more serious candidates...
I'm glad about this, I prefer the series that focus more on success than on failure. I think last year got there in the later weeks, but the early weeks were a bit of a shambles with too many people. Beyond Week 4 I think it was a really good series.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I'm glad about this, I prefer the series that focus more on success than on failure. I think last year got there in the later weeks, but the early weeks were a bit of a shambles with too many people. Beyond Week 4 I think it was a really good series.”
“I'm glad about this, I prefer the series that focus more on success than on failure. I think last year got there in the later weeks, but the early weeks were a bit of a shambles with too many people. Beyond Week 4 I think it was a really good series.”
I'm sorry but I think I'll always disagree with you on this. There's not a single series (in my opinion of course) that focuses more on success than failure. And I also agree with you on last year... There were major cock-ups in every week last year, apart from perhaps Week 10.
I've always thought the attention to failure was to signpost what was going to happen in the boardroom. I like that this year they might not treat us like idiots, and let the people that do well shine.
Originally Posted by hownwbrowncow:
“I'm sorry but I think I'll always disagree with you on this. There's not a single series (in my opinion of course) that focuses more on success than failure. And I also agree with you on last year... There were major cock-ups in every week last year, apart from perhaps Week 10.”
“I'm sorry but I think I'll always disagree with you on this. There's not a single series (in my opinion of course) that focuses more on success than failure. And I also agree with you on last year... There were major cock-ups in every week last year, apart from perhaps Week 10.”
I would put the series into these camps (you've probably already seen them because I've discussed them on here before, but to reiterate):
Focus on success:
Series 1
Series 5
JA1
Series 7
YA2
Series 8
Focus on failure:
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 6
YA3
Series 9
Obviously they all have to focus somewhat on both, and the elimination process means that things that the candidates did wrong will always be emphasised to a certain extent, but I think that the balance shifts. There are some series (I'd put Series 4 amongst them) where even the winning team is generally criticised for something significant, and some series (like possibly Series 8) where the losing team still does a reasonably decent job. That's how I call it.
The reason I haven't included Series 10 is because I find that one really hard to place. The first several weeks I'd place it very much in the failure camp - with the exception of Week 3, the first few tasks showed very few people doing even a reasonably professional job. I think this was down to the number of candidates - anyone who was halfway good would fade into the background to make room for the story that will create the boardroom scene. However, after Ella Jade's firing when the candidates were back to the normal numbers, I think there were a lot of really positive edits:
-In the coach trip task, Daniel's team (minus Daniel himself) generally created a really decent-looking professional tour. The lunches were admittedly unpleasant, but other than that everyone was really positive about it.
-In the board game task, James' team created a board game that a lot of people wanted to play. Given that the winners of these sort of tasks are normally called on the 'least bad' product as opposed to the 'best' product, I think this was really an accomplishment.
-In the USA task, the winning team's advert may have been heavily criticised, but again they created a drink that the American market would go for, with a catchy brand name.
-The country show task was admittedly quite a shambles for both teams, but we still saw a few really good things, the obvious one being Mark's tremendous sale. On the other team, most of the team seemed to do quite well besides James, even though they lost. Nevertheless, I'll admit this one was probably more on the 'failure' side of things.
-On the nine items task, the losing team only lost because of the issue with the paper skeleton. Other than that, the whole team did great negotiations, was the first team in a long time to come back with every single item and Daniel was shown to be a really decent PM. On the other team, Roisin's diamond negotiation was fantastic.
Most of the time, the teams in Series 9 didn't come close to the successes mentioned here. Nevertheless, I can't quite put it in the success category because the first four episodes (a third of the series) had very little success shown. As I said above, I think this was mainly because of the vast numbers of candidates. If they'd had the normal number, it could have been a really positive series. Ironically, if I had to choose four people to cut out of the line-up for that to happen, it would be Sanjay, Pamela, Sarah and Scott - the four people who came into the boardroom after everyone else in Episode 1 to start with.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I would put the series into these camps (you've probably already seen them because I've discussed them on here before, but to reiterate):
Focus on success:
Series 1
Series 5
JA1
Series 7
YA2
Series 8
Focus on failure:
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 6
YA3
Series 9
Obviously they all have to focus somewhat on both, and the elimination process means that things that the candidates did wrong will always be emphasised to a certain extent, but I think that the balance shifts. There are some series (I'd put Series 4 amongst them) where even the winning team is generally criticised for something significant, and some series (like possibly Series 8) where the losing team still does a reasonably decent job. That's how I call it.
The reason I haven't included Series 10 is because I find that one really hard to place. The first several weeks I'd place it very much in the failure camp - with the exception of Week 3, the first few tasks showed very few people doing even a reasonably professional job. I think this was down to the number of candidates - anyone who was halfway good would fade into the background to make room for the story that will create the boardroom scene. However, after Ella Jade's firing when the candidates were back to the normal numbers, I think there were a lot of really positive edits:
-In the coach trip task, Daniel's team (minus Daniel himself) generally created a really decent-looking professional tour. The lunches were admittedly unpleasant, but other than that everyone was really positive about it.
-In the board game task, James' team created a board game that a lot of people wanted to play. Given that the winners of these sort of tasks are normally called on the 'least bad' product as opposed to the 'best' product, I think this was really an accomplishment.
-In the USA task, the winning team's advert may have been heavily criticised, but again they created a drink that the American market would go for, with a catchy brand name.
-The country show task was admittedly quite a shambles for both teams, but we still saw a few really good things, the obvious one being Mark's tremendous sale. On the other team, most of the team seemed to do quite well besides James, even though they lost. Nevertheless, I'll admit this one was probably more on the 'failure' side of things.
-On the nine items task, the losing team only lost because of the issue with the paper skeleton. Other than that, the whole team did great negotiations, was the first team in a long time to come back with every single item and Daniel was shown to be a really decent PM. On the other team, Roisin's diamond negotiation was fantastic.
Most of the time, the teams in Series 9 didn't come close to the successes mentioned here. Nevertheless, I can't quite put it in the success category because the first four episodes (a third of the series) had very little success shown. As I said above, I think this was mainly because of the vast numbers of candidates. If they'd had the normal number, it could have been a really positive series. Ironically, if I had to choose four people to cut out of the line-up for that to happen, it would be Sanjay, Pamela, Sarah and Scott - the four people who came into the boardroom after everyone else in Episode 1 to start with.”
“I would put the series into these camps (you've probably already seen them because I've discussed them on here before, but to reiterate):
Focus on success:
Series 1
Series 5
JA1
Series 7
YA2
Series 8
Focus on failure:
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 6
YA3
Series 9
Obviously they all have to focus somewhat on both, and the elimination process means that things that the candidates did wrong will always be emphasised to a certain extent, but I think that the balance shifts. There are some series (I'd put Series 4 amongst them) where even the winning team is generally criticised for something significant, and some series (like possibly Series 8) where the losing team still does a reasonably decent job. That's how I call it.
The reason I haven't included Series 10 is because I find that one really hard to place. The first several weeks I'd place it very much in the failure camp - with the exception of Week 3, the first few tasks showed very few people doing even a reasonably professional job. I think this was down to the number of candidates - anyone who was halfway good would fade into the background to make room for the story that will create the boardroom scene. However, after Ella Jade's firing when the candidates were back to the normal numbers, I think there were a lot of really positive edits:
-In the coach trip task, Daniel's team (minus Daniel himself) generally created a really decent-looking professional tour. The lunches were admittedly unpleasant, but other than that everyone was really positive about it.
-In the board game task, James' team created a board game that a lot of people wanted to play. Given that the winners of these sort of tasks are normally called on the 'least bad' product as opposed to the 'best' product, I think this was really an accomplishment.
-In the USA task, the winning team's advert may have been heavily criticised, but again they created a drink that the American market would go for, with a catchy brand name.
-The country show task was admittedly quite a shambles for both teams, but we still saw a few really good things, the obvious one being Mark's tremendous sale. On the other team, most of the team seemed to do quite well besides James, even though they lost. Nevertheless, I'll admit this one was probably more on the 'failure' side of things.
-On the nine items task, the losing team only lost because of the issue with the paper skeleton. Other than that, the whole team did great negotiations, was the first team in a long time to come back with every single item and Daniel was shown to be a really decent PM. On the other team, Roisin's diamond negotiation was fantastic.
Most of the time, the teams in Series 9 didn't come close to the successes mentioned here. Nevertheless, I can't quite put it in the success category because the first four episodes (a third of the series) had very little success shown. As I said above, I think this was mainly because of the vast numbers of candidates. If they'd had the normal number, it could have been a really positive series. Ironically, if I had to choose four people to cut out of the line-up for that to happen, it would be Sanjay, Pamela, Sarah and Scott - the four people who came into the boardroom after everyone else in Episode 1 to start with.”
But I think the negatives outweigh the positives:
In Week 5 we had Sanjay and James signing on the bus, poor negotiations, Jemma's awful tour, and the scandalous lunches.
In Week 6 we had Bianca's huge mistake on the winning team, and then the losing team produced quite possibly the worst product I've seen on the show.
In Week 7, one team created a poor advert, the other had poor branding.
In Week 8 we had some extremely unprofessional behaviour on both teams, and poor strategy from James' team.
In Week 9 we had the whole skeleton fiasco, the rope, and many other items were messed up, and we were shown Solmon's negotiation style being criticized.
I don't think extreme competence or competence is what makes the series entertaining anyway. It's the characters, their interactions, and their development. But I do think the show is edited for the candidates to look bad.
Is this like how after Series 2 we were promised no more famewhores (because Sugar was pissed off that Michelle did Celebrity Scissorhands for charity) and ended up with Katie Hopkins and Tre Azam?
to be honest I've always seen it as entertainment programme rather than a credible, serious buisness programme...
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“Is this like how after Series 2 we were promised no more famewhores (because Sugar was pissed off that Michelle did Celebrity Scissorhands for charity) and ended up with Katie Hopkins and Tre Azam?”
“Is this like how after Series 2 we were promised no more famewhores (because Sugar was pissed off that Michelle did Celebrity Scissorhands for charity) and ended up with Katie Hopkins and Tre Azam?”
yes it's ridiculous, series 3 is one of my favorite's though...
Originally Posted by Oliver_Tomlinso:
“to be honest I've always seen it as entertainment programme rather than a credible, serious buisness programme...”
“to be honest I've always seen it as entertainment programme rather than a credible, serious buisness programme...”
I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.
Originally Posted by hownwbrowncow:
“But I think the negatives outweigh the positives:
In Week 5 we had Sanjay and James signing on the bus, poor negotiations, Jemma's awful tour, and the scandalous lunches.
In Week 6 we had Bianca's huge mistake on the winning team, and then the losing team produced quite possibly the worst product I've seen on the show.
In Week 7, one team created a poor advert, the other had poor branding.
In Week 8 we had some extremely unprofessional behaviour on both teams, and poor strategy from James' team.
In Week 9 we had the whole skeleton fiasco, the rope, and many other items were messed up, and we were shown Solmon's negotiation style being criticized.
I don't think extreme competence or competence is what makes the series entertaining anyway. It's the characters, their interactions, and their development. But I do think the show is edited for the candidates to look bad.”
“But I think the negatives outweigh the positives:
In Week 5 we had Sanjay and James signing on the bus, poor negotiations, Jemma's awful tour, and the scandalous lunches.
In Week 6 we had Bianca's huge mistake on the winning team, and then the losing team produced quite possibly the worst product I've seen on the show.
In Week 7, one team created a poor advert, the other had poor branding.
In Week 8 we had some extremely unprofessional behaviour on both teams, and poor strategy from James' team.
In Week 9 we had the whole skeleton fiasco, the rope, and many other items were messed up, and we were shown Solmon's negotiation style being criticized.
I don't think extreme competence or competence is what makes the series entertaining anyway. It's the characters, their interactions, and their development. But I do think the show is edited for the candidates to look bad.”
Well, I suppose it depends how you see it. Series 10 was probably the one series that had the most balance between the two. Compare it to Series 9, which focussed a lot more on failure and a lot more on success - there's a really clear distinction there. As I said, I find it really hard to place Series 10.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.”
“I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.”
what i should've said was i don't see it as a serious business programme, i never suggested they were mutual..
Originally Posted by Oliver_Tomlinso:
“what i should've said was i don't see it as a serious business programme, i never suggested they were mutual..”
“what i should've said was i don't see it as a serious business programme, i never suggested they were mutual..”
Well, I suppose it's like every programme, everyone watches for different reasons. I was recently on a popular TV quiz show, and I think some people watch those things to form some sort of opinion of the contestants and support the ones they like, and others aren't bothered about that at all and are just interested in the questions themselves.
The last time the show focused on business and was more serious/ had less failures was series 8.
And that was dreadful.
And that was dreadful.
Originally Posted by Oliver_Tomlinso:
“to be honest I've always seen it as entertainment programme rather than a credible, serious buisness programme...”
“to be honest I've always seen it as entertainment programme rather than a credible, serious buisness programme...”
The first two series were definitely a serious business programme (more so then the American version, which had birdtalkers, strippers and bedazzlers). It also aired on BBC 2 (just like now, more quality programming there).
Originally Posted by Dan R:
“The last time the show focused on business and was more serious/ had less failures was series 8.
And that was dreadful.”
“The last time the show focused on business and was more serious/ had less failures was series 8.
And that was dreadful.
”
What was dreadful about it? I really enjoyed Series 8.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“What was dreadful about it? I really enjoyed Series 8.”
“What was dreadful about it? I really enjoyed Series 8.”
The lack of story lines and character development was what made it awful IMO.
I think I've come to the conclusion that the show is a business program but it has never been a serious one. The show has always had a comedic aspect to it.
Originally Posted by hownwbrowncow:
“The lack of story lines and character development was what made it awful IMO.
I think I've come to the conclusion that the show is a business program but it has never been a serious one. The show has always had a comedic aspect to it.”
“The lack of story lines and character development was what made it awful IMO.
I think I've come to the conclusion that the show is a business program but it has never been a serious one. The show has always had a comedic aspect to it.”
It does have a comedic aspect to it, yes, but I don't think that that stops it from being a serious business programme.
I think it had some quite interesting story lines, in particular the redemption arcs some of the candidates got. Adam and Jenna were edited in a way that made it look very much as though they'd be out very quickly - and they both lasted for ages, and we saw a better side to them as time went on. In fact, it was filled with red herrings, and I think they were better than any other series. It kept you on your toes as a viewer, you really didn't know what was going to happen. There have been parts of other series that have been a little bit predictable, and none of that happened with Series 8. In addition, I felt that Series 8 had some really likeable candidates, people you really wanted to do well. Gabrielle was possibly the nicest person ever to appear on the show.
Admittedly it wasn't quite as focussed on character development as some of the other series (though I disagree that that was completely obliterated) but I think that sometimes story lines are created at the expense of showing what is objectively happening on the tasks, and I consider that a weakness, because at the end of the day the show is about what happens on the tasks, anything else is developed alongside that.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“It does have a comedic aspect to it, yes, but I don't think that that stops it from being a serious business programme.
I think it had some quite interesting story lines, in particular the redemption arcs some of the candidates got. Adam and Jenna were edited in a way that made it look very much as though they'd be out very quickly - and they both lasted for ages, and we saw a better side to them as time went on. In fact, it was filled with red herrings, and I think they were better than any other series. It kept you on your toes as a viewer, you really didn't know what was going to happen. There have been parts of other series that have been a little bit predictable, and none of that happened with Series 8. In addition, I felt that Series 8 had some really likeable candidates, people you really wanted to do well. Gabrielle was possibly the nicest person ever to appear on the show.”
“It does have a comedic aspect to it, yes, but I don't think that that stops it from being a serious business programme.
I think it had some quite interesting story lines, in particular the redemption arcs some of the candidates got. Adam and Jenna were edited in a way that made it look very much as though they'd be out very quickly - and they both lasted for ages, and we saw a better side to them as time went on. In fact, it was filled with red herrings, and I think they were better than any other series. It kept you on your toes as a viewer, you really didn't know what was going to happen. There have been parts of other series that have been a little bit predictable, and none of that happened with Series 8. In addition, I felt that Series 8 had some really likeable candidates, people you really wanted to do well. Gabrielle was possibly the nicest person ever to appear on the show.”
Yes but 'serious' is 'serious'. You can't really be serious whilst being comedic. It's a contradiction.
Adam was horribly unlikeable, and each week, it felt like his time was up. And Jenna really didn't last that long - she finished eighth and I don't really think her performance improved.
Red herrings aren't good though when you become invested in people (ie. Katie) only for them to be fired abruptly, leaving you with no one you feel particularly strong about. Series 8 had the absolutely undisputed least likeable Final Five in the history of the show in my opinion. Adam was obnoxious, as had Ricky been earlier in the process, and Tom and Nick were both somewhat vacuous. Jade i didn't find particularly unique or exciting.
Originally Posted by hownwbrowncow:
“Yes but 'serious' is 'serious'. You can't really be serious whilst being comedic. It's a contradiction.
Adam was horribly unlikeable, and each week, it felt like his time was up. And Jenna really didn't last that long - she finished eighth and I don't really think her performance improved.
Red herrings aren't good though when you become invested in people (ie. Katie) only for them to be fired abruptly, leaving you with no one you feel particularly strong about. Series 8 had the absolutely undisputed least likeable Final Five in the history of the show in my opinion. Adam was obnoxious, as had Ricky been earlier in the process, and Tom and Nick were both somewhat vacuous. Jade i didn't find particularly unique or exciting.”
“Yes but 'serious' is 'serious'. You can't really be serious whilst being comedic. It's a contradiction.
Adam was horribly unlikeable, and each week, it felt like his time was up. And Jenna really didn't last that long - she finished eighth and I don't really think her performance improved.
Red herrings aren't good though when you become invested in people (ie. Katie) only for them to be fired abruptly, leaving you with no one you feel particularly strong about. Series 8 had the absolutely undisputed least likeable Final Five in the history of the show in my opinion. Adam was obnoxious, as had Ricky been earlier in the process, and Tom and Nick were both somewhat vacuous. Jade i didn't find particularly unique or exciting.”
I completely disagree. I think that the best humour comes alongside seriousness. Take someone like Professor McGonagall in the Harry Potter books. She's actually very witty, but she's also an intimidating character and someone who commands respect - and that makes her humorous moments even more funny. You're Fired! started out funny because there was serious analysis of business on it - the humour just came naturally. Now it's considered more of a comedy show, the humour is forced, therefore is not spontaneous, therefore doesn't make me laugh as much.
What is a contradiction, however, is saying that something is undisputed 'in your opinion'. If something is undisputed, that means that no one disagrees with you, so that can't just be your opinion. And you will never be able to say that this is undisputed again, because I am disputing it. I feel that towards the end, Adam had become reasonably likeable - he wasn't an astonishingly good candidate, but he was a very good salesman, and I felt that we saw a much more human side to him as time went on. Jade and Nick had been exceptionally good on most of the tasks (they'd both had a weak one, Jade on Week 7 and Nick on Week 11) but other than that both had been very consistent, and Nick had a great business plan which personally I think should have won. Ricky had begun by getting the obnoxious edit, but I don't think that was entirely fair - I liked him, I thought he was very professional, a good performer and not particularly unpleasant even if he'd had that thrust upon him, and much as I would have loved Nick to win, I was happy with Ricky. Tom I failed to bond with particularly, but he did pretty well on some of the tasks (although after Adam was fired, he was easily the weakest person left) and I seem to be in a minority of people who didn't especially care for him, because if I remember correctly, he received an overwhelming amount of support from the viewers.
My least favourite final five was Series 4. I realise that you don't agree because we were discussing this the other day, and I actually felt you made a couple of good points about the candidates in that series that maybe people forget, but regardless I still never found them as engaging as the candidates on other series. But maybe that's just me.
I'd also point out that I can remember you saying once before that Series 8 was the first series you saw - so say what you like about it, but it must have been at least good enough to keep you interested in the programme.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I completely disagree. I think that the best humour comes alongside seriousness. Take someone like Professor McGonagall in the Harry Potter books. She's actually very witty, but she's also an intimidating character and someone who commands respect - and that makes her humorous moments even more funny. You're Fired! started out funny because there was serious analysis of business on it - the humour just came naturally. Now it's considered more of a comedy show, the humour is forced, therefore is not spontaneous, therefore doesn't make me laugh as much.
What is a contradiction, however, is saying that something is undisputed 'in your opinion'. If something is undisputed, that means that no one disagrees with you, so that can't just be your opinion. And you will never be able to say that this is undisputed again, because I am disputing it. I feel that towards the end, Adam had become reasonably likeable - he wasn't an astonishingly good candidate, but he was a very good salesman, and I felt that we saw a much more human side to him as time went on. Jade and Nick had been exceptionally good on most of the tasks (they'd both had a weak one, Jade on Week 7 and Nick on Week 11) but other than that both had been very consistent, and Nick had a great business plan which personally I think should have won. Ricky had begun by getting the obnoxious edit, but I don't think that was entirely fair - I liked him, I thought he was very professional, a good performer and not particularly unpleasant even if he'd had that thrust upon him, and much as I would have loved Nick to win, I was happy with Ricky. Tom I failed to bond with particularly, but he did pretty well on some of the tasks (although after Adam was fired, he was easily the weakest person left) and I seem to be in a minority of people who didn't especially care for him, because if I remember correctly, he received an overwhelming amount of support from the viewers.
My least favourite final five was Series 4. I realise that you don't agree because we were discussing this the other day, and I actually felt you made a couple of good points about the candidates in that series that maybe people forget, but regardless I still never found them as engaging as the candidates on other series. But maybe that's just me.
I'd also point out that I can remember you saying once before that Series 8 was the first series you saw - so say what you like about it, but it must have been at least good enough to keep you interested in the programme.”
“I completely disagree. I think that the best humour comes alongside seriousness. Take someone like Professor McGonagall in the Harry Potter books. She's actually very witty, but she's also an intimidating character and someone who commands respect - and that makes her humorous moments even more funny. You're Fired! started out funny because there was serious analysis of business on it - the humour just came naturally. Now it's considered more of a comedy show, the humour is forced, therefore is not spontaneous, therefore doesn't make me laugh as much.
What is a contradiction, however, is saying that something is undisputed 'in your opinion'. If something is undisputed, that means that no one disagrees with you, so that can't just be your opinion. And you will never be able to say that this is undisputed again, because I am disputing it. I feel that towards the end, Adam had become reasonably likeable - he wasn't an astonishingly good candidate, but he was a very good salesman, and I felt that we saw a much more human side to him as time went on. Jade and Nick had been exceptionally good on most of the tasks (they'd both had a weak one, Jade on Week 7 and Nick on Week 11) but other than that both had been very consistent, and Nick had a great business plan which personally I think should have won. Ricky had begun by getting the obnoxious edit, but I don't think that was entirely fair - I liked him, I thought he was very professional, a good performer and not particularly unpleasant even if he'd had that thrust upon him, and much as I would have loved Nick to win, I was happy with Ricky. Tom I failed to bond with particularly, but he did pretty well on some of the tasks (although after Adam was fired, he was easily the weakest person left) and I seem to be in a minority of people who didn't especially care for him, because if I remember correctly, he received an overwhelming amount of support from the viewers.
My least favourite final five was Series 4. I realise that you don't agree because we were discussing this the other day, and I actually felt you made a couple of good points about the candidates in that series that maybe people forget, but regardless I still never found them as engaging as the candidates on other series. But maybe that's just me.
I'd also point out that I can remember you saying once before that Series 8 was the first series you saw - so say what you like about it, but it must have been at least good enough to keep you interested in the programme.”
Google defines serious as: acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or half-hearted manner.
And this is what I'm alluding to. It has never been an informative documentary-style program; it has always had a light-hearted aspect to it, detracting from the seriousness, as this definition affirms.
What I meant by undisputed is, as Google defines it: not disputed or called in question; accepted. Meaning, it is not called into question by me. I have totally accepted it as my opinion, and there is no uncertainty around it for me.
I really don't wish to discuss the whole Series 4 and 8 thing any more because I think after the 2 or so years we've discussed it we know each other's opinions inside out
Series 8 did keep me interested because ultimately it's the format I'm interested in. At the time I found it absolutely must-see television. Yet since watching other series, I have realised that all of them were better!
Originally Posted by hownwbrowncow:
“Google defines serious as: acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or half-hearted manner.
And this is what I'm alluding to. It has never been an informative documentary-style program; it has always had a light-hearted aspect to it, detracting from the seriousness, as this definition affirms.
What I meant by undisputed is, as Google defines it: not disputed or called in question; accepted. Meaning, it is not called into question by me. I have totally accepted it as my opinion, and there is no uncertainty around it for me.
I really don't wish to discuss the whole Series 4 and 8 thing any more because I think after the 2 or so years we've discussed it we know each other's opinions inside out
Series 8 did keep me interested because ultimately it's the format I'm interested in. At the time I found it absolutely must-see television. Yet since watching other series, I have realised that all of them were better!”
“Google defines serious as: acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or half-hearted manner.
And this is what I'm alluding to. It has never been an informative documentary-style program; it has always had a light-hearted aspect to it, detracting from the seriousness, as this definition affirms.
What I meant by undisputed is, as Google defines it: not disputed or called in question; accepted. Meaning, it is not called into question by me. I have totally accepted it as my opinion, and there is no uncertainty around it for me.
I really don't wish to discuss the whole Series 4 and 8 thing any more because I think after the 2 or so years we've discussed it we know each other's opinions inside out
Series 8 did keep me interested because ultimately it's the format I'm interested in. At the time I found it absolutely must-see television. Yet since watching other series, I have realised that all of them were better!”
Well, as someone who works a lot in theatre and the arts, I personally feel that seriousness and humour go hand-in-hand. It's all very well to call in dictionary definitions, but that doesn't make any difference to what makes me laugh. I have provided numerous examples of how something that commands respect is easy to find funny on occasion. Of course I can only speak for myself here, but it would seem that other viewers feel the same way. On the You're Fired! example, I am not the only one to have been frustrated with the last series. And this is not because it has turned into a comedy show, because it has always been comedic. It is because it has turned into a comedy show that no one finds funny. Last year screamed of 'What can we do to make them laugh now?' and when you're doing that it kills any sense of spontaneity. Those comic moments come naturally, one doesn't need to force them. I'd say that the funniest moment ever on The Apprentice is the one between Saira and James when they saw that wolf jacket. The reason it was so funny is because they were trying to be serious about it, and it wasn't working. Every time they were saying, 'Okay, let's stop laughing and work out how to sell this,' they just cracked up laughing again, and it escalated. I did a module on clowning for my Creative Performance degree course last year - I found it exceptionally difficult, because it's hard to make people laugh on purpose, but I got there in the end. The way to do it is not to try to make people laugh, just try out new things and see what works - and to be spontaneous, as I was saying.
I don't really wish to discuss Series 4 again either, because like you I believe that we have said everything there is to be said about it. But, I would say that even taking Series 4 out of the equation, the final five of Series 8 would come beyond quite a few of the other series. I wouldn't quite say all of them, but I found them collectively more likeable that the final five of Series 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 at least, and YA3. (Actually, I liked many of the candidates from Series 8, more than I have in probably any other series, which probably increases my liking for the series as a whole. Out of the sixteen, the only ones that I actively disliked were Stephen, Azhar and Jane - which isn't to say that I actively liked all of the other thirteen, but I either liked them or was indifferent, which is a marked improvement on my opinions of the candidates on virtually every other series.)
