may be her perception that they're comfortable, but it's a faulty perception http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopath...igh-heels.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
This is a direct quote from Sugar:
'This whole process has never ever been a joke, as far as I'm concerned, okay? And I don't want any of you to think that I personally am going to be persuaded by what television companies and production companies want to see and want to hear in choosing the person that's going to come and work for me. Okay? Get that right in your heads. Get it right in your heads because I mean it, because seriously, there's a job here for somebody. Okay? And if you might have thought throughout the course of this exercise that it's been a bit of a game, well I can understand you having those feelings, but look at me. Look at my eyes. I'm telling you I don't give a monkey's about what they think, I don't listen to what they tell me and I don't listen to what any television company tells me what to do. I'm looking for somebody to work for me, all right? Serious. Dead serious. Got it?' He did say that back in Series 1 so theoretically I suppose his values may have changed since then, but he has always struck me as a really independent thinker. I don't think he would allow the production team to tell him what to do. In fact, he has been quite vocally critical of the production team at times - like at their decision to axe Young Apprentice, for example. I don't think that he'd openly condemn them if he was in their pocket. I know every time that someone solid is fired over someone a bit more watchable it seems like there is some kind of conspiracy, but there have also been many occasions when someone entertaining was fired at an early point. In the US, apparently it's all on entertainment (I don't watch it, but that's what I've heard.) Maybe that's what Donald Trump values, I don't know. What I do think is that that is not what Lord Sugar is all about. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's what I believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
Despite all he says, he is still in the employ of the BBC, and the production company of the show. Unless (like Simon Cowell and X factor) he owns the show. Then he can make decisions. LS could be replaced if he didn't like it. But he's pretty indispensable
Judging by how he has come across on the show and in his autobiography I just can't see him blindly doing what production staff tell him - it just isn't in his personality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Despite all he says, he is still in the employ of the BBC, and the production company of the show. Unless (like Simon Cowell and X factor) he owns the show. Then he can make decisions. LS could be replaced if he didn't like it. But he's pretty indispensable
If anything though, I think the thing that really suggests his independence on the show is that he has never been shy of criticising the production team when he disagrees with them. He knows full well that they could axe him if they wish, and he's still not shy of doing that. To me, that shows that he's happy to do the show for them, but that he's not going to lose his core values in doing so. If he was their puppet, I would have thought that he would refrain from criticising them in public. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Some series of The Apprentice have been 13 episodes long, and that's a far more standard length for a series. Arguably the series is only 12 episodes because Sugar chose to do a double firing; had he not done so, there would have been 13 episodes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Some series of The Apprentice have been 13 episodes long, and that's a far more standard length for a series. Arguably the series is only 12 episodes because Sugar chose to do a double firing; had he not done so, there would have been 13 episodes.
And I don't see why Lord Sugar has to do a double firing. Why can't he have a final with five people instead of four? Wouldn't be too difficult, would it? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32.





She seemed quite nice.