I like the idea of mid-task firing, especially if the person who's skating was the PM on the previous task and could be subject to losing immunity. Could be a valuable lesson to show there are no guarantees in business.

I also like the idea of naming an MVP on the losing team and having that person be sent back to the suite from the BR. There has been too much CYAing as opposed to people really trying their best for the team.

One more thought is to have the Viceroys select someone to come in the BR along with whoever the PM chooses. I think this could also show DT how the PM is thinking. Is the PM trying to oust the chief competition, or just get rid of the weakest link?

Maybe it could be just as simple as no rules at all. Anything can happen.

I would also like it if Carolyn and George had to live with the candidates in the suite (Carolyn and George, probably not so much). Or two other people who can report back to Trump.

Also, I think it would benefit the show enormously if the show began every week with Kevin in the shower, uncensored, as he ruminates on who he thinks will be fired that week.

My Rx for The Apprentice 3

1) No more men vs. women. This idea is so played out and boring.
2) No more immunities. This just leads to all sorts of strategizing. I don't think immunity added anything to the show.
3) No more choice as to whether to pick 2 or 3 people to bring back to the final boardroom. Trump complained that no one ever picked 3. He also complained when someone was brought in who didn't deserve to be. The chances of picking someone who doesnt deserve to be there increase with 3 people, and it doesnt help. It is just a lame idea and should be scrapped.
4) If Trump wants to play with the rules, maybe he should pick the project managers every week! This way he can't complain if no one steps up. Because if he senses that they don't want to step up, he can force them to. It worked with Chris. It weeded out that loser real quick.

But I am positive that there will be more wacky Survivor like rule changes that just make the show into a bore. I am not looking forward to season 3 at all.

I think this is key. One thing we didn't see this season (or saw precious little of) was candidates (who weren't the PM) stepping up to resolve problems. As soon as the PM was in a tough spot, the focus was on identifying every possible PM fault to set them up for firing, instead of pitching in to help the team win.

And truthfully, I blame Trump. He's got to change the tone in the boardroom in order to change the players' behavior. It was frustrating this year to hear him complain about Ivana or Stacy being "nasty", but them letting them escape the hatchet much longer than they should have. (Of course, my opinion is that all 18 should have been fired in the first three or four weeks.)

I wouldn't mind seeing some individual tasks. You could get rid of dead weight like Jen a little earlier. But until casting improves and Trump wises up, this show is dead to me.

For Apprentice 3, I want to have a couple of extra shows that would focus on the people in the loser's hotel. Put them all in one tacky suite again and film it. Based on John's attitude in the latest episode, there would be some awesomly bitchy moments.

If somehow there isn't enough material for entire episodes, then clips could be put on the internet, or also put in the actual episode though it would probably feel out-of-place. Also, I think it would attract viewers who don't care about the remaining cpntestants. I'm not rooting for either Jen or Kelly. I checked out after Wes lost. Alright, I admit that this whole post is really about me just wanting more Wes footage.

Better contestants is pretty much a given as a critical need for next season but other than that:

* Randomly selected project manager. Trump can announce who the PM for each group will be when he announces the task and no repeats until everyone left has had a turn. That way, no one can skate by (Jen) without having to lead.

* Dump the exemption: The PM already has enough motive to win a task - staying out of the boardroom - they don't need anything more.

* NO MORE SCREAMING IN THE BOARDROOM! Tht idea that he/she who talks loudly over other people is the best candidate is crap. Maybe Trump likes watching it but I haven't seen anyone else loving it. It's painfully annoying to watch. And also, better questions in the boardroom, I'd like to see less talk from the Apprenti and more follow-up questions from George and Carolyn.

* Another boardroom idea is to have each team leader -- BEFORE the announcement of who won -- present a brief overview of the project to Trump about their approach to the task and who contributed what. That way, each leader has to account for themselves, win or lose, and provide feedback on everyone on the team before the politics comes into play when it's known which team has to face the boardroom. To me, requiring the leader to give an honest overview of their efforts and each person's contributions would very much reveal who has the ability to lead. The problem with re-hashing things only with the losing team is that everyone is pointing fingers at that juncture and nothing of substance is said, plus someone who did nothing on a winning team (Jen) gets to skate by that week. If this was in place this year, Kelly could have said at the Levi's task: "Ivana came up with this idea we really liked for the fit wheel", without knowing whether it was a winner or a loser.

Dear Mark Burnett,
While my greatest wish is that you would cast your shows with contestants who don’t suck, I realize that this is far too much to ask and instead humbly suggest that you consider including more than one black woman and one black man per season. The ethical and emotional contortions that I end up twisting myself into when I evaluate these contestants and find them lacking in some way are not fun-- they are exhausting and demoralizing. I do not enjoy feeling obligated (and let me stress that it is my own conscience that makes me feel obligated-- not other posters) to examine 300 years of race-relations before I allow myself to consider a reality show contestant’s mannerisms off-putting. Did you see how much fun we had skewering Maria and Stacy R. ? It was a party! A wild and crazy skewering party-- untainted by sexist implications, because there were numerous other representatives of their sex to compare them to. If you are operating under some outdated assumption that the “fly-over states” don’t want to watch black people do well, let me please direct you to The Amazing Race’s Chip and Kim thread-- they are beloved. Do you realize that America’s Next Top Model is more progressive than your shows are? A show about MODELS is making you look superficial at best and arguably racist. Ugh.

Sorry for the rant guys, but lady O. drove me batshit last year and Kevin bugs me this year and it just wears me out that my conscience makes me run a gauntlet before I allow myself to come to any conclusions about their character. I want more choices, dammit! This should be fun!

I don't have any particular gripes about the demographics, but if I were an African American woman, I would be rather peeved that the women representing my demographic were 1) a delusional narcissicist and 2) an oddball who was edited to be cRaZy. The crazy slot definitely needs to go to a white person next season. They can't be that hard to find. They are probably a majority of crazy people!

Ditto to the calls for a more realistic-looking cast next season in terms of body shape, etc. I'm a guy who is turned off by Jennifer's Fembot-Barbie look, and it would give the show more credibility if they actually cast women who represented reality -- like they did with Bowie in Season 1 who had a lot of skills and personality even if he was overweight.

I saw a new commercial last night for Dove shampoo and conditioners titled "Natural Hair" -- a sea of thousands of blonde women converge on some downtown location and in a synchronized act of empowerment, they remove the blonde wigs they were wearing to reveal natural-looking, (gasp) brunette hair! It immediately reminded me of Jennifer's straw-like-texture, bottled blonde mane.

Well, it *is* The Apprentice aka Product/Company Plug Central. I liked the idea at first but the interview montage was weak. What did they really show us about *any* of them ? Nuttin'.

This one would never work. Trump gets off on this. Especially if the screamers are two hot women. It somehow denotes "strength" to him.


Unfortunately, we are often cast in an unflattering light on reality shows. Although there have been exceptions, don't forget the confrontational black bitch (Coral from RW, the lesbian chick from RW Chicago, Alicia from Survivor [both go-arounds]). That seems to be the favorite role. But I digress.

How about way more input from Carolyn and George next season? Real input that the Donald takes into account? At times, these two just seemed to be phoning it in.

And, as has been said before, tasks that are true reflections of business acumen and smarts. Because I just don't think TD's apprentice is gonna be selling lemonade on the corner of 57th Street and 5th Avenue.

I think what would help deflect the criticism of TA for poor representations of minorities is casting of more than one of a given gender/race combo; they're bound to be different. I don't think this has ever happened in a Mark Burnett reality show, unfortunately. It usually seems that there's always one black man, one black woman, and one member of a "wildcard minority."

Better. tasks.

Please, please, please. A variety of tasks. S1 seemed way more interesting, taskwise, but still could have been better. S2 with all the lookalike marketing tasks and street tasks were boh-ring.

No more immunity, everyone needs to PM regularly.

I'd even be in favor of three teams for the first few eppies so we get to see the people, well, work more. I know it would be complicated, but it'd be kewl too.

Love this idea marylou. And taking into consideration what SchoolofRock wrote
Couldn't Trump meet with the three project managers after the task for an assessent of how well they believe they did with their teams, meet with George and Carolyn and finally announce who was the weakest team based off of these meetings, with that team going to the boardroom? It wouldn't be that complicated. Could be a cool idea, but will never, ever happen.

I would like to see interviews right out of the box. It might make for a long 2-hour premiere, but it would weed out the obvious stragglers quickly. Perhaps a surprise interviewer, or maybe two bogus contestants who are actually looking for backstabbers/FUTR types to give the heave ho to.

Maybe they could have one person fired from each team, too, if the results are very close or particularly dismal. Or they reveal that the results are close and have both teams nominate a firee before revealing the actual results.

I agree that "who did the worst" is a bad way to look at it & really steamrolled this season. For all Trump's puffery about "yooogest and best" and obvious quick business lessons I doubt we'll ever see "just avoid being the worst long enough, and you'll float to the top." But that is what the show has implied this season.

I really don't want to see any changes that give the candidates the opportunity to single out another one for termination. This includes any scenario where they could "fire" one of them on their own. There is plenty of room for the PM to properly utilize his or her resources (heh) on a task, which includes plenty of ways to pull somebody off an assignment.

Pamela pulled Maria at the last minute, in the perfect example of the right way to do it. Wes let her do her thing, in the perfect example of what not to do. (Both were fired however. Sigh. Fucking Blinky McTwitch just dragged everybody down with her, didn't she?)

I think the only change this show really needs is to just sit back and let the people be themselves. There was way too to much pushing and prodding to make them fight this season. I might as well have been watching a big game of musical chairs played by grown-ups with tasers. (Note to self: Flesh out that idea for GSN pitch.)

Oh yeah, and count me out of wanting to see average looking people unless you can promise me that they will still be sexy as a result of their personalities. If the Apprentices are going to come across as ugly human beings, (see Season 2) then I demand that they continue to at least be nice to look at.

I like this idea. It would force Trump to look at the big picture, as he did last season. There's less likelihood that his response would be "Losing PM? Fired."

I didn't like the male-female split last season, and I don't like it now. It allowed women to rely so heavily (and tackily) on sex last season, and this season it allowed for the Coven. Plus, work environments are, for the most part, co-ed, so having them be divided by gender isn't genuine.

I sometimes lurk in the Top Model forum, and one of the complaints there is that they cast women who are too old, too short, or plus-size, then use those criteria as reasons to boot them. They knew they were 25, 5'6", or a size fourteen when they cast them, so why bother wasting their time if you know they can't win? Same thing here. It's unfair to cast someone with only a HS diploma if you know you want the apprentice to have a BA or higher.

I'd like more people of color. I'm a Black woman and I've been in many situations where I've been the only one. I'm sure there is more than one qualified Black applicant, so it would be nice to see at least two Black women and two Black men, plus some other people of color. Both Black women on this show were depicted as crazy. In Omarosa's case, she did documented dishonest things (SEE-mentGate, lying about Jessica Simpson. And I saw an E! True Hollywood Story in which she claimed she didn't want to be on Kwame's team because he was the reason she was fired, which . . . oooookay). Stacie was slandered - her sanity was questioned for the sake of the show, and that sucks out loud. It's pretty disheartening for me.

And of course, the casting overall sucked this season. Pick some likeable people. If they can't be likeable, they should at least have some business acumen. Too many of these folks were neither.

I'd be more than in favor of no more selling-stuff-on-the-street tasks. I know they make good Reality tv but they are truly annoying to watch. I don't enjoy seeing people standing on the sidewalk begging me to try this or buy that in Real Life. So I especially don't enjoy watching it on tv.

Also, instead of the PM getting Immunity the next time s/he's in the Boardroom, I wonder if it would be possible for the PM not to be Immune, but be able to award Immunity to the person who deserves it most on the team. That would keep the team onside and working hard.

To make that number of African-Americans proportionate with national demographics, we'd have to have 40 total apprentices. I don't think that'll work, but I am up for seeing a more diverse cast. Where are the Hispanics, Asians, (normal ones, not Ivana), and Native Americans?

Well, I just assumed the thinking on the part of TPTB has been:

1. TA needs at least one no-college contestant so that viewers without college degrees have someone to relate to/root for. (IOW, we need to have a variety of contestants who can reel in specific sections of the potential viewership.)

I also think this is why they always have a youngster, like Andy, who IMO stood no chance of ever getting the job, but with whom the college demographic could identify, meaning they might be more likely to tune into the show.

2. It's always possible that a contestant without a college degree *could* turn out to have the smarts and the polish to work for Trump. I don't think TPTB think that's really likely, but I think they allow as how it *could* happen.

PS - Caught the last minute or two of Trump on Howard Stern today. WRT his fiancee, he denies that he only likes skinny women, and he says he doesn't mind if a woman has a little weight on her. Uh-huh, right....

I think the show sucked this season for one major reason. Trump fired anyone he damn well pleased to without respect to their responsibility for the team's failure. Season 1 worked because he usually fired the person responsible for losing the task. Secondly, when the responsibility was divided or unclear, he'd use that opportunity to take out someone who'd been sliding by.

that's all we want. Every task could be at the lemonade level and if the firings were good, then the game would get progressively better.


So there would be no Bradford, Stacie J, Pamela, or Kevin incidents, because they'd stay in as long as their competence would allow.

I guess he thought irrational, unsupportable decisions would add to the suspense. For me, at least, it hasn't. Last season, I was looking forward to the finale with pleasurable anticipation. Whichever way it went, I was assured of a satisfactory winner. This season? Not so much.

This season also introduced multiple disincentives to teamwork, leadership, and really, any other qualities you'd want in an employee. I've already worked in that environment, with the tempermental boss who punished effort, rewarded bullshit, and fired people on a whim. And hey! surprise! my coworkers turned mean and paranoid. I quit that job. I really don't want to see it again on tv.

Go back to the first season, where virtue was rewarded and incompetence was punished. That's the show I want to see.

Oh, I totally believe Trump when he says this. But that's only because he defined a woman with a little weight on her as Melania plus 10 or 15 pounds.

Topic: I, too, like the idea of the PM giving Donny the ten minute recap, maybe with an assessment of strengths and weaknesses of their team as well. I want someone who is working for me to be a good judge of character since they'll be making hiring/firing decisions.

And, while there's probably twenty reasons why it may not be a good idea, I would support giving Carolyn and George the power to walk up to someone (Maria) in mid-task (Maria) and tell her (Maria) that she's fired (Maria).

I want some more competent, savvy women who don't shriek. More Amys and less Ivanas.

I want a finale that's not two hours plus one hour of filler. (Who am I kidding? I'm not going to watch it next time.) (Who am I kidding? I am too.)

This is a great idea.

I wouild also add let the people speak and explain themselves! Don't interrupt while the PM is trying to explain something. Jeebus! If Pam hadn't been so caught up in the "tie" thing and then didn't have the chance to explain or follow up on Carolyn or George's comments, what's the point. They might as well do an Elizabeth every time.

Also: NO Fucking Regis Philbin. Ever. Again.

No pimpimg out a new sponsor every week.

I've got a request for next season... How about a finale that doesn't make me want to jam chopsticks in my eyes.

There are no words to express how awful that was.

Dare I say it, Apprentice 3 looks really promising. The "street smart" brigade could be very refreshing...in that there's a good chance half of the Apprentices will behave like real people instead of Dilbert clones who overuse corporate lingo, or who angrily berate others in the boardroom for not recognizing how great an accomplishment it is for them to have gone to Princeton and Harvard.

Imagine, a bunch of Sandys, Troys, and (can we hope?) Bill Rancics. I already think I know which side I'll root for.

Street Smarts vs. Book Smarts...

sounds like a great idea, but since we all know Trump's hard-on for degrees and education, (which is specifically why Sandy and Troy didn't make it) I say why bother with the Street Smarts? They might as well forfeit...

...see you Jan. 20

So, street smarts vs. book smarts, eh?

Ok, but if the opinion (showed several times in the preview) that going to college means that you had "everything handed to you" prevails during the season I think I'm going to have a hard time watching.

Those of us who paid for every dime of our own tuition resent that.

I think instead of immunity, the winning project manager should get to trade one member of his team to the losing team.

I just want to give huge props to ferretrick from 10 months ago.

Shout Out?

I thought this was an awesome idea then, and I just hope it works out now given the fact Trump seems to prefer the "educated." [/eyeroll]

What qualifies one to be book or street smart (in this case)? Is it just going to be educated vs. non-educated? I've always had a pet-peeve about both terms. As far as I'm concerned there's only (one) smart...no one is either or. That said, I've met plenty of well-educated people that are "absent-minded." I wouldn't call them not street-smart though.

Anyways, this looks to be very interesting. I remember a few months ago discussing with a friend my h.s. alma mater and another institution that was the "Harvard"-esque school of the local area. Both schools have excellent reputations, nonetheless. My friend questioned the quality of my h.s. overall...more specifically how does it compare to the other school's. Faculty were comparable, awards were comparable, rankings, scores, etc. were comparable. The only glaring differene was tuition. The other school was double to triple my tuition. Nonetheless, the schools are comparable. The other school by far had more of the "smart school" reputation, though. What it came down to was if you put our top 30 vs. their top 30 you could have match for match, but if you put our bottom 30 vs. their bottom 30 they'd mop the floor with our school. I know the following is a fallacy, but if casting for Apprentice 3 took an average sample out of "un-educated" vs. "educated" (assuming that's what the show's going to define street vs. book as), then it would be likely that book's going to mow down street. If they actually do cast the creme de la creme of both sides (relative to who'd actually be willing to apply, of course) then I think that each team can rival the other.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It seems like it will be a cast of "street-smarts' people like Sandy and Troy who started businesses of their own without higher education, verses those who have higher education.

Its not a bad idea but I hope that if Trump accepts this set up he will then stop dissing candidates for either their lack of education or too much. Otherwise there's no point in setting up the 'street smart' team at all. I have a feeling this show is going to run into a lot of bad stereotypes about class warfare where the editors will set it up for us to like the Street Smarts (because they are working class) while we were find them ugly and perfer the School Smarts. In other words I don't hold much hope for this season's storyline being any better...but I give MB credit that it's an interesting idea.

Okay, here's what I learned. It would have been a really good idea to poll the audience IF he had taken Sandy over Kelly. Then we would have had a big swell of rooting for the underdog, because America loves the Rocky story even if Rocky sold tiaras and not left hooks, and the Hair might have folded and picked her.

So, looking into my gold-plated crystal ball, I see a final two of a Troy versus a Kwame, (Hey! That should be the names of the teams!) and unless the Troy really, really sucks, Trump absolutely picking the Troy.

There you go, I just saved everybody some time. As long as TPTB are going this direction, you can almost put it in stone that if they find another Troy, they'll be hiring a Troy. Sure, they may still make a big friggin deal about the education of somebody, but they know enough to go the other direction this time.

I must say, however, that if it happens like this, I'll be disappointed. I don't want it to be that obvious.

It may be an interesting idea, but IMO, it's a recipe that almost guarantees an even more poisonous atmosphere for The Aprentice 3 than 2. Class warfare is never pretty and this year I think a lot of the resentment directed against Jen was because of her relatively privileged education (some of it deserved and some of it not) and Trump went out of his way to encourage that resentment.

I think it's a great idea to stop dividing the teams by gender in part because this year that division played into a almost all of the gender stereotype. The coven made me want to cut out my ovaries with a dull spoon, but I've known plenty of men who are also into back biting, scapegoating and petty jealousies: those traits are not specific to any gender. Why not just divide them into two completely random teams and go from there?

That's what I think, too. Even going by the short preview, there seems to be a great deal of bitterness and ill will in the ranks.

Or do like they did in the episode of My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss that I saw: Divide it into "pretty" and "ugly", but actually do it entirely randomly.

The booksmarts vs the streetsmarts would be inherently unfair unless the streetsmarts were the higher end of small business such as a business grossing over 3 million where the streetsmart person would have the chance to manage people, speak to corporations

It was grossly unfair for Trump to cast Sandy and Stacy J as the 'streetsmarts' when they would be competing with Harvard grads. The streetsmart people should be the creme de la creme of entrepreneurs.

I guess it's too late for season 3, but will they please cast an Asian male Apprentice candidate? I mean, there are tons of them in business and I'm sure there are at least a few Asian male famewhores. Some Hispanic candidates would also be nice.

All right, I figured out what I would have liked to have seen during the finale and I'm tossing it out here in order to see what others think.

Instead of pollng the audience with past Apprenti and other Trump Management, have the candidates' references come to speak. (They sort of did this, but I would get rid of inerviewing past Apprenti completely - especially since they only saw the edited show.) Have past bosses, college professors, current bosses. If they're an entrepeneur without a current boss, then interview their biggest client. If they're in a business where they don't have a lot of face-to-face contact with their clients (like Bill with his mail-order Cigars Around the World), then have their biggest supplier. Trump could mention how important past contacts are in business.

Intersting suggestions, but it might be hard to find such people who are willing to go on international television and possibly humiliate themselves like Calimari (sp?) did on the finale.

One thing I hope Apprentice 3 gets rid of is the job interview towards the end. To me it's redundant. If Trump is hiring an apprentice to work for him, why bring in strangers to interview people they have no intention of hiring? Besides, the prior 14 weeks was one long extended interview anyway. I know it's only done for TV purposes, but to me it adds absolutely nothing to the show. We watch these other executives asking questions of people they obviously don't know, who give Trump advice in the end. Why should Trump depend on such advice? Would he expect a rival to advise him to hire the very best? Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way, Trump should do the interviewing.

Shoot the show in Hi-Def!
Shoot the show in Hi-Def!
Shoot the show in Hi-Def!

Even Branson and Cuban's show are shot in HD.

Come on you cheapskate Trump "pony up" and get with the times.

How about a prize/punishment for the teams helping the final 2? Winner gets a prize; losers get...

Including those of us who are now paying back every dime plus interest.

Word to those that say cut the outsider interviews. If he's going to do that, why not just hire two consultants named Bob to tell him who to keep? Either keep the interviews to people inside the Trump organization or drop them completly.

Stacie J has an MBA. She and Kevin both attended the same school. And at least we know as a Subway owner that she has employees. No matter how small a company is, having more than one employee indicates a complex business structure. I wonder if Kelly or Pam have employees, or are they regarded more as "consultants".

ITA. The final four need to be interviewed by those they'll be working with if they win. Hey, just like in a real job interview!


Stacie J's MBA is from my alma mater, Mercer University. Her undergrad degree is from Emory University, where Kevin earned his MBA.

The street-smarts vs. book smarts premise is problematic for many reasons. For one thing, you can have a high school diploma but still be "book smart." I've been going to college on and off for years (ok, decades) and am about to finally graduate. I consider myself "book smart" despite having only a high school diploma and I'm sure that many others do as well.

In short, the show is going to play to simplistic stereotypes. It's "dumb-down" TV. I had higher hopes for The Apprentice.