|
||||||||
The Apprentice - Unpopular Opinions thread |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4,431
|
Quote:
I agree, especially about Charleine.
I actually didn't think Gary's business idea was that bad. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
I think series 6 and 9 are the two series's when I've agreed with Lord Sugar's decisions most weeks. In series 6 I only disagreed with Alex and Liz's firing, while in series 9 I thought Sophie had more to offer than Natalie and Uzma while Alex was unfairly stitched up by Myles. Rebecca was fired harshly considering that she hadn't been PM yet but she made bigger mistakes than Francesca and Luisa was a better candidate anyway. Firing Jordan or Jason would have been fair enough that week
The boys team in series 9 were a strange one. Started out really strongly (even though Jason and Kurt were poor as PM first two weeks) but worked very well as a team. As the series progressed there was a lot of game playing as everyone wanted to get rid of Alex. That said, had Myles been fired in week 9 then Alex, Jordan and Neil would still have suffered a similarly poor collapse in week 10 There's always one candidate who gets really far despite being quite invisible. Since I've started watching those people have been Howard, Christopher, Tom, Jenna, Francesca, Sanjay and Gary Never really looked at it that way before. But the edit implied that we were going to have a male winner quite early on, only to find that the last three were all women. I thought Neil had it in the bag until the interviews, where his poor business plan us unearthed. The only ones that I found to be invisible of all of them were Gary, Sanjay, and Howard at a push. I felt that Jenna especially was quite prominent, even though that may have been me remembering her for having that, should I say, 'distinctive' voice. I'd personally argue that Felipe had a tendency to fade into the background. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Surely that's quite a popular opinion? I was tempted to post the opposite as my unpopular opinion. I hesitated because I've spent so much time defending her here before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4,431
|
Quote:
I personally do think that Sophie deserved to be fired when she was. She contributed hardly anything of positive note and sealed her fate by rattling off a list of skills in the boardroom that were not her specialty. Though I see your point, as neither Natalie or Uzma were competent after that task, with the latter even being fired a week later. I;m not sure that I ever bought that Myles stitched Alex up, though that was likely down to me not thinking that Alex could win anyway.
Never really looked at it that way before. But the edit implied that we were going to have a male winner quite early on, only to find that the last three were all women. I thought Neil had it in the bag until the interviews, where his poor business plan us unearthed. The only ones that I found to be invisible of all of them were Gary, Sanjay, and Howard at a push. I felt that Jenna especially was quite prominent, even though that may have been me remembering her for having that, should I say, 'distinctive' voice. I'd personally argue that Felipe had a tendency to fade into the background. I didn't think Pantsman Philip was that unlikable. Lorraine definitely deserved to be fired the week Philip was fired and Sandhurst Ben was much more unlikable that series |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Oh Alex was stitched up big time. He had a good idea but deadly dinners was forced down his throat. Remember how Alex started popping the packaging during Myles's pitch?!
I didn't think Pantsman Philip was that unlikable. Lorraine definitely deserved to be fired the week Philip was fired and Sandhurst Ben was much more unlikable that series I couldn't stand Philip, nasty shouty man who could start an argument by merely looking at his own reflection! I didn't really rate Lorraine either, but I think it could be said that she was the top seller on her team that week, though that may be faint praise. Sandhurst Ben was awful. I'd have fired him after the Cedarwood/Sandalwood fiasco! |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 2,572
|
I didn't really like Margaret, found her a bit rude and very overrated on this forum. Much better without her I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
I didn't really like Margaret, found her a bit rude and very overrated on this forum. Much better without her I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4,431
|
Quote:
I wholeheartedly agree with this. She was a rubbish interviewer too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
But Margaret as interviewer brought us that exchange with Baggs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Durham
Posts: 1,098
|
In this series, Jenny shouldn't have gone based on the fact she didn't buy anything in the France task. She was completely right when she said if she'd said she would get the manure she would still be in the competition. Most candidates lie in the background for the first few weeks and come into their own, Joseph did, Vana did, it was only really Richard who was prominent every week and that was the producers forcing him on us.
I think if she had been PM for a week, that would've been the turning point and we'd have seen just how good she was. David was my other strong candidate, I feel he'd have wiped the floor with his business plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4,431
|
Quote:
Baggsy's interview with Claude was much more compelling. I don't think she served much of a purpose other than to gurn after reading out bizarre statements!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4,431
|
Quote:
In this series, Jenny shouldn't have gone based on the fact she didn't buy anything in the France task. She was completely right when she said if she'd said she would get the manure she would still be in the competition. Most candidates lie in the background for the first few weeks and come into their own, Joseph did, Vana did, it was only really Richard who was prominent every week and that was the producers forcing him on us.
I think if she had been PM for a week, that would've been the turning point and we'd have seen just how good she was. David was my other strong candidate, I feel he'd have wiped the floor with his business plan. Yes David would have had an excellent business plan but Lord Sugar didn't seem to like him |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Claude was brutal to Baggs!
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:45.


