Saying 'you don't fit in' I find really odd... Why couldn't she have just said you're fired?!

Supposedly Trump just didn't want another US Apprentice host using what he saw as his catchphrase, though I guess the one they did use was supposed to fit in with the "kinder and gentler" nature of the Stewart version.

Yeah but how is 'you don't fit in' doesn't signify that they have been asked to leave or anything like that!! It's jsut such a random phrase...

That's a legitimate point, actually. In the first few episodes you tended to have Stewart saying "you just don't fit in" (or some variant thereof) to the unlucky candidate, which was followed by a shot of the candidate looking around and clearly thinking "Sooo... did I just get fired?"

I've only watched the Trump US version & as been mentioned has a totality different feel to the UK version. The firings in the US version can be for strange reasons rather than performance on the task(s), like one candidate was fired not for performance the task but trying to flirt with Trump, another candidate was fired for calling himself White trash, candidates can also be fired in the US version for being too loyal or disloyal. I also feel in the US version that most of the tasks are just product placement.

Well, maybe, but she also deserved to go on the task basis imo

I think "You don't fit in" ends up being a bit more sinister than "You're fired." It's got a sort of cult-y vibe. "There shall be no place for deviance in the new empire of Stewart," type of thing. "You're fired" is just a job, "You don't fit in" is a whole mindset.

I actually quite liked the Irish version, though it is very very samey season on season. It kind of reflects how the UK version started, when they were actually recruiting people who were vaguely competent rather than the latter years when the UK version switched more to muppets that make good TV. That said the final season was ruined a bit when they copied the dragons den investment type of prize rather than it being an actual apprenticship.


I think Bill is great, he's actually intimidating in the boardroom. I think his aides however are pointless non entities. then again unless they look like Ivanka Trump I've little interest in the aides.


Without trying to start a race war, that kind of reflects more on the difference between London and Dublin rather than being something the program itself introduced


I like the Ozzie celebrity version, but that's more like the US celeb version just with more people you've never heard of. Mind you Mark Bouris (the boss) is the most shameful of all the bosses as pretty much all the tasks seem to be using the celebrities to do work for his companies that he would otherwise have to pay for.

I still like the US celebrity version - it's always good value, but again it's not really the same show as ours. The regular US version I really couldn't get into

I really liked the Apprentice Asia version - there's a vast difference in cultures that makes it so much more interesting, and it's played very straight much like our version. The show itself is hard to get hold of however

Paragraph 1: They didn't seem very competent to me in the episode I watch, with one woman not being able to use a phone, and sitting in the car with her subteam for three hours, not getting any appointments!

Paragraph 2: The problem for me is that they all come from the same kind of culture - what makes for great TV is when you throw many different personalities together, from different backgrounds - on Series 3 of the Apprentice Ireland, most of the men were similar in personalities - all quite head-strong, there was no real variation.

The only good things I identified were Panos and Michelle

To be fair, US television in general tends to be pretty heavy on product placement, especially in reality shows. It just seems odd to us because product placement is completely banned on the BBC, and until a few years ago was so heavily restricted on UK-produced shows that no-one bothered with it.

I don't feel that the UK version has become like that totally. I see it as being about half and half - out of the twelve series so far, Series 1, 5, 7, 8 and the first two series of Young Apprentice focussed more on competence while Series 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and Young Apprentice Series 3 focussed more on making good TV (with a lot of overlap, of course, but that's the name of the game).

I don't feel you can just categorize them like that - the overlaps are just too significant - for Series 5 - yes there were Yasmina and Kate, but think sandalwood, pantsman, togas, Persian rugs.
The overlaps are just too significant. You could rank them perhaps, bur I don't believe you can simply categorise them into two camps.

I get what you mean, they're all quite vanilla personality wise as well as in appearance.


I guess the distinction I was drawing is, more the fact the the UK version throws in the tutti frutti flavoured candidates. The big characters that stand out and were memorable (usually for the wrong reasons). People that will keep you watching just to see Claude destroy them in the interviews

You're right, there are very significant overlaps in every series, but generally I do group them into those two camps. I'll explain each below.

Camp 1:
Series 1 - a new series so focussed on teaching some basic business skills, although naturally featured a few big cock-ups (Secret Signals, for example).
Series 5 - there were a few cock-ups as you mentioned, but generally the strengths of the groups were played up in my opinion. The winning teams often came across as incredibly professional (not every week, but quite frequently) and there were some really, really strong candidates.
Junior Apprentice Series 1 - reminded me quite a lot of the first series of the adult show - more like a documentary about young business brains. Many of the young people seemed very competent and capable, and even when things went wrong it was generally quite clear that people were trying really hard.
Series 7 - as the first series with a new prize, this was always going to focus on the business side a little more, but actually it had quite a good balance. There were still some hilarious incompetents, but overall the candidates seemed pretty capable, and at least one of the teams seemed to generally do pretty well on a task.
Young Apprentice Series 2 - my personal favourite, and had arguably the strongest final six ever.
Series 8 - people said this series was boring, but I didn't think it was, it just focussed a little bit more on the business side. There was still the other side there ('Ugh! It's horrible! This isn't the English sparkling wine I ordered!') but ultimately that wasn't played up, and this is really how I'd prefer the show to be edited.

Camp 2:
Series 2 - I felt for the most part had quite a low standard of candidates, however did have Ruth Badger, one of the strongest candidates ever, and one or two other strong candidates.
Series 3 - could actually have been in Camp 1 if the strengths had been focussed on more in the edit, but the editors chose to focus predominantly on Katie, her relationships with Paul, Adam and Kristina, and seemed to forget quite a lot about the serious business element about halfway through.
Series 4 - I can barely think of any episodes in Series 4 where anything really, really good was produced. No contest.
Series 6 - I felt that Stuart Baggs dragged the serious side of the contest down. There were actually some very strong candidates, but he was such a goldmine of entertainment that the edit showed him at the forefront at the expense of the others.
Young Apprentice Series 3 - there seemed to be more focus on incompetencies. While there were a few who had potential, there wasn't a point in the series where anyone really came to the forefront and showed themselves to be really impressive, and the focus seemed to be more on silly things. That dragged it down a lot in my eyes. Still wish there was a fourth series though.
Series 9 - there was a lot of overlap here as well, but by this point I felt that generally the focus had shifted back from candidates doing well to candidates messing up.

Ultimately, it's entirely in the way that the programme is edited. Any one of these series could have been in the other camp if some of the editing decisions were different. I think that a series that is only average will gloss over candidates who are genuinely strong and professional in favour of those who will be more memorable for being annoying, whereas a good series should show that even the candidates who aren't so strong are still trying really hard.

I think the best series are the ones with a bit of balance. There's nothing interesting about failing week on week. Clash of the Titans is great. Clash of the Berks is rubbish. S5 and S7 have probably provided the best balance of interesting people, genuine business nouse, and frequent catastrophe.

It's dynamics, really. I'm not interested in watching the same show week after week. S2 I think was probably one of the least dynamic, and one of the least watchable for it. A lot of samey candidates, a lot of sales tasks. S8 was dependable in a similar way - everyone turned up, did their job quite well, and a random member of the marginally worse team was fired. Series 1, 5, 7 and 9 were a bit twistier. A different balance to each series - S9 was rather more pratfall led, but the candidates were interesting, so they were the ones that were more entertaining to watch, for me. I think I'd probably count the Junior Apprentice among them, too. JA was ace. Short, but sweet - lots of genuinely great candidates, doing good jobs but not reliably enough to be predictable. I was both entertained and genuinely impressed. Great stuff.

I'm not sure I agree with all of the examples you gave, but I certainly agree with this point.

Don't actually agree with this one, as with Melody, Jim, Zoe, Tom, Natasha and even Susan (or Edna and Vincent) you had a lot of candidates were the focus was on entertainment (by any which way possible).

Also, while I do agree that Stuart dragged series 6 down a bit, I do think that overall the candidates in that series were stronger then the candidates in series 7 (not by much, but still).

To me, Series 6 actually did have one of the stronger casts for a UK series... but probably the show's weakest final two to date. It really should have been Joanna and Liz in the final, and had the prize change taken place a year earlier (and if Sugar hadn't been taken in by Baggs the Brand), I think it probably would have been.

Melody - I accept was hugely entertaining, but that was not the only reason she was there. You can't deny that she was an extremely capable candidate.
Jim - no arguments from me!
Zoe - I thought she was just dull, and not very likeable.
Tom - he was entertaining, but more in an 'underdog who is secretly kind of cool' way.
Natasha - I didn't think she was that entertaining. If I remember correctly, she had a few poor weeks, but managed to go quite a long way by not being totally dreadful and being a decent person to work with, but by Week 11 just had to go as she wasn't as strong as the others who were left.
Susan - one of the most talented people in that series.
Edna - again, I didn't think she was that entertaining. I actually rated Edna a lot more than everyone else seemed to. She was quite strict, but I thought she remained fairly calm and professional most of the time, and she didn't hold personal grudges (she fell out with Susan on Task 2, but supported her on Task 3).
Vincent - purely entertainment.

So, from your eight examples, there are two that I completely agree with you on, four that I disagree with you on and two who I agree were entertaining but had other things going for them as well.

Yep it was that candidate.