Yeah I agree how Series 8 did have some good moments, they're just not well remembered haha! It's funny how everything from that Series went over every head. It was my first series of TA, and I was loving it at the time, but now I've forgotten a lot of it.

Re-watch it! All on YouTube

I tend to classify Apprentice series in two camps: those that focus on achievement, and those that focus on messing up. Obviously there is overlap of both in each series, but I would say that the first group is Series 1, 5, 7, 8 and the first two series of Young Apprentice, whereas the second group is Series 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and Young Apprentice Series 3 (so actually, an equal number of series in each group so far). I think a lot of people feel that the entertainment value comes from seeing people make idiots of themselves. Whilst I agree that that can be entertaining, I much prefer picking out the candidates that I like, rooting for them to do well, trying to work out who is going to win and seeing how that compares to my initial reaction to everyone. For those reasons, my favourite series are those in my first group, though I have a definite soft spot for Series 2, mainly because of the utterly awesome Ruth Badger! (Incidentally, I had a rather unpleasant dream last night in which I heard reports that she had died; I was so glad that it was only a dream!)

What do you think about this?

The problem with Series 8 was that everyone was too normal. Boring. There were no outrageous candidates? Also, the series had no real momentum - it was task after task after task...

George, if you had to rank the series, where would Series 8 come roughly?

Could the same not be said for Series 1? I suppose that Saira and Paul could be called outrageous occasionally...

Okay, that's an interesting question. My favourite series were the 2011 series, with Young Apprentice first. I think that Series 8 would come close after that. It would fall in a similar place to Series 1 and 5.

The early Series (1 and 2), had a pretty different atmosphere while it was on BBC Two - it was more documentary-like, whereas now it is edited to make it more like a soap opera

Series 1 was definitely a very different series.

I think that Series 1 of Junior Apprentice has a similar style to Series 1 and 2, somehow. That was on BBC One.

I think that Katie Hopkins had a big role in turning it into a soap opera. She constructed a storyline for herself, with her relationship with Paul, her fights with Adam and Kristina and the way she alternated from good to bad and back again.

Yeah I agree with that. It's funny how the show has evolved over the years.

And about your two apprentice 'camps', I would say there is a spectrum of entertainment and credibility, adn the ones that have had the balances right have been the most popular.

Series 3, 5, and 7 had just the right balance, and they are some of the most popular series.
Series 9, was quite balanced, but perhaps slightly more to the entertainment side of the spectrum than the three previously mentioned.
Series 6 had some classic moments, but the characters were a bit boring.
Series 1 and 8 were too focussed on the credibility of the candidates making it less entertaining.
Series 2 and 4 on the other hand made it seem like there were hardly any competent candidates.
I believe this 'spectrum' agrees with which series are the most popular.

I wouldn't put Series 3 in the same camp as Series 5 and 7. I didn't think that Series 3 had that many really competent candidates. Katie and Kristina were both very competent, and there were others who were likeable and whom you could feel for, but it didn't have the accomplishments of the candidates in Series 5 and 7.

As I said, I felt that the weakness with Series 9 was that there weren't enough people who I felt could justifiably win. The only ones who I felt could were Leah, Luisa, Neil and Rebecca. I like to try to work out who is going to win; when there are only four credible possibilities out of sixteen, that really drags it down in my mind.

Series 6 irritated me for two reasons. Firstly because there were too many idiots on it, and secondly because I felt that very few of the front-runners were good people to win. The outcome of the decision to hire Stella only proves it, as she was by far overqualified for the post. I felt that Liz and Chris were also overqualified, Jamie and Joanna both had other opportunities in their lives and didn't really need the job, and Stuart was just never going to win. It's commonly known on this thread that I have the controversial opinion that the winner of Series 6 should have been Laura - and I stand by that, because out of the front-runners, she was pretty much the only person who was suited to the job, and whilst she wasn't a stunner on the tasks, I felt that she showed enough basic knowledge to be a strong businesswoman after being taught by Lord Sugar and learning some more tricks of the trade.

Series 1 certainly did not lack entertainment! In fairness, it was mainly Saira and Paul who made it entertaining, but they did it so well that there was no need for any entertainment elsewhere. There has never been another candidate quite like Saira, and I don't think that there ever will be. If I ever go back to watch Series 1, I always find her endearing in a way that no one else ever has. I know why it is, but I can't really put it into words. Everyone else who liked Saira will know what I'm talking about though. And I've already provided reasons why Series 8 was entertaining.

I agree with you about Series 4 and to a certain extent Series 2, but I think in the case of Series 2 Ruth Badger was so exceptional that it completely changes the way that you think of the series.

Where do you rank Young Apprentice in this?

Hmmmm... It's hard to compare them with the Adult series... I think they are all quite balanced - but they didn't want the kids to look so dumb and it was more a show about kids learning to do business I think.

In fairness, quite a lot of the young candidates were already fairly successful in business before it started. Jordan De Courcy in particular, but also several others.

George, I have watched series 9, and I am now going to watch Series 8, so I can get an accurate comparison of the two. I have never actually rewatched either of the series again from start to finish so this should be interesting

Unforunately episode 2 of series 8 is segmented with one part missing and the screen is stretched so I think I'll skip that episode.

Here is a link I have found on another website to that episode.

http://www.putlocker.com/file/071AE2250CBF4E63#

Oh cheers for that, ill be tuning in later

Emmmm... Putlocker is blocked on my school network (I board), do you know any other ways I could watch this?

There are a lot of links here:

http://watchseries.lt/episode/the_ap..._uk_s8_e2.html

Alternatively, you could use a proxy blocker to unblock the YouTube version.

I used a hotspot from my mobile to watch it from Putlocker. On Episode 3 now!

How are you finding it?

Episode 2? Well this particular episode is the first time I preprly watched an episode of the Apprentice!
The episode itself is slightly dull IMO. I did cringe when Jane asked for 1 million orders. And oh my, Maria has got to be one of my least favourtie candidates ever!
The thing about Series 8 is that most of the characters were women. The men generally did better than the girls in avoiding being fired, and I think it is a shame that Bilyana, Maria and Jane who were all very interesting and potentially entertaining candidates were fired by week 4.
I do however, contrary to others' beliefs think that Maria deserved to he fired. Her contributions were minimal, and she was just bitching all the time!

What are your opinions on this episode?

I think that any of them could reasonably have been fired, but out of the three I would have fired Jenna, as she seemed to be the driving force behind persuading the team to go with 'Splish-Splash' However, having seen the whole series I'm glad that she wasn't fired, because in later episodes I feel that there was a vast improvement with her performance.

A lot of the people who supposedly 'didn't contribute' are fired in the second episode, aren't they? Sometimes, I feel that to be quite unfair. I didn't exactly mind with Alex Britez Cabral, as he seemed to be staying out of doing anything notable on purpose, but with someone like Ben Fowler on Young Apprentice, I feel that it was just that he didn't shout as loudly as the others. On that task I thought that Lewis should have gone, and I think it was really harsh on Ben that it was him. In this episode, I think it was ridiculous that Maria having fallen asleep briefly in the car was brought up in the boardroom - everyone has done that at some point, it doesn't mean that she wasn't focussed! I think it needs to be remembered that Maria wasn't actually the cause of them losing the task. I feel that she should have been given another chance, and maybe been made PM on the next task - after all, she said, 'Put me in charge of just one task, and if it goes wrong, I will gladly walk out that door.' On the other hand, I didn't feel that she really defended herself very well. She didn't really deflect her criticisms, she just shouted 'OH MY GOD!' lots of times. So possibly a little immature, maybe she wouldn't have gone that much further after all.

Maria was extremely immature and narrow-minded. On Task 1, she said behind Gabrielle's back, 'she's an architect. All she does is draw buildings.'

God, I just find her so vile! But so was Jane, who IMO was a complete bitch, and I thought she would go far, but truth be told, she didn't actually show many skill in the four tasks she was there.

Hmm, fair enough. Maria probably was quite immature - at the time she was filming, she was the youngest candidate they'd ever had - but at the same time, she's clearly capable. She already has her own restaurant, and I imagine her business plan would have been quite well thought out.

I think that Jane's CV let her down. It suggested that she'd done some really incredible things, and from watching her she didn't come across at all impressive. I thought she'd go far as well, just because the way she behaved seemed like she'd be the Series 8 villain - but I was pleasantly surprised to see her out early.

I am now up to episode 5, so here are my opinions on the final eleven.

Azhar - Fairly quiet, and doesn't contribute much, he is quite lucky to have lasted this long.
Ricky - Bit of an arrogant ****, but is a good leader and motivator
Tom - Quiet but competent.
Stephen - Again a ****, and Phoenix didn't really deserve to win Task 5, and I think Stephen would have been fired. Reasonable salesman.
Adam - Very annoying, detestable character, good salesman, but otherwise is fairly useless, and a backseat driver
Nick - Very logical, competent, and charming, and was a strong PM for task 1.

Gabrielle - Competent, but did go to town with the upcycling on Task 4. She was a good PM in week 1, and it was just a shame she was against a team being managed by Nick!
Jenna - Fairly UTR, a bit annoying, and she didn't make much impact, apart from her numbers fail on Task 2. I'm trying to remain neutral, but she did in fact turn out to be one of my favourite candidates ever!
Laura - True bitch. I actually really dislike her, and she wasn't a cry strong leader as PM.
Jade - Competent, but UTR. She has had some good creative input. Annoying voice though.
Katie - She deserved to be fired in Week 1, and she could fairly have been fired in Week 3. In both those boardrooms she was quite effective on deflecting her shortcomings. She just doesn't contribute much TBH.

If I had no knowledge about further episodes my winners picks would be Nick, Tom, or Gabrielle.

Having watched up to Week 10 of Series 8 now, here's who I'd have fired for each task.

Week 1: Katie, due to lack of contribution.

Having watched up to Week 10 of Series 8 now, here's who I'd have fired for each task.

Week 1: Katie, due to lack of contribution. Although Bilyana was abrasive, LS didn't have much other ground on which to fire her, and Gabby wasn't a bad PM.
Week 2: Maria, because she was a very abrasive character, who didn't really contribute anything of much value. She works for herself a reason - because no one would be able to work with her!
Week 3: Michael, due to lack of contribution. We literally heard about three sentences from him up to that point.
Week 4: Laura, again due to lack of contribution. She also didn't sell that much, and Jane and Gabrielle had at least demonstrated some skills up to that point.
Week 5: I really have no idea on this one. Laura hadn't contributed much to this point, and had an argumentative nature. Ricky was a disorganized PM, and Duane was disruptive on the editing of the video. I would literally have just picked a name out of a hat if I were LS.
Week 6: Katie AND Adam. Both made fatal errors. Adam went too cheap on the production of the meatballs, and Katie made the bad suggestion about the football ground. Although Katie's error was less important than Adam's she'd been in the BR three times by this point. I believe this would have been a good time for the double firing - it would have given the series a mid-series boost instead of LS having to quickly do a double firing at the last opportunity possible because he hadn't done one yet.
Week 7: Jade. I know she was pretty strong on most other tasks, but this PMship was truly diabolical and should have been grounds for instant dismissal. She had no strategy and was indecisive, and didn't really seem to get the point of the task. Bringing Tom into the BR was a true crime.
Week 8: Laura, because by this point she really hadn't sufficiently proved any real business ability, even in sales, which was meant to be her forte.
Week 9: Jenna, because although I found her very entertaining, she was just a bit useless, and didn't do an ad that was classy to go with the product. Stephen could definitely have gone with her though, because he just let her go ahead with that, the devious little tw*t!
Week 10: Stephen, because he was a really bad PM, he didn't strategize and was hasty and stressed! I suspect that LS had to get rid of two though to get a final five for the semi-final, so it would unfortunately have had to have been Gabrielle who went with him, because although she demonstrated very strong leadership and creative abilities, she contributed very little on this task.

Does anyone agree/disagree with my opinions?

This is a difficult one. Bilyana certainly didn't deserve to go due to her task contribution, but on the other hand Lord Sugar has to work with one of these people, and I think she just had a personality that he didn't think he'd be able to work with.


There were reasons to fire any of the three, but personally I would have fired Jenna, because she was the main driving force behind going with the Splish-Splash over the tap cosy.


Can't argue with you on this one.


I saw his reasons for firing Jane. She hadn't done anything especially impressive in any of the task, she had been criticised by someone in every single one, and I think her CV suggested that she was a lot more capable than she actually was.


I agree that this is a difficult one, but for completely opposite reasons - I don't feel that any of the three deserved to go. If I had to choose one I'd agree with Duane because I feel that there was marginally more grounds for firing him than for firing the other two (he seemed to cause most of the arguments on this task), but I would have liked to see Lord Sugar not fire anyone, and then do more double-firings in later weeks to make up for it. I'm not sure if he's allowed to do that, but I think that would be the fairest way. Anyone who went from this task would just have been a victim of the format. (There is no doubt that that team should have won.)


I actually would have fired Azhar. I feel that Katie had at this point shown the most skills out of the three of them, whereas Adam, despite his faults, at least made an effort to help his team do well. Azhar, on the other hand, didn't appear to have contributed much in any task, and most of the contributions that he did make were negative. Despite his Week 2 PM win, no one thought he was a good team leader. I think that he should have gone - or a double-firing with him and Adam. Also I don't think that Katie having been in the boardroom twice previously (once only by default as Project Manager) meant that she was no good. There are other people who have been in the boardroom more than that, for worse things, and have stayed longer, Michael Sophocles an obvious example.


Disagree, I think Azhar. Both of them were awful on that task, but Jade had at least shown in previous tasks that she had skills, whereas Azhar hadn't proved anything. Also I think that Jade showed some humility in the boardroom - she admitted that she shouldn't have brought Tom in, and that it was a mistake that she made under pressure.


Yes, agree. She wasn't terrible, but she wasn't brilliant either (although I do wonder if the murder of her son's father affected her performance.)


Could have been another grounds for a double firing, but I think that generally Jenna had shown more positive things across the weeks than Stephen. I thought her winning PM-ship was fantastic, for example, whereas Stephen's was more of a fluke. I also felt that Stephen was more responsible for the dreadful advert than Jenna.


Agree about Stephen. I'm not sure about Gabrielle - she was great and a lovely girl, but she also had some big flaws that came out in a couple of tasks, so I don't think she was ever going to win, or last much longer. I don't see why a double-firing had to happen on this task - it could have happened in Week 11. Hell, I don't see why they couldn't have had a final five in the final - it was interviews, so it wasn't like on Young Apprentice where they needed an even number to keep the teams even in the final task.