The Apprentice (UK) 2008

iMax

ojewriej wrote: »

On Friday - i think it was at 8 p.m. - they were showing American Apprentice, I think it was on Dave. Just noticed it few minutes before it ended, so I didn't actually watch it. I'm not sure which season it is, but in the description it said it was a first episode of the season, and Martha Stewart is the boss.

That was done around the same time as the Trump version in season two or three. It's excellent apart from her annoying way of firing them - "It was very nice to meet you... (shakes hands, writes them a letter of recommendation)" No killer "You're Fired!". Martha does have a reputation as America's Darling to protect. Good show though. The Trump version has just finished Season 7 (Celebrity Apprentice).

Mr E

Trump's Celebrity Apprentice was the best season since 1 & 2. Because there was something tangeable to be gained from each task (up to $50k for Project Manager's charity), the contestants were pretty ruthless to each other. Plus it was a pretty likeable (and hateable) group of people. I think NBC have already commissioned a second series of the Celebrity format.

anotherlostie

So who do you think is going to get fired this week?

Solely based on the trailer at the end of the previous show, I would hazard a guess at Kevin (the only gay in the village) on the basis that the boys seems to make (literally) a dog's dinner of the task and he seemed to be barking orders at some of the others. If I am completely wrong, then I will concede that they do not edit these trailers really badly.

I am also looking forward to the ongoing feud between Jenny-the-Chin and Lucinda-the-Hamster.

Our man in Havana

They do seem to edit those clips rather poorly. It is easy enough to guess who will be fired from where he points.

ojewriej

Bond-007 wrote: »

They do seem to edit those clips rather poorly. It is easy enough to guess who will be fired from where he points.

It seems to be easy to predict which team will loose al right, but I'm not so sure about guessing who will be fired. Sir Alan often surprises - just look at lastweek's episode, it looked like the red headed one will go home.

Cork

Best show on TV by a mile.

Pigman II

They're doing some gig now where they dress up like bollywood stars and serve indian food in a pub. One of em is priding herself on the idea of how they're gonna get "personal" with the punters in order to get bigger tips.

I'll tell ya, if some waitress in a restaurant tried to shake my hand and ask me my name she'd be getting an earful from me.

Smile, take the order, serve the food and fúck off.

Huggles

What a disaster.

My personal highlight in terms of entertainment value; halving the pizzas, throwing on some lettuce and hoping customers wouldn't notice! Jesus.

Sir Alan got it right this week.

TequilaMockingBird

Ian???? :eek:

Miss Fluff

Huggles wrote: »

My personal highlight in terms of entertainment value; halving the pizzas,

Cringe!!!

Toto Wolfcastle

Hilarious stuff tonight. The chin shouldn't smile. That Kevin one is a right tool.

Best quote of the evening was on the You're Fired programmes. Ian said, "There wasn't an opening for a gay Welsh comedian, otherwise Kevin could have been Daffyd."

zuchum

does anyone else feel like sir alan will never fire the more interesting people at the stake of the good ones?

last week was a perfect example,ginger one was crazy and couldn't organise her team at all but the other one got fired because she was a less interesting character??

kinda makes the experience more artificial...

ojewriej

Another good episode.

Sir Alan got it right, Ian was shying away from any responsibility, making sure that he will have people to blame. Kevin messed it up big time, but Ian should have spotted it when they were talking about the menu. It was clear Kevin didn't have a clue. And wasn't Simon a chef in the army?

Halving the pizzas was classic, and your man who brought it to the table (don't remember his name) was brutal explaining it to the customer.

I think Simon and that Irish girl will do well. Especially her, she had some good ideas, and she stays out of the fighting.

Don't like this Kevin bastard, wouldn't trust him a bit.

GhostInTheRuins

zuchum wrote: »

does anyone else feel like sir alan will never fire the more interesting people at the stake of the good ones?

last week was a perfect example,ginger one was crazy and couldn't organise her team at all but the other one got fired because she was a less interesting character??

kinda makes the experience more artificial...

I thought so last week as well. It seemed to me that he kept the ginger and the other one she was argueing with because they'd make better tv than the woman that was fired.

redspider

I think the UK Apprentice with 'sir' east-end Alan is wearing thin as entertainment. It is repetitive and Sugar more often than not selects the wrong person to fire based on the 10% he knows about who did what in the task. He usually ends up with a winner at the end of the series who is not suitable to him or his businesses. He usually finds this out at the interview stage of the last 3 contestants - which is too late to be doing interviews. But at the end of the day he doesnt care. I dont know the finances of the show but he must be getting something from it which is enough to offset any expenses he has.

This week the project leader did make a mistake by opting for a head chef position and then by staying with him all the time in the kitchen as his 'helper'. He either shouldnt have selected a head chef, equivalent to 'sub-project manager', or else selected one but gone into the other half of the team split. He might have made an okay apprentice, who knows, but he is not a project manager type. Few of them are!

And yeah, getting rid of that woman in the previous week was a clear mistake. She took it upon herself to help organise the work they were doing, and when part of that failed, she got all the whack, whereas the two squabblers were pretty pathetic and the group as a whole were mindless. The project manager in that week should have gone too.

The apprentice has little to do with real business and is closer to an MTV reality show for entertainment purposes.

By the way, in terms of gender discrimination, it would be against the law to split teams based on gender alone, but these people are not employees. Its a false work environment and its a poor method of selecting an employee. Its also juvenile and aimed at schoolyard infant mentality - boys against the girls. Pathetic.

Redspider

whiskeyman

redspider wrote: »

The apprentice has little to do with real business and is closer to an MTV reality show for entertainment purposes.

+1
That's why it's so successful!
I think it gives the viewer the impression they are watching (and talking about to their friends) something smart and intellegent.
It's getting more like Big Brother tasks each time tbh...
That said, I still rather enjoy it, although they are almost 'stressing' the entertainment factor on it recently.

Dragons Den... now there's a proper business / entertainment show!

Quality

Oh where do I start.

Well so long Ian, I will miss looking at you cause you were really hot!!! But to be honest you deserved to go!! You and your hair straighteners!!

Another hilarious episode, The boys really make me laugh. Your man Michael is a right gob ****e... "The Meat Feast" "It will fill a hole" and the eye brow thing. And his singing and that terrible explanation for the Pizza, If he worked for me, he would be fired.

Kevin is terrible, Terrible to look at, and listen to, Looking forward to seeing him next week though!

The girls are great at using their female strengths in order to get what they want, But what in the name of god were they thinking hiring that bollywood dancer, I thought I was going to fall off the chair laughing.


I really like Simon, He nearly died when he called sir Alan, Alan...

Cant wait for next week!!

Pigman II

Quality wrote: »

I really like Simon, He nearly died when he called sir Alan, Alan...

Is it only British people who have to call him "Sir" Alan? Would the Irish girl get away with calling him Alan (or "Al" perhaps if she's into the whole brevity thing).

ojewriej

redspider wrote: »

This week the project leader did make a mistake by opting for a head chef position and then by staying with him all the time in the kitchen as his 'helper'. He either shouldnt have selected a head chef, equivalent to 'sub-project manager', or else selected one but gone into the other half of the team split. He might have made an okay apprentice, who knows, but he is not a project manager type. Few of them are!

And yeah, getting rid of that woman in the previous week was a clear mistake. She took it upon herself to help organise the work they were doing, and when part of that failed, she got all the whack, whereas the two squabblers were pretty pathetic and the group as a whole were mindless. The project manager in that week should have gone too.

The apprentice has little to do with real business and is closer to an MTV reality show for entertainment purposes.

By the way, in terms of gender discrimination, it would be against the law to split teams based on gender alone, but these people are not employees. Its a false work environment and its a poor method of selecting an employee. Its also juvenile and aimed at schoolyard infant mentality - boys against the girls. Pathetic.
Redspider

You think it's pathetic, and yet you watch it.

I don't think anyone is looking for any business tips in this show, it is a reality show made for entertainment purposes. Obviously some decisons are made with ratings in mind. So what? It's far better than most of the stuff you see on telly these days.

Our man in Havana

Pigman II wrote: »

Is it only British people who have to call him "Sir" Alan? Would the Irish girl get away with calling him Alan (or "Al" perhaps if she's into the whole brevity thing).

Nope. All persons regardless of nationality must call him Sir.

Knights that are not UK nationals are not called sir. Bob Geldof KBE is not entitled to be called sir but the British media often give him this title incorrectly.

Pigman II

Bond-007 wrote: »

Nope. All persons regardless of nationality must call him Sir.

Knights that are not UK nationals are not called sir. Bob Geldof KBE is not entitled to be called sir but the British media often give him this title incorrectly.

Well I'd call him just plain "Alan". I wouldn't care less if pointed his stubby little finger and went "You're ..... a very rude young man and I don't like you. "

ojewriej

I know what you are all saying, and thought the same, but then i though that he actuallly deserves the title. Plus I like him, he cracks me up.

Quality

ojewriej wrote: »

I know what you are all saying, and thought the same, but then i though that he actuallly deserves the title. Plus I like him, he cracks me up.

+1

What height is he? I'd say he has to hop up onto that chair!

Our man in Havana

Pigman II wrote: »

Well I'd call him just plain "Alan". I wouldn't care less if pointed his stubby little finger and went "You're ..... a very rude young man and I don't like you. "

From what I have read about him, he dislikes the term "Sir" and all his close friends and associates call him Alan.

OPENROAD

Pigman II wrote: »

Is it only British people who have to call him "Sir" Alan? Would the Irish girl get away with calling him Alan (or "Al" perhaps if she's into the whole brevity thing).

As she is in England out of respect she should call him Sir Alan.

OPENROAD

Absolutely brilliant so far, looking forward to seeing Simon as leader of the group. Irish Jenny seems to be keeping her head down at the moment, keeping a low profile. As good as this series is, my favourite was the first series.

ojewriej

OPENROAD wrote: »

Absolutely brilliant so far, looking forward to seeing Simon as leader of the group. Irish Jenny seems to be keeping her head down at the moment, keeping a low profile. As good as this series is, my favourite was the first series.

Never seen it. Is it actually available on DVD?

OPENROAD

ojewriej wrote: »

Never seen it. Is it actually available on DVD?

No they have yet to release the uk version on dvd which is a shame.

redspider

ojewriej wrote: »

You think it's pathetic, and yet you watch it.

I don't think anyone is looking for any business tips in this show, it is a reality show made for entertainment purposes. Obviously some decisons are made with ratings in mind. So what? It's far better than most of the stuff you see on telly these days.

I didnt say the show was pathetic, I was talking about the boys v girls angle. Its very immature and is aimed at 8-yr olds, which is not the target audience.

I've only caught bits of the programme, and watched some of it online, so I wouldnt call myself an avid fan, nor an expert.

I realise people arent looking for business tips from such a programme, but at the end of the day, Alan Sugar is running a business and he is recruiting an employee, at least supposedly. How many of the previous winners are still with him? That is perhaps a good indication of how succesful he/this process is. If a reasonable business person was going to select an employee, most of the things that happen in this series is not the way/process to go about. If the show was tweaked, it would be better for Sugar and better for entertainment as well perhaps.

> All persons regardless of nationality must call him Sir.

Not true. A person can address him in any manner that they like and he can do likewise. Whilst not using an official title may be breaking some minor law, it isnt practically enforced and people are not thrown into shackles in the Tower in London these days.

Redspider

Quality

redspider wrote: »

If a reasonable business person was going to select an employee, most of the things that happen in this series is not the way/process to go about.

^Could you imagine the amount of unfair dismissal cases if they went about firing people like sir alan does!



Personally I think the show is hilarious.. i watch it solely for the comedy factor.

ojewriej

redspider wrote: »

I didnt say the show was pathetic, I was talking about the boys v girls angle. Its very immature and is aimed at 8-yr olds, which is not the target audience.

I've only caught bits of the programme, and watched some of it online, so I wouldnt call myself an avid fan, nor an expert.

Fair enough so.

redspider wrote: »

I realise people arent looking for business tips from such a programme, but at the end of the day, Alan Sugar is running a business and he is recruiting an employee, at least supposedly. How many of the previous winners are still with him? That is perhaps a good indication of how succesful he/this process is. If a reasonable business person was going to select an employee, most of the things that happen in this series is not the way/process to go about. If the show was tweaked, it would be better for Sugar and better for entertainment as well perhaps..

That's my whole point, I don't think he, or people behind the show see it as a recruitment exercise. They are making an entertainment show, which is supposed to make money. The 100000 pound job offer is just one of the expenses they have to cover, and I wouldn't say it's the highest one either. If the winner is able to do the job, great, if not, no harm done, Sir Alan will still make a mint on it. And fair play to him.

Gekko

Here's my 2 cents worth.

That Ian defo deserved to go - I had to laugh at his impatience when Kevin called the meeting - Ian was almost jumping up and down like a little kid...or a monkey, the animal he most resembled.

In terms of the programme itself, it is designed to be mostly entertainment-led. I think it has a weakness in that the tasks are perhaps too sales-driven. There always seems to be a bias towards contestants with mostly sales skills.

Business is about a lot more than sales. As others have pointed out, you wouldn't learn much about business from this programme.

niceirishfella

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Business is about making money - nd to make money you have to make the "sale" whatever the sector! So, sales ability is a pre-resiqite i would have thought.

Our man in Havana

But does every task need to be about selling?

Utopia Parkway

Bond-007 wrote: »

But does every task need to be about selling?

Well business is usually about selling something. Whether it be a product or a service.

Elmo

I don't really understand why the boys (and Sir Alan) where saying that they brought in more money so they should have been the real winners.

The girls had made a profit before going into the kitchen.

Sure if I produce some thing for 1euro and sell it for 10, I am doing better then some who produces the same product for 5euro and sells it for 12!

Claire is going to get fired next, she is critical of everyone.

OPENROAD

Elmo wrote: »

I don't really understand why the boys (and Sir Alan) where saying that they brought in more money so they should have been the real winners.

The girls had made a profit before going into the kitchen.

Sure if I produce some thing for 1euro and sell it for 10, I am doing better then some who produces the same product for 5euro and sells it for 12!

Claire is going to get fired next, she is critical of everyone.

Have to agree with Sir Alan, the lads really should have won after taking in more money but they completely messed up on costs, rather than buying wholesale they went to the supermarket, they spent way too much on mraketing and this is why the lads lost.

redspider

ojewriej wrote: »

I don't think he, or people behind the show see it as a recruitment exercise. They are making an entertainment show, which is supposed to make money. The 100000 pound job offer is just one of the expenses they have to cover, and I wouldn't say it's the highest one either. If the winner is able to do the job, great, if not, no harm done, Sir Alan will still make a mint on it. And fair play to him.

But that raises an important point: this show is made by the BBC, the state-run company in the UK. Now, if financially, one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.

The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar. They spend the tax payers money from the UK to do so. The US version (who the BBC must pay a stipend to) is different in that sense as it is purely commercial, and Trump produces it partly. If ITV were producing this programme in a purely commercial sense with Sugar's backing, that would be an entirely different matter.

Redspider

ojewriej

redspider wrote: »

But that raises an important point: this show is made by the BBC, the state-run company in the UK.

It's actually made by a company called talbackTHAMES, which in turn is owned by Freemantle. as far as I know BBC buys it as a ready made product, together with " you are fired" and other spin-offs.

redspider wrote: »

Now, if financially, one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? .

Who said he is one of a main beneficiaries? I'm sure he makes a mint, but I'm also sure that many other people do, all the way to Trump who owns the rights..

redspider wrote: »

It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.
The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar.

Sir Alan's personality is one of the biggest assets of this program. Like him or not, he is a character. He likes to flash his money, granted, but he almost never talks about anything not-Apprentice related. You don't see him in talk-shows, he rarely gives interviews. I think it's unfair to accuse him of self-promoting. Also, he contributes a lot of his time to the show, uses his business contacts, and funds the main prize. He even gives the temporary jobs to the finalist for few months between filming the final show and announcing the winners.

redspider wrote: »

The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar. They spend the tax payers money from the UK to do so. The US version (who the BBC must pay a stipend to) is different in that sense as it is purely commercial, and Trump produces it partly. If ITV were producing this programme in a purely commercial sense with Sugar's backing, that would be an entirely different matter.
Redspider

3rd episode of The Apprentice was watched by 6.8 Million people in the UK. It's nearest competitor had 3.4 million viewers. It looks like taxpayers think that BBC spent their money well.

Utopia Parkway

redspider wrote: »

But that raises an important point: this show is made by the BBC, the state-run company in the UK. Now, if financially, one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.

The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar. They spend the tax payers money from the UK to do so. The US version (who the BBC must pay a stipend to) is different in that sense as it is purely commercial, and Trump produces it partly. If ITV were producing this programme in a purely commercial sense with Sugar's backing, that would be an entirely different matter.

Redspider

I think you're taking it a bit too seriously. It's a reality show for entertainment purposes. I don't think it's ever been portrayed as public service broadcasting by the BBC.

Elmo

one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc

Any person who appears in primetime TV will get rewards if they have a successful TV program regardless how good it is. Most TV stars can make a fortune opening shops and giving speechs.

kerash

redspider wrote: »

A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.

Someone thinks he can do better eh? I can see it now, Redspiders Apprentice!

On another note, I hope the army lad (donno his name) gets further than those posh lads, they are so full of themselves. The other night one of them said something about him being working class? I cant remember the quote, it was ignorant anyway:mad:

ojewriej

kerash wrote: »

On another note, I hope the army lad (donno his name) gets further than those posh lads, they are so full of themselves. The other night one of them said something about him being working class? I cant remember the quote, it was ignorant anyway:mad:

I think it's Simon, he's my favourite too. Seems to be not so full of **** compared to the rest.

I think your man who went first said the thing about working class.He implied the whole team was split - working class and posh boys. It doesn't seem to be true anymore though.

Elmo

Have to agree with Sir Alan, the lads really should have won after taking in more money but they completely messed up on costs, rather than buying wholesale they went to the supermarket, they spent way too much on mraketing and this is why the lads lost.

We don't know how many meals the boys or girls cooked. If the cooked the same amount or more then prehaps they should have won as they had more work to do, but to suggest that the boys should have won when they overspent and under priced the meals is stupid IMO.

ojewriej

Elmo wrote: »

We don't know how many meals the boys or girls cooked. If the cooked the same amount or more then prehaps they should have won as they had more work to do, but to suggest that the boys should have won when they overspent and under priced the meals is stupid IMO.

I don't think he meant "you should have won, you were robbed" but more "you should have won, but you messed it up"

redspider

ojewriej wrote: »

It's actually made by a company called talbackTHAMES, which in turn is owned by Freemantle. as far as I know BBC buys it as a ready made product, together with " you are fired" and other spin-offs.

Who said he is one of a main beneficiaries? I'm sure he makes a mint, but I'm also sure that many other people do, all the way to Trump who owns the rights..

Sir Alan's personality is one of the biggest assets of this program. Like him or not, he is a character. He likes to flash his money, granted, but he almost never talks about anything not-Apprentice related. You don't see him in talk-shows, he rarely gives interviews. I think it's unfair to accuse him of self-promoting. Also, he contributes a lot of his time to the show, uses his business contacts, and funds the main prize. He even gives the temporary jobs to the finalist for few months between filming the final show and announcing the winners.

3rd episode of The Apprentice was watched by 6.8 Million people in the UK. It's nearest competitor had 3.4 million viewers. It looks like taxpayers think that BBC spent their money well.

Okay, I do take some of your points on board. But even if Talkback/Thames produce the programme, the BBC 'commissioned' it and agreed to pay for it. Its like many of the 'independent' programmes that are made for RTE. They essentially wouldnt get made unless the buyer (RTE/BBC) are in the bag. Its the same in the case of The Apprentice.

In terms of Sugar benefitting, yeah, okay, maybe I came across as too hard on him. He is not in it solely for the money, as he doesnt need it, and he does give and take. He does contribute. And the main beneficiaries are the 'nobody' contestants. I am sure though he is happy getting his ego stroked all the same.

> It looks like taxpayers think that BBC spent their money well

People dont decide to watch a show or not depending on its suitability for licence payer money. This information is not even divulged before each show/programme, so popularity of a programme or not has nothing to do with value for licence-payers money. People would even watch things if they wre bad value for money.

> Someone thinks he can do better eh? I can see it now, Redspiders Apprentice!

:-) definitely not .... but it would be interesting (and entertaining) to see other 'masters'. Might get rid of the blagging and be equally if not more entertaining. Similarly to Dragon's Den, getting in new Dragons helps that show and the same would happen with the Apprentice. How many more tasks like: "My mate from the east end owns a fish shop, your task today is to sell as many bloody fish as you can" is entertaining .....

Btw, back to the show,

I hear on the grapevine that this week's decision is another poor one by Sugar, who kicks out someone who is not at fault. Same old, same old ....

Redspider

Our man in Havana

Please use spoiler tags if you are referring to a show that has not yet been shown. Thank you.

Also if the BBC did not buy the show from talkback, I am sure that ITV/C4 would buy it in a heartbeat.

loyatemu

Is the Irish burd yer wan from B*Witched? Maybe she'll break out the denim and do a duet with the Sugababes girl later in the series...

the Guardian have a pretty funny blog running on the show:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2008/04/the_apprentice_series_four_epi_2.html

Our man in Havana

Which one is from the sugababes?

loyatemu

Bond-007 wrote: »

Which one is from the sugababes?

this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/candidate/id/15/type/contestant.html