Since most candidates on the show really don't want to work for the Trump organization (latest example is Angie, who's really a cabaret singer), the producers should change the show to put the responsibility on Trump's shoulders. Make him have to figure out among a cast of 15 - 18 people, who the real person is who wants to work for him, not necessarily who's the "best" candidate for his company or for TV ratings. Trump should not know about candidate's educational, economic, or work history backgrounds, or know what their ages are or where they live, to minimize his personal biases from getting in the way.

In a real life job interview, background is relevant. But in a multi-week process like the Apprentice, it seems that the candidates' on-the-job performance is really what's being evaluated. If education helps or harms performance, let Trump speculate for himself. In the end, if the wrong person gets hired, then he/she wins the right to quit and keep the year's pay. If the right person gets hired, then he/she gets the job, career head start, and the salary. That would be a show I'd watch.

Regarding what horrified wrote above, it's true that one reason Apprentice 1 was so popular was because of the greater focus on tasks and revealing how the behaviour of each candidate changed as they worked on these tasks as either team member or leader.

I think one reason the show has become so bad in such a short time is because the show is no longer aiming itself at a primarily business audience, but more likely desperately going after a much larger working class audience who might find Trump's ego-driven tirades more appealing than the business crowd, and not mind the extra trivia he's giving out each week (the "Trumpisms" or nuggets of business knowledge Trump is sharing with viewers, which are either blatantly obvious or so general that they fail to meet the important criterion of usefullness), and are more likely to buy the products being advertised on the show (in addition to the ghost-written books from Trump, his lieutenants, and a couple of Apprentices that lack any real advice of substance to benefit anyone in the business world).

One interesting change might be to have all candidates under 30 or out of school less than 5 years. Let the one who wins be a real apprentice learning how to run one of Trump's businesses and how to succeed in business instead of an experienced person over 30 who overwhelms younger candidates because of maturity and experience. Maybe,Tana's mistakes on the last few assignments and Kendra's relative creativity will allow a younger, more immature person to win this time. But look further back. I did not see Apprentice 1 but I believe Bill was not one of the youngest candidates and Kelly definitely had experience and maturity going for him. Tana, until she blew it, was marked by her maturity and experience in handling people. The more mature candidates make the young ones seem worse than they are and stifle their potential and creativity. How can a young person realize his or her potential if they do not have a chance at a job that will make use of their "potential"?
Anyway, I think a contest among young, rising business types might be more interesting and more creative. They might be willing to try something more "risky" (another way of saying outside the box?) whether it works or not and they might be looking for a real business job rather than television exposure (Were Danny, Erin, and Angie at all interested in a Trump job? Why do so many young lawyers want to be the Apprentice instead of practicing law?)
If the interviews this time and/or finale result in Craig and Tana getting shot down for their lack of education, the show should not have people without college degrees again unless all candidates do not have degrees because that is unfair. These candidates never win and are doomed from the start. In the real world, many companies will give preference to the person with the college degree and/or MBA so it is not unrealistic to demand a degree just unfair to let someone without one think he or she has a chance.

I've got it! Lefties vs. Righties...and the prize is not a job with Trumpy but $250,000 seed money to start or fund their own business venture along with the Viceroys' as some sort of advisory committee to advise for 2 years.

Then, no worries about working for the Donald/Devil himself -- best business skills and entrepreneurial spirit wins. Same game, different prize.

Because it's "The Apprentice", so they shouldn't already be construction geniuses. Besides it would be boring to have everyone on the show from the construction world.


Maybe in "The Apprentice 19" they can model it after that dating reality show where only half the guys are straight and if the girl picks a gay guy, he wins money.

I got an idea; How about Trump only gets to know the contestant's ages, sexes, sexual orientations, and marital and family statuses. I think that'd make for some entertaining lawsuits...uhhh...entertainment.

I'd really like to see a change in the final tasks. In both TA1 and TA2, the tasks seemed to be either too complicated for the time frame, or contained obstacles that seemed contrived to try to trip up the finalists.

Rather than just seeing the finalists put out fires and pull all-nighters like they've done during the season, I'd rather see tasks that show just how much they can excel. When I watch a big sporting event or a game show tournament, I want to see the contestants at their best. I don't want to see athletes compete after they've had two hours sleep, or had to run three miles just before the game starts. Not a great analogy, but hopefully it makes my point.

I don't know the exact time line, but it seems that they expect the finalist to manage a task like a golf tournament that usually probably takes a a lot more time than a couple of days to do well. When compressed into such a short time period, it becomes necessary for the PM to run around and scramble. This may be dramatic, but it's getting old to me. It's also unrealistic. At this point in the contest, I want to see the final two at the top of their game, well prepared, and given enough time and resources show what they really can do.

I know I'm just wishing aloud, and it will probably never happen. But I would love to see it.

I agree with blocked writer. I hope they do something a little different with this season's final task. The whole "putting out fires" thing is also bad because it could make the task unfair if one fire is just bigger than the other independently of what the finalists do (see Simpson, Jessica).

One other change I'd like to see...it seems like half of the confessional speeches are basically the same speech ("I'm going to kick everyone's asses," "I'm a bad-ass," "the other guys don't have what I have", basically trash-talking). So, require all trash-talking confessionals to be done in gangsta rap. If you want to pump yourself up or trash the others, they give you a beat and a microphone and give you 30 seconds to flow. That should cut down on all the smack talk, and make what's left of it entertaining.

Word on this, Cherry Wire. It frustrates me that the biggest task of the season often has things that the contestants just cannot control (like rain on a golf course), or glitches in the travel arrangements of guests, or spokesman who backs out (or allegedly backs out) at the last minute.

The tasks don't have sufficient time to show how a pro would really handle these things. More than likely, IRL with proper planning, a lot of this crap would be avoided in the first place. A rain date would be scheduled for the golf tournament, a back-up spokesman would be arranged, etc. TPTB obviously want a lot of contrived drama, which IMO is just not necessary.

On a lighter note, this cracked me up to no end:



I would be on the floor, helpless with laughter watching some of these people even attempting to rap!

It would be interesting for the show to have an overarching project where you select or come up with a product during the first episode and then have to manage the project from start to finish, from business plan to sales, throughout the season. Each week would focus on a different aspect of the project and then during 3-4 specified times in the season 2 or 3 people would get fired for a host of reasons. There could still have two teams starting with 10 each and have it whittled down to the final four best people to be in the interviews. Just a thought. It doesn't have to be construction, though, because then you'd need more people from a construction background unless they were able to hire the contractors and such (season 2). They could develop a product with Mattel, using tie-ins with Burger King/whomever, QVC for sales, etc.

What if they don't fire anybody and just give people a grade at the end of every task. (Kind of like in school.) You stay on your same team till the end. Then you are given a final cumulative grade. The four people with the highest grades go through the final interview stage. This gives everyone a chance to redeem themselves after performing poorly on one task or being weak in one skill set but strong in others. You'd get a much better picture on what a person is like and how they relate to others over a longer time frame. These people who are fired aren't allowed to go home anyway and are kept locked up in a hotel. Why can't they be out there working?

I really like this idea! Especially since they are just sitting around in sequesterville after they are fired, as you mentioned, bgk123. It would give the audience a chance to get to know the contestants better, and there would be more suspense as to who would win at the end.

I think Tara could have really benefited from this. Other than her misjudgment on the graffiti task, she showed signs of being a strong candidate. I believe that given the chance, she would have redeemed herself.

Of course, the weekly "You're Fired" has become such a trademark of the show, I don't know if they would get rid of it. But your suggestion would revitalize this show, and it is greatly in need of revitalization.

Keep in mind, though, that this is a TV show first and foremost, interview second. This sort of process, IMO, would reduce drama and we can't have that, now, can we?!

Maybe. IMHO, it would actually increase drama. I'd be wondering if my favorites could redeem themselves from a serious misstep. I'd watch with interest at who gets stronger, and who seems to fall apart as the pressure mounts. There would also be real suspense as to who will be in the final four. I'd even throw in another twist. If they got rid of the weekly firing, they could have a weekly drawing for teams.

Seeing the contestants work with different people each week would add interest and drama, and it would show the different levels of flexibility. It would also be interesting to see who gets overconfident because they think they are doing so well, when in reality they are performing poorly.

But, YMMV. I guess what is boring to one is bliss to another. I just feel that so much of the heart has gone out of this show, and I'd love to see them make some changes that would make the show better for the viewers.

I am so with you on this for a variety of reasons. The main one is that so much of working in a corporate environment revolves around projects and all the aspects of a project, from concept to ROI analysis, development, and implementation. Maybe that's too granular for network TV, but the group dynamics would be fascinating.

There are times on the show when Trump's decision to fire someone seems arbitrary or unfair. Some people seem to linger on only because someone else was worse that week. That was one of the reasons I suggested doing away with firing someone every week. Also if you knew you were being graded every week and you didn't have exemptions I think people would be more willing to work hard and not slack off.

However, I have been in groups in college and at work and you always have some people who do more work than the others and some who do as little as possible.

Just a thought.

I do wish they would have a better selection process though. I thought a lot of the candidates that they let through this season were jokes. I expected to see Ashton Kutcher come out at the end saying "You've been PUNKED!"

You said it. Maybe because this season had some really, really, unappealing folks, I started fantasizing that Burnett had hired himself a few actors to play rogue Apprenti.

No. Such. Luck.

How about we put the finale AFTER the finale. C'mon Trumpy. Don't drag it out. Especially THIS year when it couldn't be any more obvious who will win.

I liked how they did the S1 final boardroom. The whole shift between the taped and live boardroom was almost flawless and as soon as Trumpy said "You're Hired" the walls flew back. I like it so much better than the whole boardroom right in front of the entire audience like they did in S2. Oh, and polling the audience. Yuck.

It was a surprise and a nice moment. I am wondering if the finale didn't get shortened this season because it would be so brutal to drag out the result. I am guessing that they will interview the employees, call Tana & Kendra back in and then do a seamless cut from the taped to the live event.

True, but with grading then the winning team would not necessaily ALL get A's - only the ones who really deserved it, the others could get a B, C, or even lower.

I also don't like the idea of the exemptions. Just look what Tana did with hers. And now she's in the final two? That seems really unfair. I was glad that at least Michael got fired soon after he totally abused his exemption.

I'd like them to drop back to 16 players. The extra beats they had to add to the opening theme to accomodate the extra people still throw me two seasons later.

Seems like there is opportunity to "free ride" now and then depending upon how great the PM is, size of the group, if anyone else tries to free ride, and then how poorly the other group does. It may keep you from getting fired for awhile, but as Tana learned this past episode, it sucks to be on the other end. Although, I think Chris in particular didn't free ride; he seemed to work and wanted to do a good job even though there was nothing in it for him.

Maybe instead of grades, they could get scores. Then we could all watch the point totals and it would be a race for points. Maybe the high scorer of the week, instead of getting an exemption, would get an opportunity to either trade a team member away or trade themselves away. I think there should be firings from time to time, but it would be more satisfying if cumulative scores were kept so that people's records on prior tasks couldn't be brushed under the carpet so easily.

You know I would like to see a final task like the one they had in the UK version. Each person was given seed money and a venue (in that case, a ship) and were just told to put on an event. Profits from the event were taken into account but what also mattered was both being creative in coming up with an exciting event and being able to to a good job managing it. I think a task like that would be more interesting than the final tasks here managing some pre-determined event where most of the heavy lifting had already been done and where it would be almost impossible to fuck up.

I also really enjoyed one of the tasks in My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss Where they were each given a chicken in the morning and had to barter it throughout the day, with the person with the lowest valued item at the end of the day losing. It certainly beats another crappy task pimping some sponsored company/product.

I would love to see a task mini-marathon incorporated into the final 3 or 4 interviews, or to even replace the interviews. As it stands, I think the final interviews are largely a waste of time. Did Trump really need anyone to tell him that Craig was clearly the one of the final three that should have been dunped at that point?

Just coming up with good responses to tough interview questions is not enough to convince me that a person belongs in the final 2. Tana impressed at least 2 of the interviewers, and look how badly she failed in her final task. Also, a person could be a smooth talker with little action to back it up.

I would like it much better if the final 4 faced a series of tests. For instance, how would they solve a particular scenario or conflict? What would be a great slogan for a certain kind of product? If they were responsible for finishing 10 things in a set period of time and could delegate 5 of them, which 5 would they delegate, abd why? They could also make a presentation for an imaginary new product.

Or there could even be a mini obstacle course of business tasks, designed to see how people overcome different problems they encounter along the way.

I'd rather see them go through this kind of thing before the final task. Then we could see them at the top of their game, more like this:



I do think having the contestants set up the final task from start to finish would be far more interesting than the pre-determined tasks we've seen.

Word. Bring back a few of the previous Accounts: for actual production of advertising campaigns (Mr Nipples), American Eagle, Best Buy, Office Dept, Home Depot for giveaways (possible branding production), etc. In otherwords, pull all the vendors they have dealt with for each previous episode and tie them together in to one giant charity event. Both will be dealing with exactly the same resources, therefore measurement is qualified and exact, all profits go to charity.

And. let their choice of teammates be also their choice of leadership: How well do they "read" others, etc.

I just rewatchted last episode's boardroom. And I would love for the candiates (at least in the finals) to have an advocate present.

It would have to be someone who knows them, preferably a good friend or a longtime coworker. That person would have to be somewhat neutral because I wouldn't want TA to turn into "American Idol: family feud" (so that rules out immediate family, and probably boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives).

But I think it would be interesting for someone who is not competing for the job and knows that particular candidate to speak on his or her behalf. Because often it seems like the candidates themselves are just too perplexed or simply feel to restrained to point out the obvious. I realize that takes something away from the "job interview" concept. But it really isn't a job interview as much as it is a freak show at this point.

I know it's not very likely that TPTB will ever implement something like this but I think that bringing in some outsiders (maybe let them rotate or something) would spice things up a little. And, in my opinion, it would add some insight to the show (sort of like having a guest judge).

It really shouldn't end up as a shouting match, so I guess, they could let the 'advocates' ask questions instead of just letting them editorialize. Well, maybe I'm being to lawyerly here but personally, I would really like to see someone who points out some of the blatant "misrepresentations of the truth" that some of the candidates try to get away with. Not so much because I want to see them emberassed but because I want them to explain themselves.

[Just coming up with good responses to tough interview questions is not enough to convince me that a person belongs in the final 2. Tana impressed at least 2 of the interviewers, and look how badly she failed in her final task. ]

This is somewhat off current topic. The two interviewers that were in favor of Tana, must be very embarrassed for recommending her. They aren't your average Jane and John Doe - they are executives of the well-known companies, and their employees heard them recommend Tana and a week later, saw how badly their boss' protege performed in the last episode. I am wondering what DT is planning to do to mitigate the situation he dragged these execs into. He may have certain difficulty finding interviewers for his TA4, don't you think?

Yes, but they interviewed her before her terrible performance on the final task. They probably made some bizarre faces and screamed at the TV but they couldn't know what she'd do.

We might see Tana on QVC in the near future.

I don't know if someone mentioned this before, but I want a cross-border competition between US and Canada. I think it would be fun.

Fewer commercial breaks for the finale and return to how the first season was only live for the Reunion part of the show.

It was ridiculous that they split up the finale at an awkward moment (the 6 fired contestants going into the boardroom) and then did not even get those contestants' opinions until halfway through the last episode. And that was after 15 minutes of previouslies and 10 minutes of commercial breaks.

Definitely the finales need to be better executed in future seasons.

I would like to see them have each team do a task that would take more than just a day or so and maybe over several episodes, a reasonable amount of time, you get to see them working the task. After the task, which ever team loses, they are all fired and the remaining team is then broken into two and given a task that we get to see over several shows and it goes from there.

I'm tired of the PM getting fired because no one has an incentive to actually work. This would eliminate flying under the radar as well. It would also be nice if the boardrooms were more instructive and less about throwing poison darts.

ITA. I didn't really notice the commercial breaks because I had it TiVo'd. But it did seem very Letterman Lite (and - as previously mentioned - the whole fake TV courtroom stage setup looked kind of cheap).

One thing that I would like to see (kind of touching on my previous suggestion, I guess) in the finale is real live show elements. Let someone from the audience ask the candidates questions. Show the candidates excerpts from the show and let them explain themselves (like Tana on the Pontiac task -- would have loved to see her really explain that!). Have more interaction with the other candidates. Maybe ask the final two what they would have done differently on task X. You know, that kind of thing.

Bring back tasks where the winner is determined by revenue generated or profit made. These opinion based "wins" are too subjective.

Incorporate a "council" type vote into each boardroom and allow for that vote to be vetoed by Trump. I, for one, need to hear more of what these candidates think of each other. While most of the firings in season 1 and 3 were deserved, there was also far too many people that stuck around for too long. Omarosa, Kwaame, Alex, Chirs come to mind. I felt like the firings in all three seasons were too contradictory of each other.

Leave the big name product sponsors for the final task. The lemonade task may have seemed simple, but it gave us a working idea of who had a head for business as well as allowed us to learn more about each candidate.

Lose the reward footage as well as the reward all together. The reward is not getting fired.

Include a 2 minute bit from business professionals giving advice. Sort of like what they did in "Jerry Maguire." I don't know about anyone esle, but I learned a ton from season one and two. Season three? Nothing. I would have benefited from hearing all of Kendra's marketing ideas. I would have loved to watch her negotiate exclusivity (if, in fact, she really did and didn't just SAY that she did.) I'd like to see more of the back-end planning of tasks. Forget the superfluous petty stuff.

Me too. Well said, MediaGenius.

Instead of having interviews with random executives at the end, I'd like to see George and Carolyn interview each of the final 3 candidates, grilling them on their performance to date. They'd interview one candidate at a time, so we wouldn't be subjected to candidates bickering with each other.

It's a good thought for improvement, but those per-episode sponsorships are worth a couple of million each. Plus the "marketing" side of "The Apprentice" is becoming as important as the contest itself. In these days in which there are all kinds of ways to get around standard commercials, this is one feature of the show that is fixed. How else would anyone know about "Dove Body Wash - with green tea and cucumbers"?

It is unfortunate, but the show has become a "contest" built around product placements and sponsorships rather than a test of abilities that may involve challenges tied to certain brands and products.

That? Would be awesome. Who better to call people on their mistakes?

Although I'd prefer your suggestion, the lemonade task worked in the first season, but I don't think it would at this point in the show's development. People are far more aware of the show and therefore, the possibility of spoiling has increaed greatly. The presence of Carolyn or George, some hyper-competitive aspiring crapweasels, and cameras didn't mean much in the fall of 2003. Now, that combination = an Apprentice Task.

Not only that, but the rewards add so little value to the viewing. Out of around 50 rewards over 3 seasons, I can only think of a few juicy reward moments: Troy, Bill & Kwame at the casino; Raj, Anna Kournikova, Johnny Mac; Brian's inappropriate "enthusiasm" at dinner with Trump; Kendra's acknowledgement that probably only Craig deserved the reward. Show only the parts that are relevant to the game, show an important part of a contestant's personality or character arc, or that provide humor.

You know what I would like to see? At the beginning of each episode, I'd like to see a brief segment where Trump ranks all the remaining contestants with input from George and Carolyn.

I envision a big board like the ones we often see in the FBI office in movies, where it's a white board, and they put the pictures of the mobsters in a pyramid, with the boss on top.

This does a few things for me:
1. We get to see who Trump really likes, and who he hates. This way, we have yet another reason to think he's a crazy person.
2. It gives me some satisfaction that he is, in fact, taking into account overall performance, and not just who winked at him in the boardroom.
3. It would be another way to embarrass the candidates.
4. Lastly, it would take the place of any sort of points system in that it would rank the candidates for us, but not do away with the amusing/annoying Trump willy-nilly firing.

Excellent! And add video clips of them sayings stupid things like "I'm taking my exempt ass to bed" or whatever and make them explain it so they can't complain about editing. That's kind of how I imagine getting into heaven is going to be like -- a lot of 'splainin to do.

I took this from the Media Thread because I thought it would be more appropriate to discuss here.

I agree to some extent with both of these sentiments, much more with the first than the second.

I really want to see more qualified candidates. I don't think it's good thing for the show or Trump to show blatant dislike and disregard for the candidates. For me to enjoy the show, I need someone to root for, preferably more than one person. If I feel that the show just wants to make fools out of the players, that doesn't entice me to watch. It's a different thing when someone makes a fool of themselves.

OTOH, I do enjoy seeing someone get a deserved smackdown from Trump, Caolyn or George; but based upon something they did or said, not based on a general contempt. Trump seems to have developed a general contempt for many of the candidates in TA3. Some of it was deserved, some wasn't.

But even though some of the candidates should have never been there in the first place (and that also goes for the first two seasons), TPTB did select them, and Trump could have made a minimal effort to be polite in a professional way. I'm disgusted at much of Trump's behavior this season, as well as last season. I think he pulled a "Tana" in TA1. he seemed to be rather self-deprecating and nicer than I expected. Then in TA2 & 3 he became a raging asshole, and it wasn't pretty.

Since Trump has allegedly had a big hand in picking the people for TA4, we'll see what he considers quality candidates. Since he has bragged about how beautiful the women are, I don't have particularly high hopes. But I'll wait to see if he puts his money where his mouth is, or if TA4 is just filled with eye candy. That is, if I can stomach another season of Trump. I'll see how I feel in the fall. Maybe Martha's show will fill the gap.

Seriously. You can cast women based on how much you want to fuck them, but then you don't get to complain when they such at their jobs.

In the whole run of the show, there have been 5, maybe 6 (and I'm being very generous here) women who looked like they had the slightest clue what they were doing. And so when you decide to hire the token chick in season 3, the whole show looks pandering and fake( r) as a result. Because it's not like we can't see your utter loathing and contempt for women who aren't part of your cavalcade of Eastern European blowup dolls.

Yeah, I get that this is TV, not the read world. But if I have to look at Michael Tarshi and Raj, it won't kill you to cast a woman that might not make the Playboy crentrefold if she's smart and makes the show interesting.