DS Forums

 
 

'I'm struggling'


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-10-2015, 11:21
Dan R
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,116
The show would die a horrid death without Lord Sugar
Dan R is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 23-10-2015, 11:36
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Just as long as they don't have that Marcus Bentley doing the voice over. He always sounds like he's getting off on a power trip when he says people have been evicted, and sounds like he's constantly mocking someone.
Marcus Bentley was good to start with. If you watch the early years of Big Brother, there was nothing wrong with him, he was a decent narrator. Now he's become a parody of himself. He almost sounds like someone doing an impression of Marcus Bentley.

And to be honest, I think something similar has happened with Mark Halliley, although not to the same extreme. His manner was a lot more documentary-style in the early series - he'd actually explain things that were going on offscreen, so you got a more accurate impression of what was going on in the tasks. These days, not only has he tried to sound more 'showbizlike', but he doesn't really say anything that you can't tell from watching it. The show would be just as clear without his narration.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2015, 11:44
davads
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,397
Marcus Bentley was good to start with. If you watch the early years of Big Brother, there was nothing wrong with him, he was a decent narrator. Now he's become a parody of himself. He almost sounds like someone doing an impression of Marcus Bentley.

And to be honest, I think something similar has happened with Mark Halliley, although not to the same extreme. His manner was a lot more documentary-style in the early series - he'd actually explain things that were going on offscreen, so you got a more accurate impression of what was going on in the tasks. These days, not only has he tried to sound more 'showbizlike', but he doesn't really say anything that you can't tell from watching it. The show would be just as clear without his narration.
The American one doesn't have narration, does it? Mind you, having said that it is captioned to the hilt and has all the candidates doing loads of soundbites where they basically relay the obvious - "Mr Trump told us to go and sell pizzas, so we pitched up in Times Square..." etc etc
davads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2015, 12:58
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
Yeah like many US reality shows its the "talent" who talk the viewer through whats happening and film loads of extra commentary and narration after the task itself has finished.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2015, 13:12
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
Because The Apprentice has ended in all the other countries where it was hosted by people other than Lord Sugar. Even Donald Trump's American original just limps along with celebrity series.

This means there really is something special about the British series, and the most obvious is Lord Sugar. It might not be him, it could be Dara or Nick Hewer or the production team or just the fact the BBC can show a whole episode without commercial breaks.

But we should be careful what changes we wish for.
American shows can't be compared in the same way due to much more direct and aggressive competition in a show's time slot from the other networks. Aside from sometimes the different period dramas that different channels show at 9 on Sunday nights most UK channels don't want direct ratings competition clashes.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2015, 15:47
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
I think that The Apprentice only really works if the host is likeable - for me, at least. I've never really taken to Donald Trump - from the little I've seen, he seems exceptionally ruthless and not willing to tolerate any other point of view. He probably makes for more drama, and perhaps that is what American audiences want, but it's not why I watch the show. Yes, it's nice to have someone who cuts through all the bullshit, but I like to see someone who underneath that bravado comes across as a nice person who makes fair decisions.

Lord Sugar, though I will be the first to admit his faults, comes across like that. Admittedly he doesn't anymore so much as he once did, but we've seen enough of his softer side for me to have some time for him. He fires people if they're not up to scratch, but we also see him giving people a chance sometimes. I think his passion for Young Apprentice as well was one of the things that made me take to him; I was sixteen when the first series of Junior Apprentice started, which was around the time I got into the show generally (I'm now 22). For me at the time, I was becoming increasingly aware of society's assumption that people of my age were all hoodie-wearing, weapon-carrying thugs with ASBOs, and I appreciated the fact that in Lord Sugar, we had someone successful who actually seemed to have more faith in young people. It is well-known on this forum that I'm a very passionate defender of Young Apprentice, and indeed I did think it was better than the adult show. There are a few reasons for this; I prefer series with fewer candidates as you have more of a chance to get to know them all, and the fact that at the time I was quite close in age to them meant that I could identify more with them. But the most fundamental reason for my enthusiasm for Young Apprentice is because we saw a side of Lord Sugar that I liked. I think a lot of people complained that he'd softened himself up for the younger contestants, but I don't think that at all. On the contrary, I think that what he is known to be is quite a caricature that is played up, and on Young Apprentice we saw a more natural, down-to-earth side of him - more like what I imagine him to be like when the cameras are not on him. That is what I like in a host.

Whilst the host needs to be tough, they do also have to be decent enough to earn some grudging respect from the viewers. I think that's why The Apprentice Australia appealed to me; I liked Mark Bouris, he seemed more willing to give each candidate a chance to defend themselves rather than taking on the infamous hard-as-nails approach. It is the only incarnation of The Apprentice other than our own that I have enjoyed. Unfortunately they only made one non-celebrity series.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 01:30
Johnr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,281
Another boring one is "OK I've heard enough, I don't want to hear anything more from anyone now" and EVERY SINGLE TIME one of the candidates attempts to interrupt again!
Johnr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 01:35
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
I think that The Apprentice only really works if the host is likeable - for me, at least. I've never really taken to Donald Trump - from the little I've seen, he seems exceptionally ruthless and not willing to tolerate any other point of view. He probably makes for more drama, and perhaps that is what American audiences want, but it's not why I watch the show. Yes, it's nice to have someone who cuts through all the bullshit, but I like to see someone who underneath that bravado comes across as a nice person who makes fair decisions.
.
On the Celebrity Version Trump comes across friendlier probably because its less serious. He'll regularly say "I hate doing this" (in relation to firing) and "People think I like firing people, I don't".

I think if the producers were more innovative Sugar wouldn't seem as stale as he seems to at the moment, its a producer's responsibility to keep a show fresh. They seem to just be making "The Apprentice by numbers"
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 01:39
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
On the Celebrity Version Trump comes across friendlier probably because its less serious. He'll regularly say "I hate doing this" (in relation to firing) and "People think I like firing people, I don't".

I think if the producers were more innovative Sugar wouldn't seem as stale as he seems to at the moment, its a producer's responsibility to keep a show fresh. They seem to just be making "The Apprentice by numbers"
What do you think the producers actually need to do though? Surely it's the candidates who will make it interesting. There isn't usually that much variant in the tasks, that has been the way since Series 1.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 01:44
hownwbrowncow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
Yes, they could do so much more with the tasks. They are getting quite samey. There was a task in The Apprentice USA to renovate and run a motel! It was a great task.

Perhaps Lord Sugar as well as Karren are getting tired of the show now. I really hope it could go on without him.
hownwbrowncow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 07:18
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Yes, they could do so much more with the tasks. They are getting quite samey. There was a task in The Apprentice USA to renovate and run a motel! It was a great task.

Perhaps Lord Sugar as well as Karren are getting tired of the show now. I really hope it could go on without him.
'People on Internet forums are criticising this process and want the tasks to be more innovative. So for once, I'm going to give them what they want. Your task this week is to rebrand this process, make it unique.'
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 07:55
lammtarra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
Yes, they could do so much more with the tasks. They are getting quite samey. There was a task in The Apprentice USA to renovate and run a motel! It was a great task.
The appearance of the buying and advertising tasks so early in the series may well mean the tasks have been revamped, with new ones to follow, and it is not just the same old 10 in the wrong order.

They could also do more with the treats. I know the budget is limited but the losing team, and viewers, should be jealous most weeks, with a couple of jaw-droppers towards the end. I think it was Paul Tulip who once exclaimed, "treats don't suck," on being sent to Rome, and the producers need to get back to that and beyond sushi, yoga and wine-tasting so far this series.
lammtarra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 08:05
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
The appearance of the buying and advertising tasks so early in the series may well mean the tasks have been revamped, with new ones to follow, and it is not just the same old 10 in the wrong order.

They could also do more with the treats. I know the budget is limited but the losing team, and viewers, should be jealous most weeks, with a couple of jaw-droppers towards the end. I think it was Paul Tulip who once exclaimed, "treats don't suck," on being sent to Rome, and the producers need to get back to that and beyond sushi, yoga and wine-tasting so far this series.
Although the advertising task was unusually early, the buying task has been in Week 3 in Series 1, 2, 7 and YA3, so it isn't that much of a revamp.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 10:27
coughthecat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
The appearance of the buying and advertising tasks so early in the series may well mean the tasks have been revamped, with new ones to follow, and it is not just the same old 10 in the wrong order.

They could also do more with the treats. I know the budget is limited but the losing team, and viewers, should be jealous most weeks, with a couple of jaw-droppers towards the end. I think it was Paul Tulip who once exclaimed, "treats don't suck," on being sent to Rome, and the producers need to get back to that and beyond sushi, yoga and wine-tasting so far this series.
That wouldn't do anything for me as I couldn't care less about the treats. It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference if they were given a lollipop and a pat on the head, or were were flown to New York and each given £10,000 to spend.

Seeing what is often simply the second-worst bunch of people congratulating thmselves on their imagined "brilliance" isn't what I consider to be the heart of the show.

I actually don't mind them having similar tasks as I quite like to compare their approach to those of previous teams. Mind you, I usually end up thinking "Have none of these people ever watched The Apprentice, or are they simply incapable of learning from others' mistakes?"

I do feel that the weak point is the team of Karren and "Claude the cartoon baddie". I used to enjoy watching Margaret and Nick as they didn't say much, but when they did, it was worthwhile. Their replacements just seem cliched and predictable.

As for Lord Shuggs, he's now coming across as too "scripted" for me. In the earlier series, he did have his catchphrases but I felt they were his own ... that was they way he normally spoke ... so he was simply being himself. It now just seems as though some "expert" has come along and decided he needs a new ctachphrase so they had a committee meeting and came up with something they thought would be "dramatic" ... and it isn't! In fact, I get the impression Shuggs isn't entirely comfortable with it so is just going through the motions.

Of course, I may be over-analysing things!
coughthecat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 11:47
StratusSphere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,171
One thing I've wondered as someone who started watching the shows fairly late in their run...

Was Alan Sugar a big name before the Apprentice? I know he's always held up as a big business name and a huge success, but I feel in the newer series, the only knowledge of that comes from the things he himself says, and people in the BBC say on the show itself.

What I mean is, when he was 57 when the show started, was "a job with well-known businessman Alan Sugar" a great reward that lots of people would understand in and of itself? Because nowadays, it seems that its all about the money and the TV show. Alan Sugar is the prize, kind of, but only because he happens to be A rich businessman - in that sense, it could be anybody giving it away and the result would be the same.
StratusSphere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 12:00
davads
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,397
One thing I've wondered as someone who started watching the shows fairly late in their run...

Was Alan Sugar a big name before the Apprentice? I know he's always held up as a big business name and a huge success, but I feel in the newer series, the only knowledge of that comes from the things he himself says, and people in the BBC say on the show itself.

What I mean is, when he was 57 when the show started, was "a job with well-known businessman Alan Sugar" a great reward that lots of people would understand in and of itself? Because nowadays, it seems that its all about the money and the TV show. Alan Sugar is the prize, kind of, but only because he happens to be A rich businessman - in that sense, it could be anybody giving it away and the result would be the same.
I always knew him from Amstrad in the home computer heyday, but maybe that's not mass celebrity.
davads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 12:17
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,745
One thing I've wondered as someone who started watching the shows fairly late in their run...

Was Alan Sugar a big name before the Apprentice? I know he's always held up as a big business name and a huge success, but I feel in the newer series, the only knowledge of that comes from the things he himself says, and people in the BBC say on the show itself.

What I mean is, when he was 57 when the show started, was "a job with well-known businessman Alan Sugar" a great reward that lots of people would understand in and of itself? Because nowadays, it seems that its all about the money and the TV show. Alan Sugar is the prize, kind of, but only because he happens to be A rich businessman - in that sense, it could be anybody giving it away and the result would be the same.
He was well known. He occasionally made the national news with regard to his dealings with football, which is how I first got to know about him.
Alrightmate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 12:22
coughthecat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
One thing I've wondered as someone who started watching the shows fairly late in their run...

Was Alan Sugar a big name before the Apprentice? I know he's always held up as a big business name and a huge success, but I feel in the newer series, the only knowledge of that comes from the things he himself says, and people in the BBC say on the show itself.

What I mean is, when he was 57 when the show started, was "a job with well-known businessman Alan Sugar" a great reward that lots of people would understand in and of itself? Because nowadays, it seems that its all about the money and the TV show. Alan Sugar is the prize, kind of, but only because he happens to be A rich businessman - in that sense, it could be anybody giving it away and the result would be the same.
It's difficult to know what other people know (I recently read something about a lot of teenagers not knowing who Hitler was!) but I'd suggest he was one of the few business owners people would recognise ... along with the likes of Branson and Dyson.

That awareness wasn't just confined to people interested in business or electronics as he was often in the sports news as a result of his links to Spurs. (EDIT - Alrightmate beat me to it! )

As such, he had quite a high profile for a "businessman".
coughthecat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 12:26
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
I always knew him from Amstrad in the home computer heyday, but maybe that's not mass celebrity.
He was a very well known name before the Apprentice. Particularly for Amstrad computers but also for his involvement with football.
allafix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2015, 12:27
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
You know he'll feint to sack each of them once, struggle with himself , and then fire someone.
Or several people. We have enough candidates that a multiple firing is highly likely at some point, I'd expect it to come early, and this week it seemed the PM could go as well as the person who was fired.

Yeah like many US reality shows its the "talent" who talk the viewer through whats happening and film loads of extra commentary and narration after the task itself has finished.
I don't like that so much because it takes up more screen time. Either way they are telling again what we just saw happen, so it wastes less time if it is done as a voice-over on something else.

Another boring one is "OK I've heard enough, I don't want to hear anything more from anyone now" and EVERY SINGLE TIME one of the candidates attempts to interrupt again!
I'm guessing that's partly an editing/filming thing. The boardroom is filmed over hours, and they've been able to jump in to defend themselves all through that, and to them the final summing up must seem like more of the same.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2015, 10:27
James J
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,533
It's becoming a bit of a pet hate now. Especially when he says something like, "John, you were a terrible project manager, your business plan is flawed and I don't like you. It is for that reason...... I'm struggling. Steve, you're fired".
Hahahaha I creased at this! So true!
James J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2015, 21:15
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
Do you think the producers have found this thread and are like, 'Damn, they've caught onto the 'I'm struggling' card! Quick, let's edit it out of the next few episodes before broadcast...'
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2015, 00:41
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
As we've all noticed it the editors would certainly have noticed it while putting the shows together. Trouble is, if they cut out the struggling what can they replace it with? The time to pick it up and correct it would have been during filming. It should have been obvious then too. With a bit of luck the penny dropped and by week 4 he had been told to say something different. We can but hope.
allafix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2015, 08:58
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
He didn't say it this week, I don't think?

On the other hand, the word 'ruthless' was used so much that I was thinking, 'That is so being used as a pun about Ruth!'
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2015, 01:45
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
That Ruthless thing was so clearly done deliberately, who on earth is writing these lines.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:43.