|
||||||||
Boring contestants and robotic edit? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 68
|
Boring contestants and robotic edit?
Man, I've watched a lot of the Apprentice but I can see clearly this season is dull and uninspired. Are all the contestants remaining just dull corporate-bots people nodding along as Sugar gets rid of anyone with any character or flair the few weeks? None too bright, none too charming, none nothing really.
Something that bothers me more and more too is the heavy editing of the show. It is becoming predictable and robotic. Bam, scene, set up and a few grimaces/reaction shots, heavily edited dialogue where some contestant says something to make them look like an idiot; then Claude or Karen frowns and says something negatve; move on to voiceover and stock classical music with shots of London. I know it's a reality format; but I'd wish they throw in something unexpected or life-like for just once. I willl probably finish this series but it feels like the production team just churning stuff out this year for the sake of it and all the contestants are terrible. I can't make up my mind if the season is exceedingly boring or if the concept itself is gettint outdated. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: London
Posts: 60
|
Like the other thread, I strongly agree with you OP. And a large part of it I believe is down to Claude and Karen. Combine their boring style, and the lower level of entertaining candidates the WHOLE show drops in entertainment levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
I really don't think it's boring this year. It's not the best, but certainly better than last year IMO.
We have some really interesting characters and story arcs left. But yeah, it's just my personal taste. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
I don't think it's the best series but it's far from the worst for me. What's it's lacked this year is the spark of the Mark/Daniel rivalry - Selina vs Charleine/Vana/empty room doesn't really cut it for me - and the relatively small number of candidates I find myself liking or rooting for. In previous years I've had one or two favourites: Tom Pellereau in series 6, both Ricky Martin and Tom Gearing (yeah, I know lots of people disliked him - I didn't) in series 7, and people may recall that I was one of the few championing Mark Wright from early on last year. This year, not so much. The nicer candidates have been useless and the competent ones nastier.
As for the candidates being 'corporate-bots', they're anything but. Richard, Gary and Scott, maybe. But most of the others are either too inexperienced (Elle), too blunt and inflexible (Brett), too bitchy (Selina) to be even vaguely corporate. Other than the three guys I mention above, who either have experience of senior management or work within corporate environments, I don't see many who would last six months in a corporate environment. Brett maybe would go down well in a construction company, Joseph similarly (altnough he is more polished than Brett). Of the girls? Vana. That's it. That's not to say they can't be successful elsewhere in the business world. But corporate? No chance. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
Quote:
I don't think it's the best series but it's far from the worst for me. What's it's lacked this year is the spark of the Mark/Daniel rivalry - Selina vs Charleine/Vana/empty room doesn't really cut it for me - and the relatively small number of candidates I find myself liking or rooting for. In previous years I've had one or two favourites: Tom Pellereau in series 6, both Ricky Martin and Tom Gearing (yeah, I know lots of people disliked him - I didn't) in series 7, and people may recall that I was one of the few championing Mark Wright from early on last year. This year, not so much. The nicer candidates have been useless and the competent ones nastier.
As for the candidates being 'corporate-bots', they're anything but. Richard, Gary and Scott, maybe. But most of the others are either too inexperienced (Elle), too blunt and inflexible (Brett), too bitchy (Selina) to be even vaguely corporate. Other than the three guys I mention above, who either have experience of senior management or work within corporate environments, I don't see many who would last six months in a corporate environment. Brett maybe would go down well in a construction company, Joseph similarly (altnough he is more polished than Brett). Of the girls? Vana. That's it. That's not to say they can't be successful elsewhere in the business world. But corporate? No chance. At this stage, Series 6, 8, 10, and possibly 2 are worse than Series 11. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
I find myself rooting for people this year - and hating others. Last year was all a bit meh for me. Didn't like Mark or Daniel particularly.
At this stage, Series 6, 8, 10, and possibly 2 are worse than Series 11. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 629
|
With regard to the candidates I wonder if the problem is that they all know the formula know and perhaps know how to play the game. It is a gameshow after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,653
|
They're still falling victim to prioritisng quantity over quality, as they did last year. They overcast, and whilst it wasn't as bad as last year they didn't cull quickly enough, with no-hopers like April, Natalie, Sam and Elle getting second chances they didn't really justify or deliver on meaning yet again there were far too many people in each episode for far too long.
There's also too many elements to each task now, and it makes it difficult to really tell a proper story with room for extra "character" stuff on the side. The show's tasks used to have a certain elegance and simplicity to them which allowed for more in depth narrative, but now the candidates are made to spin as many plates as possible to ensure that we can pack every episode with "breakages" and "lol moments" at the expense of really knowing what was going on. Was there any need to record an audio CD for the kids book task? Or have a random 4 hours selling on a table in the middle of the street this week? Or do that "digital billboard"? Things like half of the 10 Items task being in the UK and half being in France is needless complication as well. I know the candidates are getting more and more game savvy as the years roll on, but that sort of needless overdoing it makes the show feel messy and junky. I feel like I came out of this episode not really understanding why one team won and the other lost without having to read between the lines/make stuff up. It was the same last week - it wasn't at all clear where a good 30 to 40% of the money Connexus made even came from. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
With regard to the candidates I wonder if the problem is that they all know the formula know and perhaps know how to play the game. It is a gameshow after all.
In particular, at the start of each task, check how it will be decided (sales; sales - costs; sales plus assets; industry experts; and so on). Listen closely to the briefing, when Lord Sugar often gives valuable clues. Start the day with a plan, but be prepared to deviate from it. Before each series, candidates can do some basic preparation. Go to a market; visit a trade show. There will be an advertising task, so watch some adverts and think about how they are structured. None of this is rocket science, but we still get the Apprentice equivalent of the X-Factor singer who has never listened to a recording of her own voice, or the Masterchef contestant who has never dined at a Michelin-starred restaurant. And never, ever tell Lord Sugar you are no good at sales! |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
They're still falling victim to prioritisng quantity over quality, as they did last year. They overcast, and whilst it wasn't as bad as last year they didn't cull quickly enough, with no-hopers like April, Natalie, Sam and Elle getting second chances they didn't really justify or deliver on meaning yet again there were far too many people in each episode for far too long.
There's also too many elements to each task now, and it makes it difficult to really tell a proper story with room for extra "character" stuff on the side. The show's tasks used to have a certain elegance and simplicity to them which allowed for more in depth narrative, but now the candidates are made to spin as many plates as possible to ensure that we can pack every episode with "breakages" and "lol moments" at the expense of really knowing what was going on. Was there any need to record an audio CD for the kids book task? Or have a random 4 hours selling on a table in the middle of the street this week? Or do that "digital billboard"? Things like half of the 10 Items task being in the UK and half being in France is needless complication as well. I know the candidates are getting more and more game savvy as the years roll on, but that sort of needless overdoing it makes the show feel messy and junky. I feel like I came out of this episode not really understanding why one team won and the other lost without having to read between the lines/make stuff up. It was the same last week - it wasn't at all clear where a good 30 to 40% of the money Connexus made even came from. As I've said elsewhere, I think this wek's task was a bit odd because some of the things that Gary's team were criticised for weren't necessarily errors but just added to the narrative to leave us guessing which team had won. (I thought it was pretty obvious anyway, but there you go.) Overpricing versus Poundland next door was a clear error. Leaving it late in the day to restock, not necessarily - the narrative seemed to imply that he had made a huge error, but (and I say this as a former chain store retailer myself) that's not necessarily true. |
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,552
|
I preferred last years series to this one.
Lord sugar let Ruth go too soon. She was the only entertaining contestant this year. He should keep the big eccentric characters in till around episode 10 before firing them, otherwise the show really suffers. I also think Charleigne is just as bad as Selina, after seeing the way she spoke to Richard. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 108
|
this is the worst series i have ever seen personally. so dull
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
God, I am shocked at the negative reviews of this series on here
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
|
I agree with others, this series is boring me to tears.
No Nick or Margaret (though they may be back for the interviews possibly). A Lord Sugar who clearly doesn't have his heart in it anymore Really uninspired editing and narration relative to the other seasons Really bland, downright unlikeable candidates No hint of good business acumen to make up for loss in entertainment value No "memorable" candidate, y'know how every season there's at least one candidate who will be looked back on as "oh what a classic candidate", no hint of that here, the closest we get are arguably Richard and Ruth, one of whom is gone. Repeated tasks feel very run-of-the-mill now, and due to the bland candidates show their age considerably more. Even You're Fired takes a massive hit this time round in set design, layout and panel. Whoever wins this time round, we lose as a society. Don't get me wrong, I'm still finding it watchable, but mainly because I'm a bit of a die-hard fan of the show and its a good show for me and my fam to sit down and watch together. That doesn't save it from being easily the worst season yet though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
Quote:
I agree with others, this series is boring me to tears.
No Nick or Margaret (though they may be back for the interviews possibly). A Lord Sugar who clearly doesn't have his heart in it anymore Really uninspired editing and narration relative to the other seasons Really bland, downright unlikeable candidates No hint of good business acumen to make up for loss in entertainment value No "memorable" candidate, y'know how every season there's at least one candidate who will be looked back on as "oh what a classic candidate", no hint of that here, the closest we get are arguably Richard and Ruth, one of whom is gone. Repeated tasks feel very run-of-the-mill now, and due to the bland candidates show their age considerably more. Even You're Fired takes a massive hit this time round in set design, layout and panel. Whoever wins this time round, we lose as a society. Don't get me wrong, I'm still finding it watchable, but mainly because I'm a bit of a die-hard fan of the show and its a good show for me and my fam to sit down and watch together. That doesn't save it from being easily the worst season yet though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
|
Quote:
Give or take a few you could easily be describing Series 8 there. If you want messy editing, boring tasks, and dull candidates look no further.
I mean, when the biggest "character" of the series is Selina, y'know it's a bit poor. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I don't think it's the best series but it's far from the worst for me. What's it's lacked this year is the spark of the Mark/Daniel rivalry - Selina vs Charleine/Vana/empty room doesn't really cut it for me - and the relatively small number of candidates I find myself liking or rooting for. In previous years I've had one or two favourites: Tom Pellereau in series 6, both Ricky Martin and Tom Gearing (yeah, I know lots of people disliked him - I didn't) in series 7, and people may recall that I was one of the few championing Mark Wright from early on last year. This year, not so much. The nicer candidates have been useless and the competent ones nastier.
As for the candidates being 'corporate-bots', they're anything but. Richard, Gary and Scott, maybe. But most of the others are either too inexperienced (Elle), too blunt and inflexible (Brett), too bitchy (Selina) to be even vaguely corporate. Other than the three guys I mention above, who either have experience of senior management or work within corporate environments, I don't see many who would last six months in a corporate environment. Brett maybe would go down well in a construction company, Joseph similarly (altnough he is more polished than Brett). Of the girls? Vana. That's it. That's not to say they can't be successful elsewhere in the business world. But corporate? No chance. That sort of fits the problem of recent years - that the people with most business sense wanted to have restaurants or baking materials online shops - that he had no interest in. And the biggest characters don't win , possibly ever. If you have neither competing , it doesn't look so bad if another unknown, with little ability shown, wins- because they alone have the high return, low cost, low risk option - near London . But it leaves the show without its spivs, supersalesmen, thrusting corporate types heading to success, or other big characters. Lord Sugar continues to get rid of the academically sharp, with no experience, botox needle or nailfile, so the most successful have probably aleady gone. The corporate high flyers don't want to set up small businesses - there's no smart, supercompetent, people in sight . And the top sales people have gone too - as they want to sell, not create or manage. There's also an increasing question mark about the tasks, and the editing .The tasks seem more and more prone to lack of knowledge to do any better, and unpredictable rules - dinosaurs are seemingly subject to different rules to dingys, for some reason. People are going for passing reasons, that were unavoidable - no percentage figures worked out in advance by anyone, or no screwdriver. Many reasons are just blown up to provide a firing reason. And others, are cobbled together, unconvincingly, by Karen . The result is its all a bit random. Everyone looks a bit useless, and its unpredictable who will survive, and difficult to tell who is credible. The result is there's no one really to root for . No comedy spivs to watch in action. No Ruth's or Saira's . And no really entrepreneurially gifted people, who you think ought to win ,even if you know he will pick someone whose proposal he fancies more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
|
^Pretty much sums up my thoughts in better words than I could use. Bravo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,552
|
At least last year you had the rivalry between Mark and Daniel. There's no interesting storyline this year.
And last year we still had Nick. The show really suffers without his presence, imo. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
Quote:
Funny you mention that, because Season 8 is my second least favourite haha. Although, I have to say, give me Adam, Nick, Gabrielle, Stephen and Duane over these lot any day. Sure they may not have been good by any means or likeable (in the case of Adam and Stephen) but they at least had SOMETHING to them, which is more than could be said for the likes of Gary, Natalie, April, Vana and Sam.
I mean, when the biggest "character" of the series is Selina, y'know it's a bit poor. One major criticism that I have of the last three series is that as a result of the editing, no one really shines, and inevitably we end up with a Final Five that don't seem terribly deserving. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Herts
Posts: 3,719
|
No different to any other season to be honest in terms of editing, format and tasks. Not one of the 'greatest' by any means, as it lacks some of the weird and wonderful, larger than life, characters of previous years but still enough going on to be solid entertainment for an hour.
With long running shows like these, every year people complain that the current series is 'crap this year' or has 'lost it's way' but they'll do the same each year after, and then look back on a series such as this and label it as classic in hindsight, when compared to the current one they're slating. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
|
Quote:
One major criticism that I have of the last three series is that as a result of the editing, no one really shines, and inevitably we end up with a Final Five that don't seem terribly deserving.
We have Selina, Charleine, Vana, Richard, Joseph, David, Brett and Scott left. Selina and Charleine have shown themselves to be borderline sociopathic (especially Selina) towards some team members and rather frequently on tasks, they don't work as a team very well at all and focus only on their individual goals, so that would ideally rule both of them out of the final five. Both Vana and Scott had abysmal project manager runs, with Vana being extremely sniping and shooting her team down all over the place, while Scott just completely caved into the pressure, so that would rule them out. Brett has shown himself to be incredibly alienating and bullish, which would ideally rule him out and Gary... well frankly.. who is Gary exactly? So what we're left with is Richard, Joseph and David as the only candidates who have been edited to feel like they deserve to be in the final five (and even then Richard is a bit of a stretch because of his almost consistently negatively shaded edit). So if we lose any of those 3 before the final five roll around then again we end up with a majority of a final five who don't really deserve to be there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,892
|
Quote:
But that criticism seems like it'll be returning again this year. Nobody has shined at all, there hasn't been say.. a Jedi Jim where a candidate has performed consistently good at something at all. Not saying we need a Jim as I know that was a rare one off for The Apprentice, but even so the candidates seem very "all over the place" this time round if you know what I mean, very few of them perform consistently well, most of them just sort of fade into the background or are consistently whingy if anything.
We have Selina, Charleine, Vana, Richard, Joseph, David, Brett and Scott left. Selina and Charleine have shown themselves to be borderline sociopathic (especially Selina) towards some team members and rather frequently on tasks, they don't work as a team very well at all and focus only on their individual goals, so that would ideally rule both of them out of the final five. Both Vana and Scott had abysmal project manager runs, with Vana being extremely sniping and shooting her team down all over the place, while Scott just completely caved into the pressure, so that would rule them out. Brett has shown himself to be incredibly alienating and bullish, which would ideally rule him out and Gary... well frankly.. who is Gary exactly? So what we're left with is Richard, Joseph and David as the only candidates who have been edited to feel like they deserve to be in the final five (and even then Richard is a bit of a stretch because of his almost consistently negatively shaded edit). So if we lose any of those 3 before the final five roll around then again we end up with a majority of a final five who don't really deserve to be there. Although I think it's easy to pick out people's bad points. Vana certainly has shown herself to be (apart from her turn as PM), professional and a great communicator. Brett was a good PM IMO. But yes, Scott, Charleine, Selina and Gary are dead weight as far as I'm concerned and should be the next four to go. I only rate 5 of the 9 to be honest. My three favourite candidates in terms of ability and likability are Vana, Brett and David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
|
Quote:
I don't think it's the best series but it's far from the worst for me. What's it's lacked this year is the spark of the Mark/Daniel rivalry - Selina vs Charleine/Vana/empty room doesn't really cut it for me - and the relatively small number of candidates I find myself liking or rooting for. In previous years I've had one or two favourites: Tom Pellereau in series 6, both Ricky Martin and Tom Gearing (yeah, I know lots of people disliked him - I didn't) in series 7, and people may recall that I was one of the few championing Mark Wright from early on last year. This year, not so much. The nicer candidates have been useless and the competent ones nastier.
![]() Personally, I wonder how many people who call this year boring have actually seen series 8? Presumably very few people (I hope). As for not having interesting feuds...............there is one in the bleeding intro every week, lol. Sometimes I wonder what people do when that starts (until series 4 I always put my hands in front of my eyes......true fact, lol). Think it's on par with last year, and better then the few years before, as we also had people who got fired that we didn't really know that well mid-series (Ella-Jade, Puddin, Lauren). It is interesting that Selina gets compared with Katie Hopkins, while Mark Wright last year was basically the male counterpart (sniping behind peoples backs; for newer viewers..........that's how she rolled back in the day......and also in the hay ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
|
Quote:
Yeah I was actually referring to Series 9-11; I was including this one.
Although I think it's easy to pick out people's bad points. Vana certainly has shown herself to be (apart from her turn as PM), professional and a great communicator. Brett was a good PM IMO. But yes, Scott, Charleine, Selina and Gary are dead weight as far as I'm concerned and should be the next four to go. I only rate 5 of the 9 to be honest. My three favourite candidates in terms of ability and likability are Vana, Brett and David. However, next year (if there is a next year which I hope there is), I hope we get candidates who are more focussed on teamwork rather than endlessly looking for ways to f*** each other over. It's getting a bit tiring, watching poor candidates criticise each other to the camera. If we could have an entire series full of Felipés, I would not have a problem there. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14.





).