Perhaps let the winning team decide on who gets the immunity. By vote or random draw or whichever method they prefer. Let them work it out themselves. It'll force them to be nicer to each other.

I think I like the idea of having only 16 contestants because it gives the viewers a chance to get to know each contestant a little better and maybe it gives the editors a chance to show the apprentices interracting witrh each other. After all, one of my biggest complains about the season is how little I care about / know of these people.

I think the excemption should be given to a contestant on the winnig team who is voted Most Valuable by the team and Caroline and George. Rewards should exclude the team member voted least useful (THAT would have meant Maria in the last episode).

I also think the rewards should be better. $50,000 worth of diamonds and a trip on the Queen Mary= Great TV. Meeting Bloomberg= Zzzzzzzzzz.

Carolyn and George already have the ability to influence the boardroom decision, so I'm not sure I want them voting directly for MVP.

When this season started I foolishly liked the new PM exemption rule because I thought it would stimulate the contestants to volunteer to be PM, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. The idea of an earned exemption/forfeited reward appeals to me as long as there are safeguards to prevent the Coven-ish behaviour that makes the popular girls gang up on the misfits. How about this:

After the task but before the result is revealed, each contestant privately ranks his/her teammates' performance on the task.

At the boardroom where the winners of the task are named, the lowest-ranked member of the winning team is excluded from the reward and the highest-ranked member of the losing team is allowed to participate in the reward instead. (This person could even be the PM of the losing team.)

The lowest-ranked member of the losing team is automatically brought into the boardroom and the PM is allowed to choose two more to bring in as well. If the PM is the lowest-ranked member then there is no extra person in the boardroom.

This doesn't create any incentive to be PM, I suppose, but it does create incentive to work hard on the task every time and perhaps cooperate a little.

See, I like this. But, again, I think some people haven't been worthy of a reward even though they have been a part of the winning team. For example, Maria in the latest task and Maria and Kelly in the NYPD task.

I think knowing that you might get excluded from a reward and that said exclusion will get noticed by Trump and Co. will force everyone to lay off their butts and stop placing everything on the PM. It also reminds all the contestants that, win or loose, everyone is accountable.

So, I'd take your idea and add that scores are added up and the person getting the lowest scores from their teammates is excluded from the reward.

If you want to be convinced that NOTHING will save this show from its "death by success and believing its own press, watch My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss on Fox. I missed it last week, but I have to say that this week's was more entertaining and clever than any episode of The Apprentice this season, and better than about a third of last season's.

I like the idea of the team voting for MVP (and you CANNOT vote for yourself as I'm sure many of these egomaniacs would) and the MVP then earning the immunity. Anything that promotes actual teamwork would be a blessing.

Get Mr. Burnett on the phone....

The problem with having teams vote for MVP's is that some
of the contestants might cut backroom deals with eachother
to ensure the MVP vote goes to them and not the most
deserving person, e.g. Ivana might vote for Maria if Maria
votes for Ivana, even though neither one does anything to
deserve it. At the End of the Day, the question must be
asked, can these people be trusted with controlling their
own destiny?

Recommendations for new ways of rating Apprentice's performances are all well and good, but in light of this year's teams, I think they need to dumb the tasks down.

I was thinking of one while doing chores this weekend.

DT 'My friend (insert name of industrialist here) owns a huge property in The Hampton's. There are a lot of leaves. Here are some rakes and Kraft-paper bags. Whoever can fill the most bags and get them to the curb in time for pick up wins this weeks competition.'

Honestly, I think they'd manage to degenerate into squabbling over this.

Jennifer 'Maria, hold the damn leaf bag!'

Marie 'What? In my designer suit and these strappie stripper sandals?'

Ivana 'If we don't get all these bags filled, it'll be the PMs fault.' (Throws self onto big pile of leaves)

To be honest, that was why I decided not to include immunity as a privilege of being rated the best. What we wind up with is:

• worst loser -- in the boardroom regardless of the PM's biases
• worst winner -- excluded from the reward but exempt from the boardroom
• best loser -- included in the reward but not exempt from the boardroom
• PM -- in the boardroom

Or of course we could just have communism instead of billionaireocracy. Divide the teams into Workers vs Collective Farmers and watch the fur fly!

nubbs



Heh. You forgot to add "Raking leaves is a $30 billion inDUStry".

I still think it would be better to allow each group leader
to trade off one(or more) of members of their team to
the other team at the beginning of the show.

TV Guide has an article with Chris where he says:



I really agree that we don't know the apprentices at all and so there really is no one to root for. Next time do the backstory please!

They didn't show that stuff last time, either. It sounds like the standard reality show excuse for assholes complaining they look like assholes: "Don't blame me, it was the editing." Given how little time they have each week, I don't want to see manipulative, extraneous stuff like that.

Me neither, clear.
Personally, I would like to see a show that brings together a group of smart, creative, accomplished, compelling and ethical people -- and I'm referring to the producers here.

I don't want to be aware of their oh-so-predictable "formulaic" manipulations. I don't want to have to cringe at the sacrifice of integrity -- of either the contestants or the audience -- upon the altar of artificially manufactured Television Drama.

As has been stated elsewhere, The Apprentice is not just another reality show. There are many business students who look up to these people as Role Models and professors who have designed courses around it.

Therefore, in my opinion, The Apprentice has a responsibility to protect its legitimacy. Especially since Trump and so many of the others connected to the show are trading on this "legitimacy" in their speaking engagements and book promotions.

This season, I have really liked both the choice of contestants and the more interesting and challenging tasks. I appreciate the extensive creative effort and hard work of the production staff in both these areas.

However, once these elements are in place and set in motion, what I want to see unfold is the triumph of excellence and the inherent drama -- not the "manufactured" drama. Because how can there not be tons of inherent drama. You've got these incredibly able, colorful and ambitious contestants thrown together in close quarters and all vying for the same highly coveted prize.

And why does all the drama seem to have to be of the "bad" variety? Good drama can, at times, be even more compelling. Arguably, the most memorable event from last season could be said to have been the friendship that emerged between Kwame and Troy. Watching it play out was quite wonderful, it was real and it was "riveting TV."

This is what I would like to see more of. The unpredictable real stuff -- good and bad. Not some predetermined story arcs or watching Trump, in the Boardroom, with all his showboating "twists" trying to out-Burnett Mark. Geez. UnTrumped Trump is plenty fascinating enough.

In fact, I'd be interested in whether the ratings slippage occurred before or after Trump's shabby Boardroom treatment of Bradford and Stacie J. Perhaps in a show with this kind of "legitimacy," introducing "twists" where people are unjustifiably badly treated fosters resentment and is counterproductive to retaining audience.

Perhaps this momentum of production staffs to seemingly direct their efforts in the direction of further humiliating contestants has led to an overall ratings drop in reality shows. I wonder if upping the humiliation factor is at all connected to ambivalence to working on a reality show.

On the one hand, they like the paycheck but then many of the people in their social circle (professional actors) hold reality shows beneath contempt. So, the producers, in a sense, can keep their street cred among their peers in scripted tv by making reality contestants look worse and worse. Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing...

Well, anyway, perhaps it would be a good idea to bring in some additional people with fresh ideas and a less "formulaic" and copy-cat perspective.

Hey...
Say, perhaps the Apprentice contestants themselves.

In fact, it could even be a task: Create and shoot a reality show pilot!


(Napoleon Dynamite was shot in 22 days so 3 days for this might even be doable.)



**************************
Nubbs:
If you happen on by, I hope you get a chance to check out the link to the Forbes article (Apprentice Phonies) on pg. 291 of the Media thread.

Given that Dan Ackman had Trump on the line and the formidable weight of Forbes magazine behind him, I wish he had gone further with his questions and perhaps in some other directions.

(Maybe he was on deadline with other assignments -- still a very interesting read, though.)

I think they should do more extensive background checks
on applicants before they cast them for the show to make
sure they're not exagerating or falsifying their credentials.

I am fed up with the one-on-one interviews. So many of them have been of Ivana bitching, or someone else bitching, they rarely add anything to the story. Ivana's have been especially tiresome. Almost without exception, she is tearing down the PM, or one of her other teammates.

For me, they could chuck all of the "confessionals" and show more of what actually happened on the task.

One simple change could improve this show by leaps and bounds......
Just once I'd like an episode to feature a notdonald.

Pleeeeze send DT out of town on an extended business trip and replace him with:
(vote for one)
a. Sponge Bob
b. Nicollette Sheridan (w/o towel)
c. Omerosa
d. Mark Burnett
e. Paris Hilton

The other morning I was thinking about the similarities between The Apprentice and American Idol (all of which I'll spare you).

One thing The Apprentice could take from AI is a pre-competition show. I'd like an introductory hour where we see the Final 18 in snippets of their clinching interviews, followed by brief autobiographical movies. That way the audience would have a better sense of who the competitors are. Such an approach might make it easier for the audience to root for certain contestants rather than against (which seems to be how most of this season has progressed).

A minute or two showing the producers' fnal selection process would be nice also. Sandy (for example) is proving her worth, but I remain curious as to why she was selected.

They could even throw in a couple of delusional applicants' interviews (like the AI bad auditions) for a little comic relief.

The candidates in Apprentice 2 are all a buncha arrogant, Ivy League mofos. We need more "normal" people with charm like Troy with his "Haaaah! Aaahm from Booooiise, AAAhhhdahooo!" This may sound lame, but these people just tug so at my heart. =P

Well, considering the pool of Ivy Leaguers (Kwame, Kevin, Jennifer M., Andy, Pamela, Stacy R.) versus those cast with little education and "down home" charm (Troy, Bowie, Jessie, Chris), I'd say their record with the Ivy Leaguers is much better and Troy is just a fluke.

Bowie has a degree from the same Texas University as Amy, Sandy does not hold a college degree, but has some college.

I really think they need to come up with a way to make everyone accountable so that you don't end up with a designated target each week. I agree with everyone who said the season 1 was better -- maybe it was because of friendships, maybe because people didn't try to lose to get rid of someone. I am not sure how one would fix this problem. Having the team vote an MVP sounds promising. Maybe the multiple firing threat will help also? Imagine if he had done that in episode 2 -- we could have been rid of Bradford and Ivana.

What gets me is how the teams in this second season have been able to sway The Hair's firing decisions, at least back when there were 10 or more players left. That's all great and all on Survivor, but here, Trump is the man. Why are they able to do this? They are able to plot and scheme after learning they lost the task and have at least several hours to readjust.

I would make it that after the determination of the winner, which should ALWAYS be done in the Boardroom regardless of where the task was performed, that DT sends the winning team away and immediately launches the Boardroom session. Or at least give the team , say , 15 minutes to get upstrairs, grab their luggage, and be ready to go. No time to plot or scheme, unless you do it during the task (and that would be caught by Carolyn or George, and reported back to Trump, which would not bode well), and thus the firing will be well and truly Trump's decision.

I know it can't work that way, as that time is for Trump to be briefed by MB and others, and just to allow teams to get back from whereever they were for the task. And unfortunately, anything that happens in the suite between task end and the BR is out of the Trump's spotlight.

There is some room to plot and scheme, the PM position selection is one, which they used great last year to get rid of Sam (make him PM, follow his orders to the letter, despite his ineptitude on the task), but now that both teams are randomly drawing the PM position and given the PM exemption rule, that doesn't work too well anymore.

I just don't like how Appentince is becoming Survivor-like with alliances and the like. The first season was great when it was more about the task, without as much forewarning as to who was to lose, with reasonably good BRs, instead of the focus on getting to the crap BR's they've had this year with little focus on the task and more on the scheming.

As I keep saying, I think they need more frequent restructuring, like every episode. Instead of immunity, the winning PM should have the right to send one
person from their team over to the losing team. I think the teams get stale when they stay the same for too long. Its interesting to note that Apex's last two victories came immediately after a restructure.

I think they should allow them to just bring one person to the br for a head to head showdown. The 3 person idea (probably Trump's by the way he always bring up the point) is stupid. I think they had it planned from day one to fire two people when someone brought 3 to the br.

I agree. If I were PM and it was one person who had screwed up everything, I'd want the option of just bringing him.

As a twist on my earlier comment about recruiting ordinary folks, it''d be interesting if they concealed the real profession of the ordinary Joes/Joans that came onto the show. I'd love to see them recruit say, a stripper, and tell everyone that she is a Director of Marketing. It'd be interesting to see whether all that business school savvy and business experience makes much difference on this show. I suppose it might make a mockery of The Apprentice concept, but it's already making a mockery of itself, this season.

(Note: Just in case you are wondering why I used a stripper as an example, all I can say is you have to follow Canadian politics.)

When you think about it, the biggest bombs so far were the people who claimed to have the most corporate business experience, Elizabeth, Chris, Wes, Maria.
Of the candidates still in the game, Andy is fresh out of school whilst Kevin is still in school, Jennbot is just a lawyer whilst Sandy is self employed. Corporate financial types have not come off well in that show.

nubbs


. . .or Italian politics.

Fabrato, that is an excellent idea!

I totally agree that a little bit of a biography or autobiography on the contestants would be great. I was rooting for Troy last year as soon as I found out he gave up college to take care of his mom and hearing impaired sister.

Yeah, I'm a sucker like that.

I almost wrote this in the 'Pepsi Challenge' thread but then realized that I'd be a bustin' the rules.

I am finding a lot of these chores to be pretty mundane this year. Maybe it's the novelty wearing off.

I'd like to see them do something more creative. It's not exactly business related, but I'd love to see them have to really work together, i.e., build a soapbox derby car for a charity race, and give it to a kid who can then race it. Or build a pond with fish and fountain.

Or have something design something with more dimensions. I mean, the bottle thing was kind of boring. One of the things I find interesting is that more and more companies are using design to sell mundane items. I mean, I was in the hardware story the other day, and they had these drills on sale. (Women, prepare to roll eyes.) Apart from being functional, it looked cool. Really. I'd love to see them have to design a hip lawnmower, or something.

Or maybe I am just whacked, which is the general consensus.

I want more boardroom fights, but not between the contestants. Nope, I want George and Carolyn to argue with Trump over who should be fired! After all, those two observe the task. I want to see their comments be more than one-liners that disparage everyone ("They're all terrible. Send them home.") and their post-firing comments be more than, "Yes sir, good firing, sir."

Watching those scenes which showed the contestants' culinary flair in preparing some of their own meals brought this possible project to mind --

Each team would cater a dinner party. They would be responsible for planning the menu, designing and decorating the table (maybe even the entire room), shopping for and cooking the food. And then serving it.

The host of each dinner would be some celeb promoting a new CD or film release. Those celebs would have invited say nine guests each.

Or instead, the two teams of Apprentice III could be preparing a dinner party for Apprentice I and Apprentice II contestants, respectively. That could be interesting -- to see all of them together on the same episode.

And the determination of the winner could perhaps be achieved with the same type of questionnaire used in this season's restaurant task.

Or...maybe all this seems like such a good idea to me only because, alright I admit it, I'm more than a bit hungry at the moment.

An absolutely brilliant suggestion by kittybidee in another thread:

The way things have been going on this show this season, there's almost no need for a boardroom meeting... ever.

Take a look at the summary: Apprentice Stats

It shows that 9 out of 13 of leaders of the losing teams have been fired over other team members. But since Week 4, the leader has been fired every time except once. That's 9 out of 10 times.

Given this trend, I'm not sure why they bother to have boardroom meeting. It seems that as soon as a team loses the leader may as well head back to Trump tower, pack, and leave. I know the drama comes in the boardroom, but in light of this trend, Trump should not be firing the leader so often. It's ruining the suspense. And it's also not really reflective of reality that the leader of a losing team is always the weakest link. Pam's team lost by $10 and she got fired.

BTW, "My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss" got this part dead-on right. The leader rarely is the one to get fired. Office politics help prevent that.

I hope the remaining weeks will be a little more exciting and less predictable.

Furthermore, all one has to do to stay in the game is avoid being PM. That's how Ivana stayed in the game as long as she did. The same could be said for Jenn who was PM only once and Sandy who was the last person to be PM for the first time and the last person to be PM for the second time. The first person to PM a second task was Elizabeth followed by Raj. Both were fired. Ultimately it comes down to how well you fly under the radar not how competant you are. I think they should have a rule that no one who has been a winning PM can PM a 2nd time until all the first time losing PMs got a chance to PM twice. If that rule had been in place, Ivana and not Raj would have been PM for the home renovation task. They would have gotten rid of the deadwood much faster if they had such a rule.

I have to agree. Contestants like Pamezon got fired for being too aggressive, even though she just barely lost. Ivana was never in the game to start with. I think they should have fired two around the sixth week...clean out the dead wood a little more quickly.

I'd like to see Trump, Carolyn and George stop forcing these people to criticize and fight with each other. It's too hard for me to figure out which ones are the natural slime-balls, and which ones have just been backed into a corner for no reason.

For example, this year they constantly asked everybody, "who did the worst job?" IMHO, the truly crappy people (Stacy) probably would have volunteered that information without being asked. This would have made it a lot easier for a few of them to seem more likeable. Hell, a lot of them seem to be really nice in post show interviews. Apparently, some of them have actually become friends.

It would have been a better show if some of them had the opportunity to become friends on camera.

They should also ask, "Who did the best job?"

And I hope Trump fires the first person who answers with "Me."

I LOVE THIS RULE

now if they could just get rid of the immunities, (WORST RULE EVER!!!!)

I think a good new rule would be that the project manager cannot be fired, even if their team loses. (At least, until we get down to the final 6 or so.)

I think this would eliminate a lot of the default "let's figure out who to blame on this task and gang up on them." It would also motivate everyone to work hard for the PM, since they ultimately are trying to prove themselves to him/her.

The PM would get to bring 2 or 3 people with them back to the final boardroom.

The winning PM would get no future immunity.

I think this more closely models reality. Typically the boss is not the one fired (first) if there are problems.

I just have to say that I do hope Martha Stewart signs on with the show after Trump goes. The change in tone will be fascinating.

In the boardroom: "Please don't shout. It's unseemly."

"I just got out of prison. You don't impress me."

"For a reward, you will be making these adorable little Christmas ornaments out of pine cones and cranberries...."

1. No one under the age of 23, unless he/she is some sort of wunderkind with a proven business record. Andy may have a bright future, but Trump is not going to rankle his valued employees by sticking them with a fresh-out-of-college "CEO" who lacks proven business experience.

2. No one whose age and experience are such that he/she is beyond the "apprentice" stage. Sorry, Kelly, but you are too established, with the right business skills and experience, to be Trump's apprentice. Highly promising, highly seasoned new-hire, maybe, but apprentice? Who are we kidding? A contestant ought to give the impression that he/she thinks that he/she has something to learn from DT et al..

I would be much more interested to find out how Jenn (or Sandy, or Kevin for that matter) was doing as the apprentice a year from now than how Kelly was doing.

JMO

Here's a couple of ideas:

First, forget men vs women as initial teams. You get exactly what this season came to be as, particularly with the F4 to F2 selection. Mix them from the start and be done that way.

Second, a PM should have an option to 'fire' one member during a task if that member isn't performing up to standards. The 'fired' member goes back to the suite, does not participate, and is automatically part of the BR. If this team wins, the fired person doesn't get reward but is otherwise back the next week (possibly on the other team?), but if the team losses, the PM has to have good cause why he 'fired' the person. Assuming that George and Carolyn would give good advice, DT would be able to tell the firing that was out of spite and one that was actually sensible. If it was the former, then that's really going to make the PM the big target for DT's actual firing. If the firing was for a good reason, then DT should concur and complete the firing from the game itself. I'm thinking something like this can only happen at a specific time during the task, such that there's enough time to put cause down, so say anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4th of the task length, either viceroy should ask the PM if they would like to fire anyone at this time or not.

I'm still up on the PM immunity the next week, but PM selection needs to be a bit more spread out. I'm really thinking that while the first task should be team chosen, the PM for the next task is selected by DT 1) for the winning team after they have won, and 2) for the losing task, after he's fired someone from those left at the table. Yes, he may be fickle, but I would expect DT (coached by MB) to be more random than drawing names out of a hat.

My change would be to show more footage of the actual tasks. One of the things I read about the movie Cast Away which was directed by Robert Zemeckis and starred Tom Hanks was that Robert Zemeckis was willing to spend a good portion of the movie just showing the Tom Hanks character learning how to survive on the island with almost no dialogue (except with the volleyball). I believe that was one of the things that was admired by critics and filmgoers alike. I think these reality show producers underestimate the simple appeal of watching someone learn about and execute a task without artificial hyping of the outcome. People want to find someone to root for and will do so naturally without the editors creating contrived storylines. IMHO, of course!

Thanks for the name change, Miss Alli. I didn't know that was an option. :)

I want to see more of the interviews!! it was so frustrating to finally have the contestants before folks who can totally see through them, are asking the questions we have been dying to have them asked, and are able to smack them down at every turn... and then to have that over within minutes?? WHY did we have to see more of Jen and Sandy harping at each other than actual business leaders asking provocative questions? I felt this way with TA1 also, this was an incredibly unsatisfying episode.

I think the interviews deserve a whole episode, and then the final tasks their own whole episode. After all, they do have THREE WHOLE HOURS to fill on Thursday, it's not like they don't have time for the final tasks, but that's another "suggestion" i have...

Me too! If the interviews were boring, it's because they asked questions that were bound to get boring answers. I'm sure the producers could come up with some good ones to throw in ahead of time. And if they are unseemly coming out of the mouths of CEOs have some less senior people do some interviewing.

I think we were supposed to be wowed by the idea of celebrity interviewers, but to me it just seemed gimmicky. Who hires people for their firm by asking people in other companies to interview them? That is nuts! Anyway, I was way more interested in watching Trump's secretary interview the candidates - she had a great BS-detector. I would have loved to see if Jenn could have walked away from that unscathed.

I hate the interview round in principle and wish it were eliminated, even when it leaves the people I wanted to survive.

Eliminating two people at that stage with nothing more than interviews that can be subjectively edited in any manner tells me that it's a flimsy excuse to fix the game and ensure the final two are the people you wanted there all along.

Have challenges. Get down to three. Have three final events.

Me, I gotta disagree on this one. I don't want to watch anything that reminds me of the Olympics.

This season sucked, but one saving grace was we knew the contestants primarily based on what they did on. the. show. not what we saw of them at home. I don't want to see an hour of Ivana walking around her office and Jen walking around her office and Kelly walking around his office and.... you get the idea. After all, it's ostensibly a job interview, and in the real world, job interviewees don't get to bring the HR director home to observe them participating in meetings, going to the movies and feeding their cats.

Next season I want 18 contestants who can win. It's boring having two barely-qualified people surrounded by 16 human-shaped targets.