|
||||||||
How do we think Lucinda would have done in a series with less nasty candidates? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,171
|
How do we think Lucinda would have done in a series with less nasty candidates?
Its something that struck me reading the thread about Richard from this series - someone mentioned how basically everyone in season 4 was nasty. An exaggeration of course, but that series definitely had a lot of strong gameplaying and at times cruel personalities - a kind manager like Lucinda was always going to stand the risk of being swallowed up.
But she also reminds me of Tom, and Sam this series. I just thought it would be interesting to think of how different candidates would have done if they'd been in different series. Ruth Badger, for example, would probably have excelled in whatever series she was in - or does anyone disagree? Let's have a think. Are there any candidates that stick out to anyone as doing better or worse in a (particular) different series, if they'd appeared in it, with all the other candidates the same? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 629
|
Sophocles would have been rubbish whatever series he was in.
Paul Callaghan may have been better in another series had the witch Hopkins not got him under her spell, but he was poor. Michelle Dewberry would probably not have won any other series, whereas Helen Milligan could have won any where the job was on offer rather than the partnership. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
I've always thought it a big exaggeration that Series 4 is the 'nasty series'. Unfortunately the problem wasn't with her fellow candidates either - it was with Sir Alan. I think whatever series she was in, he would have decided she 'wasn't for him' in the interview stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
Its something that struck me reading the thread about Richard from this series - someone mentioned how basically everyone in season 4 was nasty. An exaggeration of course, but that series definitely had a lot of strong gameplaying and at times cruel personalities - a kind manager like Lucinda was always going to stand the risk of being swallowed up.
But she also reminds me of Tom, and Sam this series. I just thought it would be interesting to think of how different candidates would have done if they'd been in different series. Ruth Badger, for example, would probably have excelled in whatever series she was in - or does anyone disagree? Let's have a think. Are there any candidates that stick out to anyone as doing better or worse in a (particular) different series, if they'd appeared in it, with all the other candidates the same? But in theory, I think she would've got just as far as she did, to be honest. She's gotten to the interviews, and was pretty much destroyed there for being too zany. She was a good candidate (I think..? She was a bit odd, but I really liked her) but she didn't have a grasp on what she wanted to do or what her motivations were. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Every series has nasty candidates - I can't think of a series that didn't.
But in theory, I think she would've got just as far as she did, to be honest. She's gotten to the interviews, and was pretty much destroyed there for being too zany. She was a good candidate (I think..? She was a bit odd, but I really liked her) but she didn't have a grasp on what she wanted to do or what her motivations were. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
Lucinda also got stabbed in the back by Alex Wotherspoon at interviews, which might not have happened in a different series. I always thought 'zany' was an odd choice of words for them to describe her. Her dress sense was a little colourful, but she generally seemed to calm and confident to be described as zany to me.
There were a few odd things about her - she seemed calm and confident, yes, but she wasn't exactly normal. *She was born in Singapore, was from Edinburgh - changing schools every couple years. I don't know, but that usually seems to "add to her" for me. *She was earning more than the prize for the show. *She was a bit too friendly - she wanted the ice cream company to get offers from both teams. *She had a degree in aromatherapy. *She was one of the only candidates to have been brought to tears by another - she was slightly emotionally unstable. *Those dresses! |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 1,856
|
I don't think she would have done any differently. She may even have failed to make the interviews in different circumstances. As it was, I think she only made it that far due to the luck of her team winning - had Atishu lost the tissues task she would have almost certainly been fired due to her abrasive negativity in my opinion.
Her biggest problem was that, while excellent as PM, she failed to integrate with teams and didn't handle it well if she had to move outside her comfort zone or if she didn't like the direction the team went in. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,171
|
Moving on from Lucinda then, how about other candidates? She was the first one I thought of as someone who's consistently popular on this forum despite not actually making finals. And because she and her working style contrasted so strongly with the other strong personalities in her series.
How would say, Yasmina or Ruth have reacted to Katie Hopkins? |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 1,856
|
Quote:
Moving on from Lucinda then, how about other candidates? She was the first one I thought of as someone who's consistently popular on this forum despite not actually making finals. And because she and her working style contrasted so strongly with the other strong personalities in her series.
How would say, Yasmina or Ruth have reacted to Katie Hopkins? I don't rate Yasmina as highly as many on this forum seem to. There's no doubt she was a competent candidate but I always prefer candidates that are rough around the edges. I rooted for Debra Barr in series 5. But, like Ruth, I think Yasmina would do well in most situations because she tended to be straightforward, didn't need her failings and mistakes to be pointed out to her and she was honest and analytical about what went wrong and why. I think many of the series one candidates would be eaten alive if placed in some of the more recent series. That's no reflection on their ability, more that their generally very professional and thoughtful approach would leave them open to attack from lippy colleagues. Saira may have been a motor mouth, but she conducted herself with far more professionalism than some recent gobby ones. I couldn't imagine people like Miriam and Rachel getting very far in the current format of the show. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
It's difficult to know how Ruth might have reacted to bitchiness because, from what I remember, most of the antics from series two occurred in the team she wasn't part of. I'd imagine she wouldn't have taken any bullshit and I think she's a candidate that would go far in any series. She was very forthright and collected.
I don't rate Yasmina as highly as many on this forum seem to. There's no doubt she was a competent candidate but I always prefer candidates that are rough around the edges. I rooted for Debra Barr in series 5. But, like Ruth, I think Yasmina would do well in most situations because she tended to be straightforward, didn't need her failings and mistakes to be pointed out to her and she was honest and analytical about what went wrong and why. I think many of the series one candidates would be eaten alive if placed in some of the more recent series. That's no reflection on their ability, more that their generally very professional and thoughtful approach would leave them open to attack from lippy colleagues. Saira may have been a motor mouth, but she conducted herself with far more professionalism than some recent gobby ones. I couldn't imagine people like Miriam and Rachel getting very far in the current format of the show. Yeah, I like "rough around the edges" candidates, too - though my interpretation may be slightly different from yours. I liked Roisin last year, but I didn't love her because she did too many things right (or was edited to, at least). I rooted for Katie from episode two, I think. She wasn't perfect, but she decisive, level-headed and a competent competitor. One of the best of all time, I'd even reckon. I loved Debra, too - beneath all that bitchiness, was a very good character. If you ignore her attitude, she was actually one of the best candidates ever - she made next-to-no mistakes (the only one being taking a risk near the end, though even LS admitted he liked risk-takers. You could argue others, but if her attitude hadn't got in the way, they wouldn't have been brought up) |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 1,856
|
Quote:
FINALLY, SOMEONE ELSE WHO LIKED DEBRA!
Yeah, I like "rough around the edges" candidates, too - though my interpretation may be slightly different from yours. I liked Roisin last year, but I didn't love her because she did too many things right (or was edited to, at least). I rooted for Katie from episode two, I think. She wasn't perfect, but she decisive, level-headed and a competent competitor. One of the best of all time, I'd even reckon. I loved Debra, too - beneath all that bitchiness, was a very good character. If you ignore her attitude, she was actually one of the best candidates ever - she made next-to-no mistakes (the only one being taking a risk near the end, though even LS admitted he liked risk-takers. You could argue others, but if her attitude hadn't got in the way, they wouldn't have been brought up) |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,171
|
It was Kate in that final, wasn't it? She was a strange robotic woman. Her, Helen and Stella would have been an interesting combination...
All the more reason they should do an Apprentice series bringing back candidates from other series in a battle royale. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
|
Quote:
It was Kate in that final, wasn't it? She was a strange robotic woman. Her, Helen and Stella would have been an interesting combination...
All the more reason they should do an Apprentice series bringing back candidates from other series in a battle royale. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 388
|
I actually don't think Lucinda would have done very well outside of series 4. While she definitely was one of the candidates that got hit the hardest by the aggressive and spiky nature of some of the other contestants, she also was quite rubbish outside of managing and always seemed to have some sort of excuse as to why she couldn't sell or do any role.
For me she would have essentially been the equivalent of S9's Sophie and let go at random for just not being up to much outside of project managing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
It was Kate in that final, wasn't it? She was a strange robotic woman. Her, Helen and Stella would have been an interesting combination...
All the more reason they should do an Apprentice series bringing back candidates from other series in a battle royale. I can just imagine it - imagine a dream-team with all the good candidates from the interviews (Roisin, Neil, Tom G, Helen, Susan, Stella, Joanna, Debra, etc.)) Versus all the cannon fodder (Daniel, Solomon, Jordan, Tom P, Jim, etc.) Oh God... the possibilities... |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50.

