I thought the editing of episode 2 was strange in that Steven was totally omitted from everything. He was only glimpsed in the final boardroom scene. I thought he'd left or been taken ill, and that there would be an announcement at the end of the programme.

I can't remember a time when a character so heavily established in an episode (especially the very first one) is totally edited out of the next one. Seems odd to establish someone as one of the show's 'characters' and then ignore them.

It was very odd maybe he got a verbal warning or something he was so agressive in episode 1 it can't of just vanished into nothing for the second task

Maybe he just realised that he hadn't made a good impression, and so took on board the 'irritant' comments and went to the other extreme on the second task. If so, credit to him for being astute enough to take criticism.

But wouldn't that in itself have been worthy of comment by someone, or worth including in his story arc? I also don't think that he made a particularly bad impression in episode 1 as he was absolutely right in what he said. He saw the bigger picture where Chiles did not.

I would have thought by now that everyone knows how The Apprentice is heavily edited to create a story that doesn't actually exist!

I cringe more at the obviously fake 'silent response' scenes, simply because they don't happen that much in real life, yet every episode will have a couple of them 'caught on film'!

The men's PM from episode 1 virtually vanished in episode 2 as well. I think it is because they have so many candidates this year. They can't fit everyone into every episode.

Yes, I think they take a scowl or confused look from a candidate and put it immediately after an actually unrelated comment.

The whole process seems to be a template that is repeated episode after episode.

I've been filmed for a reality TV show and I wonder what I will appear like (if at all) in the final edit!

Are you allowed to say what reality show it is? I nearly got onto Big Brother a couple of years ago, but I didn't quite manage to make the final group. I think I got quite a long way though - I don't know exactly how far because you aren't told what stage you're at or how many stages there are, but they were paying my expenses to come to auditions and I met people who actually got in, so I reckon I must have been at quite a late stage when they axed me.

This is pretty standard editing for the early shows. Early on they tend to concentrate on the candidates who are in the final boardroom so we can know how and why they got there - Felipe and Stephen weren't called back so they were left on the editing floor.
Its also why the ulitimate winner can often be invisible early on in the process - the best candidates are unlikely to be pulled into the final boardroom until there are fewer possible scapegoats for the PM to choose.

Actually, the eventual winner being invisible early on doesn't seem to happen that much anymore. They often were in the early years, but the last five winners of the adult show (Yasmina, Stella, Tom, Ricky and Leah) were very notable from the early weeks, as were the winners of Young Apprentice, but that had fewer candidates so most of the people were noticeable from the off.

I remember that there used to be a feature on the website where on each candidate's profile there was a fact file of exactly what they did and how they undertook in each task, and that would be updated every week. I wonder why they don't do that anymore? It was a good way of seeing how candidates were performing when they were left out of the edit.

Yeah, I think that the two episodes this week was more like one episode over two continuous parts, the female PM from episode 1 was moderately quiet in the second episode also.

She was still given a negative edit though, albeit a less prominent one. There was a scene in the boardroom where Karren said that she had barely given anything to that task at all.

The fact that he featured so much in the first episode is precisely the reason that he did not feature in the second episode - others were focussed on which is only fair.

Looks like he's back to normal next week.

Looks like James has a criminal record.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ate-fight.html

He wasn't 'aggressive' - get a grip...

Considering LS dosent like people who hide im suprised there was no comment from him for Stephan who hid for the whole of task 2.

Huh? He wasn't aggressive at all. He was shouty and rather dramatic, just like the others were during the episode.

But yes, there have been instances where a candidate was featured heavily in one episode and almost invisible in the next episode.

I think it's just the editing focuses on what is going to be brought up in the boardroom, so we aren't all sitting there going "huh?".

I take it by Steven's absence he did nothing to annoy or warrant his being pointed out later, so he wasn't worth showing. It's a shame because it shows that 20 people was too many,.

I said the same to the mrs when they showed him in the boardroom for 2 seconds.

I've just re-watched the episode, and there are lots of scenes where you can see Steven.

They do this quite a lot - episodes 2 does like to shift focus to different candidates, where possible. Not to the exclusion of what happens on-task, if Steven had been kicking off everywhere and ended up in the boardroom I'm sure they'd have shown it, but everyone gets a moment and everyone gets the odd week off. Probably more pronounced with twenty candidates.

Steven did demo the spy-jumper, so he wasn't absent.