The Apprentice 2019

Fann Linn wrote: »

plus the PM didn't listen to the woman who actually had a 7 year old kid.

The video was the worst, I don't get how dancing around in a turtle suit conveys any message.

The product logo or name they flashed up in the video was like animal pals or some crap associated with Tommy the Turtle which was odd.

The backlash online is pretty intense, i think the producers of this show know what they are up to and edited in a way to get as much noise generated about it.

Just goes to show how bad the likes of twitter ect is.

Calhoun wrote: »

The video was the worst, I don't get how dancing around in a turtle suit conveys any message.

The product logo or name they flashed up in the video was like animal pals or some crap associated with Tommy the Turtle which was odd.

Maybe there's already been one but I'd love a behind the scenes episode where they show what really goes on, and I mean, what really goes on.

I've heard rumours of not being allowed more than minimal phone calls between teams or limited time on calls,

Basically they are set up to fail.

ncmc

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe there's already been one but I'd love a behind the scenes episode where they show what really goes on, and I mean, what really goes on.

I've heard rumours of not being allowed more than minimal phone calls between teams or limited time on calls,

Basically they are set up to fail.

A few of the fired candidates have come out in the past with some truths about what really goes one. It sounds dreadful, some have reported that they are deliberately kept sleep deprived and given minimal food during tasks so that they aren't at their best and make stupid mistakes.

The turtle toy actually wasn't bad if it had been aimed at pre schoolers. I know the unicorn wasn't very original, but I my 5 year old girl would have loved it! Especially if there had been a bigger quantity of slime. The videos were terrible, but it's a very difficult thing to pull off when you're short on time, budget and don't have expertise in that area. I don't know how you're supposed to make a decent video, when all the props you have are a few ****ty costumes.

One of those tasks that neither team should have won. One sale was enough for that shïtty My Little Pony knock-off to win.

Pamela was atrocious in her behaviour whether it was her casual sexism, brutal toy design, outright lying, crap pitching, tunnel vision or malignment of her team.

The other team were just as bad. The turtle was a disaster from the first moment (given the target market) and how Tommy didn't get brought back was beyond me. The product was made for the wrong age group yet the product maker avoided the boardroom....?

I feel for Solomon as although he was negative (and right to be); in the Apprentice you're either a devout blind-to-reality lemming or you're a disruptor who nobody can work with. Tommy bulldozed any negativity and even tried to pretend that there had been no concerns raised by the candidate with the kid. Bewildering.

And come on, did that team lose because of Solomon? Absolutely not.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The other team were just as bad. The turtle was a disaster from the first moment (given the target market) and how Tommy didn't get brought back was beyond me. The product was made for the wrong age group yet the product maker avoided the boardroom....?

And come on, did that team lose because of Solomon? Absolutely not.

Would've been an insane decision to bring Tom back by the team leader. He was singled out for praise in one of the previous tasks and he has enough about him that he'd have to had done something terrible to get fired this week.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

One of those tasks that neither team should have won. One sale was enough for that shïtty My Little Pony knock-off to win.

Pamela was atrocious in her behaviour whether it was her casual sexism, brutal toy design, outright lying, crap pitching, tunnel vision or malignment of her team.

The other team were just as bad. The turtle was a disaster from the first moment (given the target market) and how Tommy didn't get brought back was beyond me. The product was made for the wrong age group yet the product maker avoided the boardroom....?

I feel for Solomon as although he was negative (and right to be); in the Apprentice you're either a devout blind-to-reality lemming or you're a disruptor who nobody can work with. Tommy bulldozed any negativity and even tried to pretend that there had been no concerns raised by the candidate with the kid. Bewildering.

And come on, did that team lose because of Solomon? Absolutely not.

Say what you want about the pony i found the turtle to be worse, they should have draped it in a Union Jack with the way it being made.

Solomons problem was that he just wasn't really that much of a personality compared to others. He was relatively invisible up until this week and then he was just super negative. I think the team leader or Lottie should have went as he was useless and she was invisible but they have got a bit more longevity due to the personality.

Tommy survived because hes like the sales workhorse as he can just spit out sales.

Its funny online people complaining that it was a race thing and they were only keeping the white people in.

Still Ill wrote: »

Would've been an insane decision to bring Tom back by the team leader. He was singled out for praise in one of the previous tasks and he has enough about him that he'd have to had done something terrible to get fired this week.

The question about who to bring back is 'who is responsible for the failure of this task?'

The task failed based on the toys target market. Even Hamleys liked it, but not for 6-8. The toy was designed by Tom who ignored criticism of it being 'too young'.

Maybe he wouldn't have been fired but he sure was responsible for its failure.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The question about who to bring back is 'who is responsible for the failure of this task?'

The task failed based on the toys target market. Even Hamleys liked it, but not for 6-8. The toy was designed by Tom who ignored criticism of it being 'too young'.

Maybe he wouldn't have been fired but he sure was responsible for its failure.

The aim of the game is to survive through your poor tasks and to try and win the competition. From a game theory perspective bringing back someone who is highly unlikely to be fired is far from optimal.

LizT

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The question about who to bring back is 'who is responsible for the failure of this task?'

The task failed based on the toys target market. Even Hamleys liked it, but not for 6-8. The toy was designed by Tom who ignored criticism of it being 'too young'.

Maybe he wouldn't have been fired but he sure was responsible for its failure.

But Lord Sugar doesn't always fire the person responsible for the failure, especially if he likes what he has seen from them. In the early weeks, he tends to fire people if they haven't contributed much, even if they're not responsible for the failure.

I've been watching the show long enough to know the reality of who goes. But I've also seen Sugar absolutely obliterate people for not bringing in the person who's fault it was and bringing in people who were, for example, warned that next time they were in the boardroom they'd be fired, even if they had no culpability.

So it's not as simple as just picking weak candidates.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I've been watching the show long enough to know the reality of who goes. But I've also seen Sugar absolutely obliterate people for not bringing in the person who's fault it was and bringing in people who were, for example, warned that next time they were in the boardroom they'd be fired, even if they had no culpability.

So it's not as simple as just picking weak candidates.

No, but if you pick a weak candidate who didn't contribute to that particular task or was culpable in some way it's a better play to bring them in than a strong candidate who was at fault.

If he'd picked Tom, Sugar would have been forced to pick between the PM and the third person.

LizT

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I've been watching the show long enough to know the reality of who goes. But I've also seen Sugar absolutely obliterate people for not bringing in the person who's fault it was and bringing in people who were, for example, warned that next time they were in the boardroom they'd be fired, even if they had no culpability.

So it's not as simple as just picking weak candidates.

OH yeah, absolutely but that was not the case with Tom at all. If he had been brought in Lord Sugar would have done his whole speech about all the mistakes he made and then something like "you remind me of me when I was younger" and give him another chance. I think it's dangerous to bring someone back in when it seems Lord Sugar likes them.

LizT wrote: »

OH yeah, absolutely but that was not the case with Tom at all. If he had been brought in Lord Sugar would have done his whole speech about all the mistakes he made and then something like "you remind me of me when I was younger" and give him another chance. I think it's dangerous to bring someone back in when it seems Lord Sugar likes them.

Tom was the work horse for the boys team, selling all around him.

I would say he's one of the few that Lord Sugar really likes.

Calhoun wrote: »

Tom was the work horse for the boys team, selling all around him.

I would say he's one of the few that Lord Sugar really likes.

Yeah, he's the classic candidate that Sugar likes, but will ultimately fall short towards the end when he decides he's not 'corporate' enough.

LizT wrote: »

OH yeah, absolutely but that was not the case with Tom at all. If he had been brought in Lord Sugar would have done his whole speech about all the mistakes he made and then something like "you remind me of me when I was younger" and give him another chance. I think it's dangerous to bring someone back in when it seems Lord Sugar likes them.

Yep. Fully agree with you.

Its just such an inconsistent show. Although that's no surprise now. And I still love it ha

jeffk

Does anyone watch your fired?

I think ive given up, between the host not as good and then like this week when you get a contestant who no more wants to be there

jeffk wrote: »

Does anyone watch your fired?

I think ive given up, between the host not as good and then like this week when you get a contestant who no more wants to be there

I like Tom Allen but he's just nowhere near Rhod Gilbert and it shows. Gilbert was caustic and withering which is the best way to approach that show because as you say, guests rarely want to be there but Rhod had a way of overcoming that. Dara O'Briain was similar albeit behind a more 'friendly' guide.

Tom Allen's camp humour is something I normally enjoy but it just doesn't seem to fit this show. He's light years away from the Jack Dee season but it's just not the right fit for me.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I like Tom Allen but he's just nowhere near Rhod Gilbert and it shows. Gilbert was caustic and withering which is the best way to approach that show because as you say, guests rarely want to be there but Rhod had a way of overcoming that. Dara O'Briain was similar albeit behind a more 'friendly' guide.

Tom Allen's camp humour is something I normally enjoy but it just doesn't seem to fit this show. He's light years away from the Jack Dee season but it's just not the right fit for me.

Tom Allen is brilliant when partnered with someone more light hearted, some of the interaction between him and Rob Beckett is hilarious. Both went to the same school Tom being older but sound so different.

alchemist33

I disagree that Tom was the cause of losing that task. Individual team members come up with ideas and its up to the PM and team as a whole to decide on the best. Just because they choose the wrong idea, it's not the fault of Tom.

siblers

ncmc wrote: »

A few of the fired candidates have come out in the past with some truths about what really goes one. It sounds dreadful, some have reported that they are deliberately kept sleep deprived and given minimal food during tasks so that they aren't at their best and make stupid mistakes.

The turtle toy actually wasn't bad if it had been aimed at pre schoolers. I know the unicorn wasn't very original, but I my 5 year old girl would have loved it! Especially if there had been a bigger quantity of slime. The videos were terrible, but it's a very difficult thing to pull off when you're short on time, budget and don't have expertise in that area. I don't know how you're supposed to make a decent video, when all the props you have are a few ****ty costumes.

In the most recent episode they were up at like 4:30am. I wonder what time they actually met Lord Sugar at? Probably not till around 8 or 9am if not later

Scott Tenorman

siblers wrote: »

In the most recent episode they were up at like 4:30am. I wonder what time they actually met Lord Sugar at? Probably not till around 8 or 9am if not later

"Cars will be there in 20minutes" LOL :P

siblers wrote: »

In the most recent episode they were up at like 4:30am. I wonder what time they actually met Lord Sugar at? Probably not till around 8 or 9am if not later

It is always daylight when they go to the cars. And unless they each have a separate shower, there is no way you can get 12+ people, half men and half women, showered, dried, suited and booting in 20 minutes. That aspect is clearly manufactured.

crisco10

Deleted User wrote: »

It is always daylight when they go to the cars. And unless they each have a separate shower, there is no way you can get 12+ people, half men and half women, showered, dried, suited and booting in 20 minutes. That aspect is clearly manufactured.

They answer the phone in the dark, but its bright when they get in the cars. And we know its filmed over the summer months when it takes about 1 to 2 hours (at least!) for the sun to rise that much...

The 20 mins thing is just a running joke at this stage.

everlast75

"The cars will be there in 20 minutes" is a correct statement.

What they fail to say is that the cars wait.

Mean Laqueefa wrote: »

Souleyman , bet he didn't see that coming

Username checks out - fairly mean and low to have a laugh at the expense of the guy who's had to work ten times harder than others to achieve the same goals.

jeffk

everlast75 wrote: »

"The cars will be there in 20 minutes" is a correct statement.

What they fail to say is that the cars wait.

Speaking of cars

With all this carbon footprint etc etc etc

Why is there still 5-6 cars for the teams/Karen-Claude and Lord Sugar

jeffk wrote: »

Speaking of cars

With all this car footprint etc etc etc

Why is there still 5-6 cars for the teams/Karen-Claude and Lord Sugar

Because it looks good (in their eyes). Hard to film within the cars if there are too many in them and also Lord Sugar wouldn't dare travel with the commoners!

jeffk

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Because it looks good (in their eyes).

Surprised no one hasn't pulled them up over it