Has anyone stated how many candidates there'll be in 2015?

How many would YOU like to see?


Personally, I think the multiple firings are greatly entertaining, but bunchinv them up at the start of the series wasn't a great decision as I feel It caused problems for the editing of the program with candidates airtime etc.

Having more candidates statistically speaking has increased the ratings.


I think they should have 18 next year... That would mean 3 double firings.

I think 18 is a good number; 20 is too many for the boardroom and at the start it just looked squashed. Getting rid of 8 people in 4 weeks is a bit ridiculous but at least we'll see something from the candidates left in now as there are the same amount that would be in a normal 16 person series at this stage. There does need to be flexibility for some double firings as in previous series like 5 and 6, there wasn't when there needed to be as some really bad candidates got far into process.

On balance of everything, I'd go back to 16. I prefer series with fewer candidates, so I have not really liked the decision to have 20 - having said that, I like trying new things out so it has been interesting for a series, but I'd object strongly if they carried on doing that, and I wouldn't especially like 18. For me, even 16 is a little too many - I've preferred series that have had fewer, like the first two series, Series 5 when someone pulled out and Young Apprentice. Having said that, I realise that without reducing the number of episodes, that would cause a problem with double firings, which need to happen occasionally so that Lord Sugar isn't keeping in people who obviously are never going to win. So on the whole, I'd hope it goes back to 16.

16 or 18 max.

Not sure why he had 20? He just used the extra ones up early for a couple of multiple firings. Its unecessary added drama, But the show loses visibility and name recognition of the others. and he's ended up getting rid of 4 of the show's bigger characters, and someone who stood out as one of the better prospects early on.

Well- We've already lost 8 candidates in 4 shows- so that's 12 candidates left- and 10 programmes to go, as it is a 14 part series.

Maybe episode 14 is some sort of round-up, rather than the actual finale?

So- even if we assume 13 part series- we have 2 people in the final- and a minimum of 4 people at the interview stage (I think some years it has been 5, hasn't it- I clearly don't pay as much attention as some on here).

So- by end of week 11 we still need to have 4 candidates left- 4 for interview in week 12- and 2 for final in week 13 (and even that is dependant on my theory that episode 14 will be a follow up, and not the final itself)

So- we need to lose 8 candidates in 7 weeks- or maybe 8 candidates in 8 weeks- which means that the 'will he fire more than one tonight' card has been overplayed- which is a shame really- or will he have one week were he decides everyone did so well he won't fire anyone?

Episode 11 is 'The Final Five' and Episode 13 is 'Why I Fired Them' - so only 12 competitive episodes as in previous years. They do this every year

I know he said 'I've decided to start with 20', but I'm convinced it was the producers that forced it on him, and I can't imagine he was too happy about it. Lord Sugar isn't too keen on tinkering with the format unless it suits him - the US edition had a lot of different gimmicks, but the only major change in the UK series was when the prize changed from a job to an investment in Series 7, and that was due to Sugar's personal circumstances. I feel like the twenty candidates twist was forced upon him, so he just got rid of the deadwood as quickly as possible to get it back to normal. Of course, it's just my personal belief, I could well be wrong.

I think you could be right here!

I make a habit of that...

I agree that's probably the case. And I'm convinced the producers would have been delighted to see lots of multiple firings early on (indeed, they may have encouraged it, although Sugar himself has the final say), as it has created lots of drama and stuff for people to talk about rather than the gentler rhythm of single firings with just the one double.

Oh, and to answer the original question, I would have 16 candidates but shorten the process from 12 to 10 weeks.

I think a lot of previous editions have sagged a bit in the middle after the initial frisson of the early tasks and before Sugar has managed to get rid of all the dead wood, where we're marking time waiting for the obvious candidates to fall. Also, I'd argue that we would benefit from cutting a couple of the variations-on-selling-and-pitching tasks, which can feel repetitive.

Shortening the process to 10 weeks would cut out some of the series' flabby middle, while opening up opportunities for two more multiple firings.

Of course, it will never happen. The Apprentice is still such a big ratings draw that I can't see the BBC placing a shorter series order - at least not until the show starts to decline. (For a precedent, try American Idol, which gradually increased the number of finalists and the number/length of programmes, but is now cutting back with fewer and shorter shows now that its ratings have nosedived.)

From the viewpoints of the people on this forum (and I realise that we are just a small sample, and don't represent the demographic of viewers) that move seems to have been a mistake. The point of a show like this is to have people you love and people you love to hate, support your favourites and want your least favourites out. With so many candidates, there isn't really time to focus on anything good, so it's difficult to know who to support. I quite frequently ask people 'Who do you want to win?' and they say 'Not sure, I don't really know their names.' To me, that says it all: we're a third of the way through the series, and if you can't remember the names of anyone who has been halfway decent, it's difficult to support anyone and therefore the overall point of the programme is minimised. In addition, the part of the programme that involves hating certain people and wanting them to go doesn't work quite as well anymore - you don't hope that people will be fired to the same extent, because if someone messes up a task and is in the boardroom it's less likely that they'll be able to argue themselves out of it, and that really harms the quality of the contest. Those in the final boardroom need to have at least a chance to defend themselves and possibly be let off the hook, because it's only allowing that which makes people sit and watch, hoping that a certain person will go, and either feeling satisfied when they do or frustrated when they don't. The way it is now, anyone on a losing team who did a pretty poor job is probably going, that suspense isn't there and the show has suffered as a result.

So for these reasons, I feel like the 20 candidates twist was a mistake, and people I have spoken to about it (both on this forum and in my day-to-day life) seem to feel the same way that I do, but obviously that's just personal experience. I don't feel that so far this has been one of the stronger series. However, now that the candidates have been narrowed down a bit, I do think that there is still the potential to turn it around. I'm open-minded about the rest of the series, because I do quite like this bunch of candidates and now that certain people - like Steven, Sarah and Robert - have gone, it gives the others more chance to come to the forefront. Who knows, in the future we may look back and consider this one of the better series. But we're not there yet.

I agree, George. I've had conversations with a number of work colleagues who follow the show to varying degrees - from loyal to casual viewer - and I can't find anyone who supports the idea. Personally, I do like the idea of Sugar being able to make several multiple firings as it has spiced things up in the early weeks - but equally I don't think that having 20 candidates was the way to go at all.

I've had to work hard to keep each of the initial 20 separate in my head - I kept mixing up Pamela and Ella Jade initially - and that's as someone who has watched every series, writes weekly reviews and now has the benefit of access to previews so that I can watch each episode 4-5 days before it airs. If I've been struggling to remember who's who and who's done what, what hope for the casual viewer?

I think it's always difficuit to judge a series until relatively late on. The opening weeks are quite formulaic and we're not really invested in the characters, so we're basically just watching the same old tasks with minor variations. Ultimately it's the personalities of the later candidates who determine whether a series has worked for me. The process and the format are just the means of getting there.

Without being too melodramatic, I think this 20 candidate twist has been a complete failure.

Looking at the edgic thread, I feel like the editors have had a major struggle aswell, so many under-the-radar and invisible tasks for candidates. Even huge characters like Sarah and Steven completely disappeared for certain tasks.
Overall this series has been a total mess.

I think that the process for Lord Sugar should be fairly fluid. Obviously you can't change the number of episodes so that's where the line should be drawn, but I'd like to have any number of people. I'd like, for example, for him to be able to decide not to fire anyone on a certain task, if everyone in the final boardroom has more to prove - I'm not sure if he's allowed to do that (he came close in the Series 4 semis) but if he isn't, he should be. After doing that, you could make up for it with a multiple firing at another point. A double-firing shouldn't be part of the format - I'm not sure if he has to do one in a series or if he just has always had cause to; he didn't in Series 5 or 6, but those series had Adam and Raleigh quitting respectively. But I wouldn't mind not having one and having interviews with six - or five, for the Series 7 and 8 format. So long as there's enough people to make the episodes worthwhile, and always the possibility of someone being fired, Lord Sugar should be able to make whatever decision he likes in the boardroom in my opinion.

Sarah didn't disappear for any task. She had a big role in Tasks 1, 3 and 4 and although she didn't appear much in Task 2, Karren specifically raised in the boardroom that she hadn't done very much, thus making her more notable.

Having said that, I completely agree with the rest of what you've said.

I'm okay with all of that. I like there being the threat of a double firing - it keeps candidates on their toes - but equally if we went through a season without one that's hardly a deal-breaker.

I do like the idea of having the option of firing no one, particularly on tasks where the winning margin is tiny or where one team has lucked their way to victory. I wouldn't want to see it more than once a season, but I do like the concept very much.

I wouldn't necessarily say you *can't* change the number of episodes - merely that there's no compelling reason for the BBC to want to do so. Having said that, if it had always been a ten-episode run rather than 12, I'm not sure we'd have necessarily been clamouring for another two weeks to be added on. At least, I wouldn't. (I accept I'm probably in a minority here.)

16. 18 at the worst.

To be honest, I like that they did try out 20 candidates to see what it is like, and I do like that the first triple firing outside interviews, but apart from that.. I hate the weekly multiple firings, too many contestants under the radar and when they are on the radar like Pamela, I'm thinking where have been for the past few weeks.

In comparison to season 9.. apart from a few, I find those contestants more memorable.. these ones not really.

The problem with changing the number of episodes is that due to the BBC's system for commissioning, the number of episodes is presumably determined before they start filming, and that wouldn't work with what I have in mind. Obviously they could commission a series with a different number of episodes, but Lord Sugar's decisions would still have to revolve around how many episodes there are. Lord Sugar could never have the freedom to do whatever he likes with the candidates, and structure the number of episodes around his decisions. So I appreciate that the episode number is fixed, but other than that I think it should all be open, and Lord Sugar should be able to override the rules of the process whenever he likes.

The one occasion I can think of where firing no one would have been a good thing to do is the fitness episode of Series 5. Duane was fired, against Laura and Ricky in the boardroom, and it was quite a shock firing as the editing had suggested that Duane would be a major character in that series. I feel like on that occasion, none of them deserved to go. If someone had to, it was right to fire Duane as Ricky and Laura deserved to stay more than him, but I think they should all have been kept. By rights, that team should have won.

I think I'd prefer 16 people with maybe flexibility on whether you include 4 or 5 people in the interviews (so, if nobody quits and it's warranted, a second double firing could be open). I do like the concept of providing an amnesty on firings, but I think given the typically negative/difficult slant of tasks that it'd be a very rare day where you could legitimately say everyone on the losing team really deserves to stay. I also don't think it quite works with the superficially cut-throat ethos of the show, but I could maybe see it working near the end of the series if everyone's surprisingly excelled - it would have to be a very special event.

Slouchingthatch's point about differences between early series and late series is a pretty good one to consider; early episodes are often more interesting for the individually stand-out moments and :justice:, whereas late episodes tend to be interesting as narratives and identities have built up a little more and there's more of an interplay of certain characters.

In that light, we've essentially borne the twist out now, numbers-wise at least, and whilst it might take an episode or two to get people on the radar somewhat more, hopefully there will be more of a sense of identity establishment soon (and hopefully a move away from 'they did nothing this task: fired' narratives).

I don't think the twist was a -good- idea in practice, but I don't think that in and of itself it's necessarily going to damage the show too badly. It's boosted ratings a little, and if the upcoming episodes are interesting might be able to hold them.

This interview - read into it as you will - suggests that Sugar came up with the 20 person idea at 'the 11th hour' and that they probably will not repeat these numbers. Karren and Nick didn't seem to like it from a tracking perspective, at least. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-...d-sugar-and-co

I am intrigued to know this now... The ratings have been better this year - perhaps that means they'll stick with 20?

I don't actually think it's been that bad to be fair, and the multiple firings/flexibility have made for good TV.

The comments on this site about the number of candidates have nearly all been negative (apart from this one, admittedly). There have been a lot of people complaining that it's hard to get to know the candidates in the early stages, that the multiple firings weren't especially interesting because they weren't unexpected, and that not enough people got the chance to be Project Manager. Also as a twist it seemed pretty pointless, because by Episode 5 we were back to the normal number (which I actually think was a good thing, but seems to defeat the object of what they were trying to do).

Not only that, Nick and Karren have gone on record saying that they haven't been very happy about it, because their jobs are a lot harder with so many people to observe, and they hope it won't be so many next year.

Personally I really hope they don't keep the 20 candidates thing - in my opinion this series has been a lot better in the last few weeks since the numbers went down.

I'm not sure - I personally feel like I've got to know the candidates sufficiently, and the people with whom I watch it, who are casual viewers have known who I am talking about whenever I mention a candidate.

Also, everyone coud have had the chance to be a PM. And I wasn't expecting that triple firing.

20, its more entertaining to see a ballroom bloodbath than watch one nomark per week get fired for the first half of the series.