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.

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

What they fail to say is that the cars wait.

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

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Because it looks good (in their eyes).

Surprised no one hasn't pulled them up over it