Some of the comments here are really odd, are we trying to find a business partner or the winner of Big Brother? A likable, nice person doesn't always make a good businessman! The show is about business skills and not necessarily personalities.

Leah and Luisa were the easily the most credible candidates in the whole process! Who cares about their personalities if they're both capable people??! Luisa has a bubbly marmite personality and Leah is just a calm, careful person. There was nothing wrong with being either of those people so why personality still has something to do with it. They can both sell, organize, lead, preform under stress, work as team players, innovate, create...they can do it all. And we've actually seen lots of moments of brilliance for each one!

I'm also getting annoyed about people saying Leah hid for the first four weeks! Even Nick said it! I was like 'WHAT?'. Leah took complete control of the first task under Jaz's terrible leadership. She was a brilliant seller in Weeks 2 to 4. There was always quite a lot of her.

What shocks me is that Francesca finished third! She made a hideous mistake in Week 2, hardly anything was shown of her from then on. There was nothing positive to note about any of her performances. It was terrible. Francesca was by far the worst 3rd placer I have ever seen.

But that's why most of us are complaining - Lusia and Leah belong on BB - not a semi-serious program like The Apprentice.

What, despite the fact the Luisa has three very successful businesses and Leah is a qualified medical professional? Or it it just because of how they look? They aren't BB style freaks, far from it.

WHAT? Ok sorry but you've failed to grasp what I'm saying...Luisa and Leah are disliked on here because of their personalities! I'm saying that this show isn't always about the personalities, it's about business skills. And Francesca, Jason and Alex (the 3 fan favorites on this forum - god knows why) - were by far THE worst businessmen...whereas Leah and Luisa were credible business minded individuals. People need to stop criticizing a personality on a business show...if you dislike someone that doesn't mean they're bad at business but often on this forum people think personality and business go hand-in-hand.

Both are sensible, creative, preform under stress, can sell, both are clear and articulate. Leah can be incredibly methodical, sensible and keeps her cool all the time. Luisa can be bubbly, easygoing and has had the most success out of anyone in the process outside of the process.

If people didn't get engaged, positively or negatively, with the candidate's personalities, the show wouldn't be on air. If people focused on business nous only then they'd soon realise that 10 weeks of online dating agencies and flogging jacket potatoes doesn't really cut it.

Personally wouldnt start a business with someone whose former bosses have reported to be such a pain in the ass, but maybe that's because I am not as rich as Lord Sugar. He can afford to gamble 250k on someone and I cant. :P If he says he likes risk then fair enough.

True, but that's not what I'm getting at. Yes people like the personalities, but this is a business program. It's about finding a business partner. Therefore to say that Luisa and Leah don't deserve a place in the final just based on their personalities is incredibly silly. People are disappointed in these final two just because they are unlikable characters!

When actually Luisa and Leah deserve to be in the final because of the credibility of their business skills + plans. That shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of someone with a more attractive personality!

Why must personality always be confused with business skills...they're not always the same thing, certain qualities may lend itself to business but most often it's not the same thing whether you're a likable person or business-minded. The likable person often doesn't make the necessary firing, while the business-minded person would. The likable person may not take a risk whereas the business-minded person would. The likable person may take into account other people's opinions far too much while being impractical/unsensible whereas the business-minded person will make a decision based on how logical or sensible it is, no matter how unpopular it may be.

I think Leah and Luisa are definitely right to be the two finalists - although to be fair, I don't think this series has had many people who were particularly special. The only two people besides these two who could justifiably got to the final in my opinion are Neil and Rebecca. No one else proved themselves enough on the tasks.

But the problem isn't just that Leah and Luisa are unlikeable - it's that they are also unprofessional (especially Luisa).

To use an analogy, Ruth Badger in series 3 was unlikeable - but she didn't let it get in the way of her team's performance.

Take episode 8: it's clear that her incessant nagging was one of the reasons why Jason took so long and they ended up running out of time. Similarly, her petulant insistence on doing the presentation herself (and then making a hash of it) destroyed any chance that they had of winning.

Or in episode 9, her attempt to get Francesca fired by lying that she had no cooking ability meant that they produced a bland product which would have lost had Neil not persuaded the online retailer to place a large order.

Are you sure you're thinking of Ruth Badger? Not only was she (in my opinion) not unlikeable, she was also not in Series 3. I think that description fits Katie Hopkins more.

You're right, Badger was series two. It's also true that the analogy fits Katie Hopkins even better.

But my general point still stands - I didn't warm to Badger but she still was one of the best candidates ever - whereas Luisa is even more unlikeable - and has nowhere near her business ability.

It isn't really is it? it's primary purpose is to entertain and of course provide free publicity for Alan Sugar's ventures.

The show is about personalities/dramas/entertainment in that people when talking about their most memorable moments talk about 'knees up Mother Brown' and Katie Hopkins walking out and Simon's telesales task being funny and the Sandalwood episode and the Marrakesh episode and stuff like that. The show primarily helps promote Sugar and helps promote the contestants who take part as far as I see it.

It's a bit like Hell's Kitchen USA is set in a kitchen but most people who watch it do so for the drama and the simple competitive element, not generally to just watch people cook food (and tbh, like TA focuses on failures in the regular eps, that show seems to focus on people burning scallops for the umpteenth time).
Similarly, SCD has a dancing element to it but you'll often find someone who dances well but isn't backed by the public, and the winner on public votes hasn't always been the best 'technical dancer'.
People's favourites on X Factor and The Voice are also not just based on the singing either, put it that way.

I mean, there is a business element, sure, but the technical side of things tends to get only a smattering of attention. It's also understandable why people form their favourites based on other factors. Personalities and dramas and redemption arcs and underdogs emerging are all bread and butter of reality shows, TA is no exception. And if any of these shows were -just- focused on their areas of expertise in a sombre kind of way, they wouldn't have had the viewing figures that they've had.

Thats not clear at all. From what we saw and what the agency people said after, would still have been there changing colours back and forth now. He was totally incapable of decision making.And teh more he doubted his ability the worse he got. She couldn't magically turn him into an effective PM, so she had to tell him what to do, and when that failed everyone else shared teh view Jason had to go as pM . Neil decided the issue. Luisa had to nag Jason because she didn' t thave the male option to order him to shut up that Neil and Alex had already resorted to.

Thats not what happend in week 9 either. The cooking was a secondary issue. The decision what to produce and how to market it was the primary issue. Both Neil and Luisa regarded Francesca as a secondary player. Neither of the primary players wanted the other one alone making the decisions, or taking credit for a win alone. . They both decided to share the big decisions, and let Francesca do the cooking. It had nothing to do with getting Francesca fired. She was as safe in the kitchen as long as she didn't do something silly- like not taste the food - and as long as it didn't come down to potential and past record - where it didn't matter where she was..

Dubious. Luisa has a better show record. Ruth won once as PM and was only on a winning side 3 times. Luisa has won twice and been on the winning team 5 times. She also seems to have started 3 businesses - which even Claude couldn't challenge the success of. Luisa's displayed on the show the retail skills she claims to have. Ruth then worked for others and her profit making claims were disputed at the same stage of her Apprentice - possibly unfairly. Luisa's been good at presenting, sales and negotiating - and better as a PM than almost everyone her series. If you allow for Neil's habit of shutting off advice or comment, that may offset his extra winning team appearance. She also beat his team twice as PM, he never won without her on his team. Ruth was very strong at sales - but was beaten by Michelle who also had wider experience of setting up a business, and negotiating in the same areas the available job was about.

The unfair similarity is that both seem to have been labelled for storyline purposes as manipulative and game playing. There was nothing to it with Ruth - who didn't have to help Syed over a cliff in week 10 - when he had decided to ignore it , and keep on running himself. There's very little to it with Luisa who has avoided blame as anyone wise does, pointed out when people and ideas were silly, and at least tried to save the sinking ship when the captain was still preoccupied picking the new cabin window curtain colour. Same could be said of Leah - who disposed of Zee precisely because she is quick thinking and decisive enough to realise when there's a disaster in charge.

I think both are quite likeable and (it seems as though) both have good business plans.

Don't see any problem.

This.

Thats part of the problem in having more big characters designed for roles.. People identify with the reality stories and get upset for example when Jason is built up, with Teddy Bear in tow, for two weeks and then becomes roadkill caught in the lights. They also lose focus as the stronger performers vanish for weeks as the story focuses on someone elses cycle. The story is there, throughout , but its there in the small moments and many people just note the big dramas and rows. The early show stories and editing then has to be put in line with who is actually good enough to get to the end . So we get recaps the next week that change the balance, and Final 5 ,and Why I Fired Them, shows that have to remind people of the moment that didn't register or the phone call they didn't get shown first time around. Leah is the late challenger goes the story - so her earlier strong moments are ignored. Luisa is "a loose cannon" we are told - so no one notes that in her first PM win she was criticised for being too cautious.

The only advantage of the Apprentice is that the BB viewer, this show, has no vote to vote out any loud female, or any female regarded as being unpleasant to any female, or anyone unusual, or to vote for the nasty or incompetent good looking, or boyish males. Lord Sugar has managed to get the 2 smartest there - with plans that look credible. The question left is whether the edited story, or outside reaction, or the merit of the plan , or the last task, plays a dominant role in decising who wins - either way.

I think that this is a problem that lies solely with the editors. Were this my show, I'd change the way that it's edited so that they don't focus so much on individual stories. I'd also like more episodes in a week so we'd be able to see more of the task.

But to begin with Luisa was a loose cannon, she was part of the attacks on Rebecca early on. She improved week by week, though remained manipulative.

The edit in the Apprentice doesn't change things, like it does in a live reality show, because it occurs after the contest is over. On BB the edit can be used to keep a controversial but ratings drawing contestant from being voted off. Or it can be used to make an unfavoured contestant look boring and therefore expendable in the vote. In the Apprentice it's mainly used make sense of what happened, highlighting key events in a task that won or lost it, or otherwise shed light on things. If a candidate is shown doing badly one week but does better a couple of weeks later it's quite likely that's what really happened. People who don't feature were neither to blame for the loss or credited with the win. Therefore it's likely that people who get to the final five will usually have featured more in the preceding weeks.

Inventor Tom, for example, was shown several times identifying where things went wrong in tasks but being ignored. This was because it was picked up in the boardroom and helped save him from being fired, despite mostly being on the losing side. Had that not been key to what happened those perceptive moments might not have been shown in the tasks.

The editing isn't a problem because it doesn't change a thing. And more than once a week would be overkill. It would get very tedious to show a task over two or three days, finding a good point to break it up between episodes, and so on. They show the highlights with good reason. Showing all the market stall sales, or every twist of the food recipe, etc would make it boring and repetitive.

No, it doesn't change anything. I just like to see more objectively what goes on on the tasks than candidates' individual stories. I'm not saying that it would change something, the only thing it would change is my enjoyment.

Remember, sometimes less is more. Seeing extended footage of the tasks and the boardroom might not be any more revealing and could easily be tedious. I'm happy with the highlights.

Well, when I hear criticisms of the show, one of the ones that comes up most often is 'we don't see enough of what goes on on the tasks'.

Luisa may have three businesses, but she is also very unprofessional. She plays games, manipulates, lies i.e. that she can't cook, nags and also put pictures of herself half-naked online. Anyone with half a brain would know they would leak, especially if they were concerned about a business reputation.