I'm not liking the negativity of Mark Wright. Every single clip of him that I've seen he's been blaming someone for something. It's almost as if he's constantly looking for someone to turn on in the boardroom to cover my own back.

First he was criticising Phillipe and Robert for the hot dogs. Then he was criticising Steven. In the second task, he over exaggerated how bad Daniel's Firebox pitch was. In the boardroom he immediately turned on Scott.

Is that his tactic to get through the competition? If he blames other people, he will never be in the wrong.

I know what you mean, but I also feel that Lauren does this on the girls' team quite a lot. Will be interesting to see how they do when they're Project Manager. I don't think there's anything wrong with complaining so long as you actually have a solution, and as we all know the edit skews things. It could be that they did have solutions which were cut out to tell a certain story, so I'll reserve judgement on them for a while.

Agree with George here, as the edit is all powerful in this show. For instance, how do we know whether any of the others were as, or even more negative than Mark?.

Simple answer is, we don't!.

I agree. He just summarises things that go wrong in a really dull way. He's obviously not that creative and probably contributed the least out of everyone on second task as he wasn't involved in pitches or creative( from what was shown anyway). I think he believes he's superior to the rest but he hasn't shown a lot so far. James is critical as well but he does offer ideas, all be it, they're not the best ideas.

I agree. He just summarises things that go wrong in a really dull way. He's obviously not that creative and probably contributed the least out of everyone on second task as he wasn't involved in pitches or creative( from what was shown anyway). I think he believes he's superior to the rest but he hasn't shown a lot so far. James is critical as well but he does offer ideas, all be it, they're not the best ideas.

Like George has stated, the editing skews things and to be honest, his negativity has been warranted. The first two weeks have been a mess. In regards to Mark, I am unsure whether he is one of the better candidates or he is those one who is nothing special. I want to see more of him.

Tom Pellereau's positioning in the early weeks of series eight wasn't that dissimilar. He was often shown in the cars or in the cafe shedding insight on where he thought his team was going/had gone wrong.

As George says, the edit is everything. The producers have to assign particular roles to people early on to give us a view on them - either because they leave early or because it is foreshadowing for later on. In Tom's case, for me it was to show that he was intelligent and a thinker (which he was) rather than a practical leader or doer (which he wasn't). That foreshadowed the fact that Sugar liked him because he was an inventor with a product that had already generated some sales, not because he was a great PM, task performer or had a good business plan (in all three of those respects he was poor).

It could be that Mark is just one of those armchair critics who says rather than does. Or it could be a way of quietly showing that he understands what's going on and is articulate and doesn't need to shout to get a point across (compare him to James, for instance). We'll find out in due course, but he's one to watch for me.

Mark was also very negative in today's task - pointedly being the only one not to praise Roisin's leadership in the boardroom and laying into Lindsay and making that arguably sexist comment about not wanting to be in the team with the girls.

He does seem very unhappy and moody (even if most of his points are accurate and the PMs have never considered bringing him back) - could be a classic case of a redemption later on for him as he relaxes a bit.

The thing with with Tom was that he did it in a more positive way or at least visibly seen to try to. Tom's problem was that he just wasn't being listened to where as Mark is coming off as complaining for the sake of complaining. Of course as has already been pointed out it could just be editing skew but I'm just a bit doubtful, I'm sure that if he was putting out suggestions we would be seeing some sort of skew towards that. The point I'm making is Tom's tone was very different to what Mark's is which I think is the more telling thing. We're hearing a lot of hot air but not seeing much from Mark where as we saw that despite his weakness in sales Tom clearly had a positive influence on the teams and generally he was the reason that the lose wasn't as bad as it could have been. I am kind of a bit warey that I do seem to pipe up a lot where Tom's concerned and maybe I do but mneh I can live with it.

Haha that's who he looks like, been driving me crazy! Anyway I don't like him, seems a bit of a .... Completely negative and has the wrong attitude. I know there's editing and all that but the editing doesn't add anything, doesn't put words in his mouth or make him behave like an angry child.

As with every Apprentice I usually dislike them all but in the love to hate way, whereas, with this guy I just want him gone. Doesn't seem like a nice person at all. Sugar and Mark would make fine business partners but screw that.