Series 4 is jam packed with ****s, bellends and some that encapsulate both, all of whom should be strung up from gibbets and pelted with manure.

Some people clearly like this fact about it. I find that it makes me want to punch walls. Or 90% of the candidates. Or both.

Even Raef has lost much of his charm. Lucinda was overrated and Sara, while probably the best of a dreadful bunch, could still irritate.

I didn't like this series much. This may come across slightly.

That was my least favourite series as well. There was a lot of bullying and game-playing in Series 4. I don't actually mind that, but what annoys me is that Alan Sugar didn't seem to realise it. The people who were being unfairly picked upon were often the ones to be fired. It started in Week 2 with Shazia being fired, which was an absolute travesty - up there with Miriam, in my opinion - because Shazia was the one who brought the most organisation to the task, and if she hadn't been there I think it would have been even more chaotic than it really was. As the series went on, I started to care less and less about the candidates - bar Sara, who I did really like and really thought deserved to win, but she got fired in Week 8. By the final weeks, I didn't really care who won, and it was just a question of who I really didn't want to win.

I actually liked quite a few of the candidates from that series individually - Lee, Claire, Helene, Kevin, a couple of others - but all together they just made for a really unenjoyable series, in my opinion. Seeing people fight, bully one another and mess up all the time is not what I watch this show for. I generally prefer the series that emphasise the candidates doing well.

I think that the only bullying that happened was with Sara in Week 6 - and I think that it wasn't really 'bullying' IMO. Yes it was horribly nasty, but it was more of an argument and it only happened once. And TBF, Jenny got fired the next week.

I think Series 3 was much worse in terms of leaving a sour taste in your mouth... Adam was pretty bullied, more badly so than Sara, Vile Katie was selected for the final, Kristina (although I liked her) was quite two-faced and obnoxious, and I just didn't like Simon, and he won

I think there was bullying right the way through, from Episode 1 with the huge split in the boys' team. Pretty much everyone got involved with it, bar a few individuals. I was trying to write out lots of examples, and then I realised that it was actually too complicated to do that.

You make a good point about Series 3, and I agree that Adam was horribly bullied, worse that Sara - but I think that Sara was better than Adam. Adam went not because the gang had picked on him, but because he had pretty much reached the end of the road, especially with two PM losses. Sara was generalyl really good on the tasks bar the task she was fired on, and I think the things that she had been unfairly accused of counted against her. Also in Series 3, if you're looking at task performance, Katie deserved to get as far as she did, because she and Kristina were the strongest task performers. I don't think personality should come into it.

I don't think you can really count Episode 1 as bullying... Arguing and bullying are different...

I really can't think of any examples of bullying! (apart from of Sara perhaps)

And yes, both Michael or Helene could have gone over Sara in Week 8, but I don't feel she was an outstanding candidate in any way, although I acknowledge she was a pretty good PM in Week 3 and drove some good negotiations in Week 7. Apart from that she was quite under the radar, and I'm lost as to why you think she was the best.

[quote=hownwbrowncow;72973274]I don't think you can really count Episode 1 as bullying... Arguing and bullying are different...

I really can't think of any examples of bullying! (apart from of Sara perhaps)

Okay, here are some examples:
Jenny to Lucinda (and Shazia to a lesser extent) in Week 2
Claire to Simon in Week 4 (I personally wouldn't really call that bullying, but there was a great thread a few weeks ago where Jack (TXF0429) made the case for that)
Helene to Lucinda in Week 4
The obvious with Week 6

I've only seen the second half of the series once so it's hard to pinpoint more examples, but I'm sure it went on throughout.



Being 'under the radar' does not mean that someone is rubbish. If the editors of a series focussing on entertainment aren't focussing very much on a certain candidate, it doesn't mean they're not doing anything, it means they aren't doing anything worthy of laughing at. I thought that in Week 1, she did some good sales, in Week 2 she stuck up for Lucinda when Jenny was really picking on her, in Week 3 as you acknowledged she was a very good PM, I can't remember much in Weeks 4 and 5 which I can only assume meant she got on with things, in Week 6 she came up with some really good card ideas (like the Eid thing) which were ignored and then it was claimed that she hadn't done much, in Week 7 as you acknowledged she did some good negotiations and in Week 8 I'll accept that she was weaker than in other tasks, but I don't think that that was her fault. She tried her best to sell, but they didn't have good products compared with the other team. It was right she was in the boardroom on that task, but I don't think she should have gone.

Overall, I think that Sara proved herself to be both a very strong candidate and a thoroughly pleasant person, and there is no doubt in my mind that she should have won that series.

I forgot about the lucinda-jenny incident I'll admit.

No bullying happened in Week 1 or4 in my opinion...

Weeks 1 and 4 are debatable, I'll concede that much...

I just feel that the editing focussed more on the candidates disagreeing with one another (whether or not it descended into bullying) than on them actually doing the tasks, and that doesn't happen to be what I enjoy from this programme. If that's what other people enjoy that's fine, but I will debate it with them.

Well, that would be a good point in most series, but in Series 4? Where most people in the end just all went for Claire to win because.............she reminded them of the badger (or something)

Yes, in for instance series 5, 6, or 7 she might have been snowed under, but the end series 4 was won by a guy who could impersonate a reverse pterodactylus......

You make a good point actually. I still think that of course she was better than Michael, but she was about on a par with Helene, or slightly better. The point that I'm making is that it was hardly a Miriam/Karen situation - she couldn't have won... by that point Claire, Lucinda and a few others had all displayed more talents than Sara.

I don't think it's necessarily all about talent. My reasons for wanting Laura to win Series 6 weren't because she was necessarily more talented than the others - far from it - I just thought she was the one who was the most suited to the job on offer. I think, rightly or wrongly, that Sara should have won Series 4. There were other people who had talents, of course, she just had something about her which made me think she was the one for the job. It's like that for everyone's favourites, isn't it?

I thought Claire was very suited to the job. Also, I thought Sir Alan had a soft spot for her. Furthermore she was the best task performer. Therefore I am very surprised she didn't win.

In all fairness, I wouldn't have minded a Claire win. She'd probably be my second one up there after Sara.

Have to stop you there, as Helene is imho the worst candidate to make it that far into the competition. That is a very harsh insult to Sara (or anyone else for that matter to be compared with her).

The only image I have of her is drinking coffee sometime during the series.

Honestly, I don't think that we will ever see someone like that get that far in the competition again (sure, Fran and Jade were also rather bland, but Helene was on a totally different level).

QUOTE=Sherlock_Holmes;73034507]Have to stop you there, as Helene is imho the worst candidate to make it that far into the competition. That is a very harsh insult to Sara (or anyone else for that matter to be compared with her).

The only image I have of her is drinking coffee sometime during the series.

Honestly, I don't think that we will ever see someone like that get that far in the competition again (sure, Fran and Jade were also rather bland, but Helene was on a totally different level).[/quote]

You need to rewatch the series if that's all you remember of Helene. I know she wasn't a good candidate but Sara wasn't that much better. I'm too tired to elaborate st the moment.

I agree with you that it is very insulting to compare Sara to Helene, but I also think it's very insulting to Jade to compare her to Fran. Whilst Fran's business plan wasn't bad, she did nothing of note in any of the tasks really. We certainly never saw anything good from her. Jade, on the other hand, was a very strong candidate in my opinion. She was awful the first time she was Project Manager and her business plan wasn't very good, but other than those things, I think she was a really solid performer. She made up for her weak PM performance the second time she led a team, and she was generally a real asset to the teams. Look at her performance compared to Adam's and Nick's on the chocolate task, for example.

I know that you don't rate Jade because you've mentioned it a few times on other threads. I respect that, we all have our personal opinions of candidates, and that is what this forum is for. But I would be interested to know what it was about her that you thought was so awful, because you never seem to go into much detail about why, and I think that bar her business plan and her Week 7 performance, there isn't actually much negative that you can say about her.

Basically,having thought about it, Sara was definitely a more solid perfromer than Helene up to Week 8. I'll tuk through it...

Week 1: They were both in the background.
Week 2: Sara was in the background whereas Helene pretty muchheaded the door to door sales team.
Week 3: Sara, I admit was one of the best PMs this series. Helene did the tasks she was given, and defended Sara in the kitchen.
Week 4: Sara was quite in the background again. Helene in my opinion was quite a good PM. All this 'Helene tried to engineer Lucindas firing' is rubbish. The three jobs were sales, photography or backroom, none of which Lucinda was good at, and therefore she would probably have gotten into a scrap with Helene either way. I admit Helene could definitely have done more to help Lucinda though.
Week 5: Sara was working in the kitchen on the first day, and so was Helene. They both did their jobs the best they could. On. The second day, I remember seeing a few sales from Sara, but not from Helene...
Week 6: Sara didn't contribute a lot, she did put forward a few ideas whcjh were shut down, but she could have done more, although I understand why she didn't because she was working with the most terrifying group of people . Helene was invisible on this task.
Week 7: Sara did some good negotiations, Helene did none.
Week 8: Helene was a bad PM, bur then Sara was a sh*t salesperson.

Then, after Sara was fired, Helene was the star performer of week 9 on Renaissance, coming up with the fantastic pack alongside Claire, and doing a good pitch alongside Claire. I say that Helene was better than Claire though because Claire came up with a name that let the team down.
Helene also put in a very good interview performance, and led her team well in Week12.

So overall, looking at this, you have to admit Sara was only a bit better than Helene!

I don't think that it's fair to assume that because someone was 'in the background' that they were a weak performer. Of course you have the Alex Britez Cabrals of the world who are clearly trying to remain in the background, but I think a lot of the time, people who just get on with things and remain professional don't show up in the edit because the producers don't think they'll be as entertaining. I think the best example of this is Lohit. He was actually one of my favourite candidates from Series 3, but if you look at it like that, you'd think he was a dreadful candidate because we never saw much of him. That was not his fault though, because if you actually make an effort to look at what he's doing, he's generally very good. I think a lot of the time it is on the viewer to individually focus on a candidate and assess what you actually see them doing, rather than assume that the edit will give you an unbiased version.

Ok, well can you tell me what Sara did on the occasions that I say that she was in the background?

You have to consider, when neither contribution shows up in the edit, nor is it relayed to Lord Sugar by the advisors, you get quite a clear idea.

Are you having a laugh?!?!? Once, for a joke, I wrote down all the words Helene said on that task and, in total, with the exception of the pitch, she says about 8 words. All task. Claire did everything and I mean EVERYTHING on that task, she came up with the brand name, she came up with an actual concept, she tried her best to steer Raef and Michael but they were having none of it. Helene did f*ck all on that task aside from riding Claire's coattails.

She was an appalling PM both times as well. On both occasions she say back and did nothing to help struggling teammates when they needed help, preferring to let her teammates drown for boardroom purposes. On both occasions, she delegated the most important part of the task to other people, which worked out well the first time but terribly the second time.

Sorry Hown, but I can't remotely see where you're coming from. Helene was very very lucky to get as far as she did IMO.

On this occasion I admit that I can't really, but that is because I don't know Series 4 as well as I know some of the other series. There are candidates on other occasions who 'stay in the background' whom I can vouch for, and if I re-watched Series 4 a bit more thoroughly, I am confident that I would for Sara as well. In fact, seeing who appears in more background footage but still appears to be doing a good job is one of my key criteria for determining a likely winner early on. The producers often like the winner to come forward gradually so don't give them the most fantastic edit early on, but when you do see them they're doing a good job - although admittedly in recent series that hasn't been the case quite as much, but in the early series it definitely was.

And again, we don't know that things weren't brought up by the advisors. We don't see the full extent of their conversations, and the producers edit the programme to show certain candidates in certain lights.

I absolutely agree with your ladt statement. But what I'm saying is that Sara wasn't a star performer IMO.

Oh haha, I was more taking exception to the suggestion that Helene was a good candidate. In fairness, I think Claire was clearly the most competent, even if she did show some less desirable personality traits (Then again so did a lot of candidates that series)

The problem was that the series lacked any star performers (and it more becomes the best of a bad bunch).

I agree without a doubt, bar Claire, who was honestly in my opinion head and shoulders above the rest.