As I understand it SAS is contracted to do one more series for the BBC.

What does the future hold afterwards though?

They can't surely go on and on and on with endless vacancies for apprentices at Amstrad can they? It would be so obvious that it's purely being done for entertainment purposes.

I seriously doubt anyone else could fill Sir Alan's boots either. You only have to look at the number of copycat shows that have flopped miserably over the years.

I would hate to see it drag on with ever-diminishing returns, like the US version or BB, to the point where memories of earlier seasons and characters become ever more distant and sullied.

So I personally think it should be laid to rest after next year, with dignity, as the best UK reality show ever.

Not holding my breath though! Ratings and all that.

Any thoughts??

I don't think it should end myself. I enjoyed last year's series (even if it was a bit of a sell-out) and the ratings were fantastic.

I do think though that it should take a break / have a few changes made. With Big Brother, fans have turned off because it's like the "same old same old" year after year after year.

The apprentice should just avoid the same happening to it.

what, change would ruin it, it needs to stay the same, perhaps 1v1 in the final again. no change, it is much better than bb

It should revert to the less dumbed down style that it had on BBC2 where candidates were chosen for their potential business skills rather than their entertainment value.

I think it's the opposite actually. People are turning off because of the meddling , maniuplation and endless twists out in by the producers.

I really hope the 4 finalist scenraio was restricted to this year as I prefer two finalists.

Don't all reality shows end up going down that route though, once contestants regard it as merely a stepping stone to fame and fortune?

There's no going back now...which is exactly why I think it should be laid to rest in it's prime.

I think that this series was weak comparitavely to the last few due to the sheer fact that:

a) Most of the candidates came across as weak, BB style fame seekers.

b) The past few series actually had people who came across as stronger business people in comparison to series 4 and the contenders came across as having the appropriate skill set for the job, with having their personalities there as well.

I actually kind of agree with you, at least in part, although I think it's already past it's prime in terms of quality (although clearly not in terms of audience size).

I hope they manage to get a better selection of candidates next year and end on a high though..

I hope they go back to the format of earlier series. Im watching A2 after recently finishing A1 at the moment, and the contestants are actually quite talented buisness people in these series, unlike the 'characters' in the later ones.

Maybe SAS picking the rightful winner would help to!

I believe it should be left for a good few years now.

The calibre of the candidates leaves a lot to be desired. And are a far cry from those in series one.

I don't believe for one minute that they are the best of what British business and industry has to offer.

Does the series have researchers? I wonder if they just missed the escort history of some of these people, or knew. For me the whole thing has lost credability. Which is a shame because on the whole I love it.

If it does stay the challenges need a rejig. Send them out on individual challenges to sort out the shirkers, or perhaps a project that is already failing that they have to turn around.

I think next year should be the last series - providing that most, if not all, of the contestants are a diverse, talented and likeable bunch.

All good things must come to an end, and despite the flaws of this year's series, The Apprentice is one of the greatest reality TV shows ever made.

I would love to see a different entrepreneur on there.

Erm... this years finale attracted the highest ever viewing figures for the show ... 9.7 million compared to 7.5 million last year.

5 million watched the You're Hired show at 10.40pm on BBC1.

So people aren't turning off at all.

I think Ansidrall was talking about Big Brother.

I think Theo Paphitis should replace Sir Alan.

Whoops...my mistake

You're right - SAS has been making crazy decisions about who to fire and got it wrong more times than he should have done. If he goes back his usual self, i.e. keeping the talented business types, firing the useless ones and not going on about this weird 'glimmer of brilliance' he keeps talking about whilst referring to the seemingly most inept candidates there are, then maybe the show will go onwards and upwards. Until that day, I don't think the show will be about business anymore but more of an emphasis on the BB element that producers try to include at all costs.

People have always complained about Sir Alan's choices. I think he's been consistent across the series, with no sign of decline there. And I also think he is pretty good. This year he kept Michael in too long but that was his only real mistake. Other decisions, like firing Shazia, are debatable but he generally has good reasons for firing the one he does even if some think others were worse on the task.

I don't think the candidates are worse, either. Again that's something said every year, including in years which later get praised for having strong candidates. If there's been a change, it's that the editing focusses even more on their mistakes than it used to, so they look stupider.

For me the decline is in the tasks, which are starting to seem over-familiar, and are also lack-lustre compared to American ones; and in the job at the end.

I also tink it should carry on for a few more years yet posibly doing 1 serris with Sir alan 1 serris with someone else then keep swaping

I don't know!

I think maybe he should consider stopping at five.
Reality TV always starts off great, but year on year they put people in for comedy rather than skills, and the show ends up losing popularity and getting a bad name, even though it was great to begin with. Look at big brother for example.

Yes, but he still showed that he made a bad choice keeping Michael on the show which to me is decline. There was no really good reason for that I would say. Jenny C lied in order to keep herself in by calling Shazia manipulative, therefore I would say this is why people thought she shouldn't have been fired.


But I've never heard anyone slagging off the candidates up to and including series 3? Most of the candidates came across as a lot more capable than in series 4. Surely if this was just down to editing, then they would have focused a lot more on the mistakes of candidates before this series? I think the editing hasn't changed greatly, my take on this is that the candidates aren't as great and producers have recruited ones for entertainment purposes.


I would say if these tasks were given to last years' candidates, I think the tasks would have seemed better to the viewer.

It's quite similar to the mistake he made in keeping Paul in the first series. Especially when he fired Miriam instead.



That kind of manipulation is exactly why Jenny C was fired, eventually. I didn't really see it like that on the second task, though. There were other reasons to fire Jenny, then, and also reasons to fire Shazia. In any case, we can see similar "mistakes" in other series, eg firing Karen in s2 through what was probably a lie from Jo.


Really? I have seen endless slagging off even of Michelle, who won s2. In fact, this year we had no real big fiascos to compare with previous years. Eg Alexa's "100 chickens".


It's not just showing the mistakes; it's hiding the clever bits. For example, we never found out who had the idea of selling tickets for the pub food task. I suspect it was one of the women who gets slagged off now, eg Helene or Jenny M or Lindi or Jenny C.

However, they did show mistakes and hide cleverness in earlier series, so it's hard to be sure.


I think the tasks have been simpler this year. For example, this year in task 1 they were provided with the fish and the location, and given what they needed to identify and price them, and just had to sell them. In previous years they had to buy their own product (flowers, or fruit, or coffee) and pick their own location and selling approach.

Yes, but in year 1 in the fruit and veg task they were given a day to plan strategy.

This is where I feel this whole thing broke down in this series.

In business you want people who can think on the hoof to a certain extent but it's far more important to get people who can plan properly.

Wouldn't it get to a point where there would be no original tasks left to complete??

Ten years of the Apprentice...I can't see it myself.