The article says two months at least two other times. I think the 15 weeks was the author's ignorance about the show, thinking that because it airs for 15 weeks it would have taken that long to tape. Which we all know ain't so.

Whew. 'Cuz no way would I expect The Hair to give people a three to four day break between tasks. He's no dummy. The faster he gets them in and out of S5, the faster the show can go on the air and he and Burnett can make more money. Unnecessarily housing and feeding eighteen people for free certainly isn't going to help his profit margins.

Yes, score another point for Carolyn. This is actually one reason why I will never rise to the top. I consider this a very important skill which I do not have. I have no respect for any boss or higher up that cannot learn the names of the people who actually do the work. The higher ups might get the glory, but without the trench workers they are nothing.

Yikes, if it were 15 weeks, no wonder one of the women slept with all the men.


His mother said he married his wife Lynne, a pediatric oncology nurse, last October and then had to go off to New York for two months in the spring for the show's taping.

Re the article in The Herald:




The entire tone of that article demonstrated a not so thinly veiled contempt for the U.S. -- e.g., when he sarcastically suggests the contestants enjoyed, among other things … "killing babies in their spare time" (as in American = war monger = baby killer). And that cheap shot, "people yelped 'whoo', as Americans do when TV cameras are around" -- as if the behavior at UK soccer games is the epitome of class. God knows there's plenty of snark about this show on this forum and elsewhere, but Mr. Bell seems to be pandering to the anti-U.S. sentiment in the UK and Europe.

FWIW, The Herald is in Scotland. Not that it means anything.

She still doesn't get it:


Jenn C was just interviewed on Access Hollywood. My favorite quotes?


"I don't have a vicious...bone in my body"

"I didn't know you could be fired for something that you say or do on a TV show."

"I'm a New Yorker. If I'm guilty of anything it's having a big mouth."

As shown here, the UK (United Kingdom) consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

I'm aware of that, oldbabe. Have been for the vast majority of my life. There are vast differences between the parts of the UK. The Scots, their separate Parliament, and other UK people would likely agree. That is why I made the distinction.

ETA:Zivra, when I posted the link to the article at the top of page 247 I was certain to mention Scotland. I try to be as complete with the sources for articles as possible.

The original post that was quoted did ask a question:
ETA: goobaletta, Blondie asked the question after your link. I assumed that you were answering her rather than responding to oldbabe. Sorry if I put words in your mouth :)

Okay, goobaletta. But my point was the anti-American sentiment I thought the article conveyed, and that's not confined to England, but throughout the UK and Europe.

With whose money? No wonder Troy only had one or two suits with him. A good quality suit is pricey, and it's that much more costly to buy several in one fell swoop. I wonder if they were after sexier wardrobes for the women?

Heh. Cut to a clip of Jenn C dissing two little old ladies, calling them "fat old Jewish women", "cheap", "jaded old bags/JAPS". What an interesting juxtaposition... Uh, gee, Jenn C, isn't that kinda vicious?

I notice that she never apologises to these women for her comments. It's all about poor lil ole me...it's the editing. I don't have a mean bone in my body. Gimme a break!

Omarosa's commentary

Thanks, pfjcsm!

I just checked NBCUMV and they have a more detailed description of this week's episode than you may be seeing in your TV listings. Minor spoilers, so if you're determined to be spoiler free, you may wish to skip it.

Ugh... I seriously found Assorama's commentary to be almost unreadable. Witness the following:



"Okay"? And don't presume to think for me either.

Then there's this:



Hey, Assy, punctuation is your friend.

Gah.

My favorite bit was 'getting intimate with the space' which conjured up images of JennC and the hapless restaurants I would rather not have.

I actually found Omarosa's commentary to be rather amusing. This part made me chuckle:

Fox is spoofing the Trumpster with "My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss"

In response to BibiBella:
The shooting schedule of The Apprentice is not 15 weeks. Week is a misnomer. It is used simply for the audiences benefit, we will watch this show unfold over 15 weeks (14 really). Mark Burnett, in his infinite wisdom, must have felt that the audience would be more comfortable I believe, if the time period for each episode was referred to as a week. As an example, we would say "stacie J was canned week 3", when in reality it would have been about day 9. Like Survivor (go figure) each episode or "week" is in reality about 3 days. Week is no doubt used because it is as a length of time commonly associated with work. We refer to the workweek rather than say workmonth. There is workday, but the Apprentice covers more than one day per episode.

TRUMP'S TV 'TOWER'. NY Post. More on the proposed Trump drama series. Take the POLL! Who should play TD? Heh.

Trump-ed up drama eyed. NY Daily News Different paper, pretty much the same story. Alas, no picture poll.

Go hear Trump in NYC. NY Post Page Six.
It's not Amos & Andy, but reality TV has image problem. Chicago Sun-Times
Richard Roeper opines about reality TV, TA2, and Elizabeth's film.

Kwame made the NY Post's Starr Report.
Kwame speaks at Bentley College. Daily News Tribune. Several quotes from the speech. This man continues to impress me.

‘Apprentice’ to speak. The University Daily Kansan. About Bill's speaking gig tonight (Wednesday). Includes interview.

Where ideas walked in, newspapers rolled out. Chicago Sun-Times. An homage to the Sun-Times building that is to be torn down for Trump's new tower.

From the Sun-Times article by Roeper:
I can't disagree that in theory at least, these people would "need" the job more than the current crop, but at the same time, is he serious?
I really doubt The Donald gives a shit about providing a social service by giving an executive position to someone based on their "need".

And BTW I think Sam Waterston looks just awesome with The Hair. Heh.

I understand your point, NYCynthia. But I do think Roeper has hit on something significant that is missing from the show. They have had a couple of people without a college education, but it's mostly college grads. I don't know if Trump would even seriously consider someone for the top job who doesn't have a degree, regardless of how capable they are.

But if he would be willing to give a real chance to a sharp candidate, regardless of formal education, I'd love to see more diversity in the contestants. Someone who has built their own small business to success over the years. Or a widow who hasn't worked for many years, but has done extensive charity fundraising, chaired several committees, etc.

There are a lot of ways that a person can attain business acumen besides getting an MBA. Along with the highly educated candidates, I'd like to see more people with real business chops they learned from life.

It would make for more interesting TV than the Apex hysterics, which are becoming really old. It appears that none of the Apex women, besides Jennifer M., has much of a chance to win this year, so that takes a lot of the suspense out of the picture.

I'm sure Trump doesn't give a damn about doing a social service. But I do think he and the producers are overlooking some true dramaby not casting a wider net for candidates.

I also think they need better tasks, that truly show the resourcefulness of the candidates. Something like an ice cream challenge is fun, but to some extent, it seems that the tasks depend too much on luck.

On the occasions where a team has failed by a narrow margin, for instance, where there is only a couple hundred dollars separating the winning totals, I don't think that really means that someone on the team truly deserves to be fired that week. I wish they had a few more indiviual challenges anyway, interspersed with the team challenges.

I totally agree. I don't think that Roeper's hypothetical examples were particularly valid, though.


Word! Sorta like...a real job interview.

I'd like to discuss it further, but this isn't the right thread for extensive discussions, I guess?

blocked writer, I completely agree with you. Along with what you say, I'd appreciate it if they had both genders on one team, as I've mentioned before. If contestants were more varied, they would also learn a lot more from each other. And maybe the tasks could more adequately reflect people's real life experience. For instance, a task could be: how do you deal with a bunch of women like these shrews? What do you do if someone comes up to you with a fantastic business premise that is slightly illegal? (borderline, gray area?) I realize there would be potential for their getting in trouble but that would be part of the drama.

And the media could be encouraged to cover the show even more, bringing up ratings which are already high, if there was some real controversy available.

Not exactly. For two days now there have been people by my subway stop at work (7 exit at 3rd Avenue from Grand Central) giving away tickets to the real estate expo at the Javitz center. Not many people seem interested.

I haven't read the article so I'm not aware of what hypos Roeper was suggesting. Also hear me when I say that I am not slagging anyone who lacks a formal university education - but that is just how the real business world operates at that high a level. Major corporations and firms have to have a way of weeding out candidates, and credentials is one way of doing it. For a person to succeed without a degree, they need to really show some other outstanding quality just to be considered (a la Troy). And even with that, it would be very risky for a CEO of a major corporation to choose a person without a formal education, for a number of reasons (internal politics, general accountability and shareholder issues among them). They could certainly have a place in the business, even an executive position, but the top job?

Granted, this is a "reality show" and not real life. Choosing semi-qualified candidates might make for a more interesting show, but it appears that Trump is actually giving the winner a chance to work, unlike the Bachelor-type shows where nothing ever seems to come to fruition. It's an interesting topic for the media to gripe about, but how would they really go about picking candidates if they were Trump? Probably much the same way.

One caveat: The Apex team. Other than Jennifer M., I would have fired all of them in one fell swoop a couple of weeks ago. They are a horrible anomaly and despite their credentials, are completely incompetent.

Probably not the right place for a long discussion, but the article did bring it up...

ETA: I am also somewhat skeptical about how much responsibility or actual work Bill is doing, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Roeper should be less of an ass in his replies - you never know where those pesky emails get posted, Richard.

Just dropping back in to say that Roeper responded to my email, but his response didn't have much substance, nor was it particularly on-topic with what I emailed TO him:

So...just because there are a LOT of people like "that" means they're qualified? Great reasoning.

ETA: Oh, and hey, Richard? The shift key is 7/16ths of an inch away from the Z. Use it.

I think what the guy is saying is that purely from a dramatic standpoint, it would hook him more if the contestants weren't already people with great prospects. If you believe that the winner is really doing serious work for the Trump organization, the way they're doing it now makes some sense, but I don't believe that.

Yeah...I get it. I just don't particularly believe that all of these "contenders" have such great prospects (or legitimately impressive resumes) in the first place. Hell, several of 'em haven't ever had jobs before.

Basically, I found his hypothetical contenders to be laughably inappropriate for anything related to Trump or this show, though.

I have more thoughts, but again I don't want to derail the thread...feel free to email me if anyone's curious, or wants to discuss further.

NYCynthia, Roeper is basically a curmudgeon with a computer. I do like him because of his snarky goodness on so many Chicagoland topics--he knows how to carve them up with flair. However, my love went down for him about 10 years ago when he wrote a column dissing "It's a Wonderful Life." He can crab about anything. Don't let him getcha down.

Topic? Why do I read anything that Dramarosa writes? And frankly, it looks as if she's dictating her comments, and then they're being added to the website. That may explain the punctuation nonsense. I thought it might be a possibility with Heidi's comments, too. If so, they're in desperate need of a copy editor at the NBC website.

eta that I'm in desperate need of a copy editor, too!

Well, Omarossa's articles are interesting! She truly is the pot calling the kettles black! (Oh, I'm sorry! Was that racist?)

Roeper, on the other hand, has some interesting points that might be able to dramatically pan out. But, his disinterest in this show doesn't mean that the rest of America is not interested. Hell, he hated the first Lord of the Rings! He seems to enjoy not going with the status quo on some topics. But, man! You are a professional writer! Show it in your emails! That crap was just embarrassing!

Gag! Thanks for the link to Assorama's "commentary" but it really irks me that her "15 minutes" is continuing in the media!!

Oh, well, at least she still shows what a pretentious, UN-self-aware, snotty know-it-all she is. Hey, Assy, if you're so GREAT at knowing what DT is looking for, why did he fire your fashion-challenged ass in the MIDDLE of TA1? And, to most of us, that was about 3 "weeks" too late.

The October 8th issue of Entertainment Weekly has an article called Color Blind: Was "the best bordroom ever" all about race? By Mark Harris.

Where did all that racial stuff come from for the Stacie J firing ? I just never ever noted any kind of racial undertone about it. Stacie was different, a bit cooky, and definitely not Heathers material, and that's why they ganged up on her. Why is the media making it all about race ?

I don't know what shareholder issues are applicable, Paper Chaser. But as far as internal politics and general accountability, I don't think they would be as much of an issue on a one-year job as they would on a permanent job. Also, if Trump hand-picked the person from the show, I doubt if their underlings would give them too much grief, not openly, anyway.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of education. But many people over the years have built successful businesses, even empires, without the benefit of a college education. I don't think Roeper's examples were particularly good, but I think he has a point.

And I agree any candidates without a degree would have to be outstanding, and they'd have to compete and prove themselves, just like anyone else on the show. But if Trump isn't going to give someone like that careful consideration, I'd rather not see them on the show at all, (Sandy, for instance) because they are just filler.

But since many of this year's college grads are such idiots, it would make for a better competition, IMO, to look for great people that may not have great resumes or educations, but have displayed a lot of business smarts. I There's no guarantee that they'd win, but if they were able to survive the weekly challenges and the boardroom, I think they could do the one-year apprenticeship as well as anyone else.

Anyway, this is longer than I intended this post to be. I looked for a thread that I thought I remembered from last season called Things you'd like to see on The Apprentice, or something like that. But I couldn't find it, and I can't think of any other thread that would be more appropriate for this discussion, so I'll make this my last word on the subject here.

The racial issue keeps coming up because Stacie J. is black and everyone else wasn't. However, Stacie J. herself has never used race as the excuse or reason she felt she was unfairly set upon by the Sorority.

Omarosa? Using pot/kettle now as if she actually gets the humor? Oh. My. GOD. Words. And that [using Jen Fingers]"commentary"[/Jen Fingers] was pathetic. She writes like a 7-year old. What happened to Ms. Class? Oops. My bad.

I agree with Roeper in that it would be more interesting if you believed the people on The Apprentice actually needed the job they're trying to win. I never got the impression that any of them did, from last season or this one. And as we've seen, it doesn't matter if you win or not; it just matters how "colorful" you are. (Hey Oma! Was that racial? Was that a slur? Tool.)

I'd like to see some divorced or single-parent contestants also.

I think a mom coming back into the work force would be very good for Apex. Anyone who has stayed home with the kids for several years would have no problem dealing with those women.

So true, mswestern but does S5 have enough "corners" for all the timeouts these screeching harpies would have to do?

Some of them might have to go sit in the hall.

From all indications, Pamela is divorced and Sandy is either divorced or in the process of getting a divorce. FWIW. Personally, I don't care one way or the other if they're divorced, married, living with a goat, whatever, if they're qualified and do well on the show. Heh.

From back aways:


Perhaps. I mean there's no denying the hatred for American TV in that article. But I guess it didn't bother me that much (and I didn't read the "killing babies" thing as a political statement--I give Brits and Europeans credit for being able to distinguish between the policies of the government and the attitudes and actions of average citizens). I still found his remarks funny. I think part of his vitriol is the fact that he and many others in the UK are really, really sick of reality TV. Remember, it's been a thing there much longer than here (evidenced by the fact that we have "stolen" most of our "best" reality ideas from them) and I have to admit that during a recent trip to Britian it did seem like there was little else on TV. So I have to think that played into his editorial a bit. And then there's the anti-capitalism vibe that was definitely there.

But I still found his snark amusing. I think it's a case of "I can criticize my own family, but don't you dare say anything bad about my mother."

Hey! I stay home with the kid. Pick Me!!

Of course, being a Mommy means everyone is fair game: Donald, you will NOT go outside the Towers until you brush that hair! And I mean that the actual brush must come in contact with your actual hair. (oh.... never mind)

It would be mucho interesting to see this "not a game" played out not by business wonks, but by, well, normal people. Could we do much worse? I realize that planning a Halloween party for 40 kids (from start to finish) isn't the work experience that sets me up to build a yoooooge Chicago skyscraper, but it should be worth something! (at least I used Kinko's for the invites!)

I must disagree. The racial issue keeps coming up, IMO, because there were indeed racial overtones. People, myself included, have commented upon them, so I won't bore you with them, but if you go up thread, you're sure to find them.

As to Stacie J. using or not using race, that's hardly definitive. In my 41 year career as a black woman, I've been baited on this very question, and it's truly a no-win. If you say an incident was racial, you're a whiner, divisive, making excuses, you name it.

If you deny it, it gives a pass where it may not be deserved. It's like bringing up that Ward Connerly's against affirmative action--it's supposed to bring an unanswerable end to any constructive conversation--but it doesn't work for me in that instance nor for this one.

Stacie J. may not have shown the best judgement and ability to think on her feet as perhaps she should have on the show, but she knew when she was being baited, and she refused to bite.

And remember, Ivana has her own special corner she hogs. (It's her "safe" place...)

When "the Trump Factor" Isn't Enough. BusinessWeek. The payoff is the last paragraph, but the rest of the article is interesting too.

Fraudsters, liars and cheats: that’s football. The TImes, UK About the UK version of TA and its host, Sir Alan Sugar.

Trump: The Soap Opera? E!online. More of the same on this topic, but different enough to post.

From BusinessWeek...do I get a gold star?

Heh, that last paragraph is pretty hilarious actually.

If Mr. Bell had made the "killing babies" comment about the Apexiennes, I'd have agreed with him! But his remarks were about the first episode of the Season 1 contestants, who had done nothing even close to being characterized that way, even in jest.




Yes, I understood his distaste for reality TV in general as a reflection of others in the UK. I just thought some of his comments were offensive rather than funny -- only my opinion, YMMV.




As those of us on TWoP well know, there's nothing like some good snark, regardless of its country of origin! But Mr. Bell's obvious anti-American sentiment goes beyond snark IMO.

Hee! NYCynthia, wonder if that was a Freudian slip, on purpose or just a bad speller!

Loved that last paragraph also. If I had the money, I'd want the exact suite where Assy got bonked on the head with the small piece of plaster, cee-ment, concrete, youuge boulder, etc. just so I could set up a little table with a tiny piece of plaster and little spotlights....great conversation starter!

I'm a 41 year-old African American too, PeacefulWoman, and though some remarks such as the violence-tending comments seemed to be targeted more specifically towards a black person, I don't know if the "racial" word would have surfaced if Stacie had been, for example, Asian. It looked, to me, like a lot of Caucasian, spoiled, sheltered women were picking on a less-sheltered, more down-to-earth type black woman.

From all the comments I've heard Stacie make, she's refused to pull an Omarosa. Which I think is very smart and shows she doesn't want to make any excuses. IMO this seemed to be what put so many off by Omarosa's comments last season -- her first reaction was to make her personality clashes "racial". I personally appreciated Stacie making her problems with the Sorority (which on its own is not racial and she could so have gone there) personality- and appearance-based. Of course, YMMV.