DS Forums

 
 

Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-05-2008, 12:47
spoonboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 762

The You're Fired Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion and reasoning for firing, as if it was blatently obvious. Well it is obvious with hindsight, but before the board room it's impossible to call. You never know what barely significant detail Sir Allen will pick up on. Anyone can just agree with Sir Allen's final verdict. They can try to make themselves look clever by regurgitating Sir Allen's ill-informed counter-intuititive opinion, but it won't work on me.
spoonboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-05-2008, 13:03
LightWork
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 169
They don't always agree. Sometimes they say "it was Sir Alan's decision, he knows what he's looking for." Meaning they disagree, but they can't do anything about it.
LightWork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 13:22
spoonboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 762
In addition, I think Sir Alan should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.

It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other?
spoonboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 13:23
jessicaar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 3,332
It's Sir Alan

We don't see all their contributions and Nick disagreed last week with the firing I thought - his facial expression showed this pretty obvious.
jessicaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 13:25
backofsofatvfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 2,205
In addition, I think Sir Allen should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.

It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other?
I thought the "couldn't run in it's current state" comment was ABOUT Raefs as they could run it but would have to re-edit to add in better product shots
backofsofatvfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 13:25
spoonboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 762
D'Oh. I'd edit but I it won't let me.
spoonboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 13:46
backofsofatvfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 2,205
D'Oh. I'd edit but I it won't let me.
Hehe, We'll let you off and I promise we won't bring it up every 5 mins!
backofsofatvfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 13:54
marks thespot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,884
And Margaret, bless her, has called Michael a "waste of space" which is clearly against the party line...
marks thespot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2008, 14:15
Katenutzs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,629
U thought Nick looked rather shocked when SAS fired Raef ... I have heard them several times saying it is SAS's choice so I dont think they are just YES people
Katenutzs is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:52.