I often find myself comparing the current batch of jerkweeds to the prior seasons' jerkweeds. I wonder if Troy could have convinced Andy to feed the poor bastards working late on his stupid Pepsi bottle. I wonder if Brian would have installed new seats on the rickshaws. I amuse myself thinking about Osamarosa dressed up like a clown.

Since these discussions can be a lot of fun, but often come up in the episode threads where they stray way off topic, I think we should give them a new home.

First up for me are these two:

Worst sexist asshole so far: John? Baldford? Other? For me, John's "fluffer" moment put him at the top of the list.

Random "my dad could kick your dad's ass" discussion: You know who would have handled Jennifer M's meaningless boardroom ranting and raving better than anybody in season two? Bren. His combination of logic and Southern-smarm would have picked her apart in a condescending way that would have made Trump stop praising her for "being really good". Kelly just sat there flabbergasted that Jennifer just kept talking, but saying nothing. I'm not saying that I like Bren better than Kelly (or that I even like Bren OR Kelly), but I really think that Bren would have disarmed Jenn, and I wish I could have seen it.




Added international versions comparisons into the mix; changed thread title slightly.

ITA with JTMacc99's observation that now that we're in Season 3, this topic needed its own home.

Personally, I think the TA3 crew is worse than the TA2 crew. The bad? Really bad. I think Rob and Baldford would smoke Danny and Brian any day of the week.

But even the good aren't that great. Other than Kendra, and possibly Tana, I don't see any of the current bunch that could "outperform" Bill, Troy, Nick, Kwame, or even Kelly, Jenn M., Kevin, or Sandy.

I agree. I think it's pretty much a straight line downhill from TA1. I'm already dreading what TA4 could bring.

I'm not sure about Bren and JennM, JTMacc99. IIRC, Jenn didn't say much in the Boardrooms at all (and what she did say was usually intelligent, IMO) - until the Jenn v Sandy shriekfests and then against Kelly in the finale. And by that point, she just yelled and interrupted regardless of what was being said; and since Trump seemed to enjoy the harpies and took the yelling and interrupting as "defending yourself," I'm not sure exactly what Bren could do to stop her.

Plus, I think the women of TA2 - Jenn and Ivana, in particular, but you could probably add in Smeagol, Maria and Sandy--very well might have torn Bren to shreds if he did try to pick her apart. As you say, he tends to talk in a very condescending way, and I can't see the women of TA2 putting up with that tone for a second. Another way, IMO, that the current crop is a level below last season.

I don't know, I just have this feeling that Bren would do really well in a debate with Jenn. I think it has to do with the way he dealt with Stephanie when he was the PM of the trailer task. She shot her mouth off about the job he was doing as PM, and basically tried to set him up as the reason for losing, should that happen. He took in what she was saying, and then backed her into her own corner.

That moment really hit me. I guess it was because I watched the entire season two bunch repeatedly set up each other to take the fall, and it seemed like no apprentice ever effectively put an end to it. (Trump called shrimp-boat on it, but I don't remember any apprentice ever stopping another one dead in his or her tracks like Bren did to Stephanie.)

For some reason, I think that Trump would actually listen to Bren's response, when he didn't really listen to Sandy or Kelly. It's something about the smarmy way Bren does it. I really think that after Trump got his jollies from listening to Jenn just shout her case at Bren, that he would also appreciate a well crafted, logical, but also insulting response from Bren. Trump clearly likes smart people, and even more, he likes a quality put-down.

That's pretty much why I think Bren would have done okay against Jenn. Jenn very well might be smarter than Bren, but I think Bren has certain qualities that would amuse Trump almost as much as Tall, Blonde, and Young.

I disagree that this season's crop is worse than last season's. It's just such a relief to see Apprenti that actually, you know, do the work that's assigned instead of aggresively seeking scapegoats from week to week.

I don't know... I guess some of the Season 2 folk could persevere due to flat-out Machavellian planning, but I'm still naive enough to hope that the workers would win out over the whiners.

Well, I certainly LIKE the season 3 people more.

It's possible that certain season 2 people, like Andy or Pamela, would have been much more successful as part of season 3's cast. I think both of them seem like decent people, and were certainly willing to work hard.

Exactly. People like little Stacy, Maria and Ivana seemed to put most of their energy into complaining rather than working. In terms of general personality, I prefer this season's group much more than season two's crop of Apprentices. In fact, the only people I ended up liking were some of the male candidates: Andy, Kevin and Raj. And John and Wes, more or less. That's about it. I didn't like any of the women, though I disliked some of them less than others. And I agree that Bren could have dealt quite effectively with the harpies, based on how he dealt with Stephanie, who has the most in common with the season 2 female candidates. Thank God there's been less need for that this time around.

Now, this season's crop is weaker on marketing abilities, and since so many tasks are marketing-related, that's a disadvantage. Also, even setting aside the BookSmart/StreetSmart dividing-up of the teams, the overall level of education is lower this season. There's only four candidates with post-baccalaureate degrees, and one of them (Alex) earned his law degree in the last year. Last season, seven of the candidates had post-BA degrees. Then, looking at the majors, only three of the BookSmarts crew have business-related degrees (Stephanie, Todd and Verna), unlike last season where nine of the candidates had business degrees. And only one candidate (Verna) has an MBA, unlike last season where there were four candidates with MBAs (Pamela, Kevin, Kelly and Stacie J.). So, undoubtedly, the season 2 candidates were better prepared, on the whole. But I still just didn't like most of them.

I loved the majority of the season 1 cast. I did not like Omarosa! Season 2, I feel had the best education. I liked most of the men, especially Wes, Andy, Chris, and Kevin. I think the season 3 cast are the weakest as far as education goes. There are a few who I am rooting for, but no one person stands out.

I find that Networth is much more entertaining than either Apex or Mosaic were last season, but Magna is less entertaining than either team in season 2. Also I found the boardrooms to be much more intense in season 2. This season the boardrooms have been rather humdrum.

I thought Apex (both pre and post restructure) was the most fun team to watch out of the 6 so far. Magna (pre restructure) is by far the most boring because all of them with the exception of two people suck. Edit: So is Networth, come to think of it. By this time in the season last year, Stacy R had 70 pages worth of discussion and I'm not sure whether you'll end up with a number larger than that if you added up the total discussion pages of all the Season 3 candidates.

Seems like there are less and less people to root for with each season.

Personally, I can't see rooting for any of the obnoxious trolls from Season 2. Jen M had me on her side for a little while (until she showed her true colors), and I liked Wes, but other than that, those people were just utterly unappealing to me. The show went from "May the best businessperson win" to just another reality game show in a big hurry due to most of those folks, especially once Pam and Bradford were fired.

I'm glad to see the focus back on hard work and business savvy this season, even if some of the candidates are a little bland and the overall level of education is lower than in previous seasons. As Jen M proved, a high level of education doesn't automatically make you a worthy candidate, and conversely I don't think the lack of a fancy post-grad degree means all that much, if you're willing to work hard.

I guess it's okay to use these boards as an indication of overall interest. I actually think that Season 2 generated so much interest because of the wildly popular Season 1. Similarly, the awful stinkfest that was Season 2 clearly killed almost all of the enthusiasm for Season 3.

I would have loved for John to say "I'll sell you these girls right now" with Omarosa and Heidi in the room.

Stacy R may have generated 70 pages of discussion, but that doesn't mean that people were rooting for her. Probably about 50 pages consisted of pleas (threats, complaints, prayers, etc.) "to get her off of my television screen, PLEASE!" Few people supported her, and most people wanted her gone ASAP: she was a irritant, and irritants generate a response, but not a positive response. Troy is probably the most popular candidate in the series, but his thread is 49 pages long as of today, shorter than little Stacy's, which seems somehow sad to me. So, I don't think pages of discussion on a particular candidate means that there's more support for that candidate, and more often, it means the opposite, as witnessed by the length of Assorama's thread.

Also, the individual episodes this season are generating about 22-40 pages of comments, which is about standard.

I realize that one thing I'm enjoying this season is the absence of Assoramas or Stacy Rs, and most of all, last season's incessant bickerfest.

ITA with the above post. I only started watching season 3 after TWOP assured me it was not the scream fest that was season 2.

I think that this show is all about stunt casting. Are we supposed to believe that Brian, Danny and Chris are the best out of one million people? It would be boring to watch responsible and sane people complete tasks, there would be no drama. However, I don't see how Trump can say with a straight face that they are the best of the best.

I'm enjoying TA3 much more than TA2.

And I hate Baldford almost as much as I hate John. I hate John more because he had me rooting for him in the beginning, and then he turned into such a sexist jerk. I hated Baldford from the moment he opened his mouth.

Well, hyperbole is his thing: if he couldn't inflate and bluster, he probably couldn't speak. Apprentices may change from season to season, but Trump's exaggerations stay the same.

Princess PJ said Same here. I'd be just as happy to forget Season 2 ever existed; by the end, I couldn't care less who won.

Like Wicked, I'm enjoying this season much more, largely because I'm finding a handful of the contestants actually...likeable, or at least approaching normal. And this season the firings have all been justified (so far, anyway), whereas last season the bootings were so arbitrary it was infuriating.

Yes, that's what I've been thinking too. Even Danny, the oddball character, or Audrey, the kookoo-mixed-up character, have some relatable qualities. Also, I only actively dislike three candidates--Kristin, Michael and now John--and that's saying something, considering that during last season, I actively disliked half of the candidates, most of them women, sorry to say. This is where I differ, because I didn't see the firings last season as arbitrary, except for the ganging-up on Stacie. I had no problem with Baldford's firing and surprising even myself, I agreed with Trump's reasoning: Baldford made an incredibly stupid, rash decision that showed that he totally misread the situation, and particularly, his place in the pecking-order. The main difficulty I had with Pamela's firing was the timing: I don't think she would have fit into the Trump organization anyway, and so she would have been fired eventually; also, I admired her willpower and intelligence, but she had a gift for sticking her foot in her mouth.

The rest of the firings, well, I would have liked to see Ivana, Jenn C., Maria, Elizabeth and little Stacy fired en masse, but once I accepted the unreality of that wish, I was content to see them fired one by one, even if I had to put up with them longer than I wanted to. Last season, the incessant bickering, complaining and screaming created a murky situation where, to be honest, there were so many potential firees during any given boardroom that I would have to

The one firing I was ticked off about was Andy's, and that's because Trump couldn't tell the difference between a debate and a screechfest. Sandy was a good worker and an energetic person, but once she learned that raising her voice impressed Trump, she did it at every occasion; however, she really needs to work with a coach who will teach her to argue effectively. Trump, in one of his most bozoish moments yet, decided that Jenn M. and Sandy have "out-debated" Andy. Pah! That was a screaming match, not a debate, and Andy was smart to stay out of it. Anyway, now that I've gotten that off my chest . .

But the firings on this show are 90% about the timing. Only one person's going to win, so the only thing the other 15-17 people have to bank on is how long they last. While Trump may have had a valid reason to fire Pam at some point, he most certainly didn't have a valid reason to fire her then. What was infuriating about it was that competant, capabale Pam got outlasted by the likes of Maria, Ivana, and Stacy-freakin'-R. How humiliating and wrong.

One of the great things about this season is how Trump and Viceroys seem to "get it" again. Games aren't entertaining if they don't seem fair.

Exactly. I think the Viceroys are back in Season 1 form so far this season. Their comments have been dead-on accurate about the reasons for the various losses and sometimes even demonstrate keen insight and business acumen. What a delightful surprise after most of S2 saw Carolyn just mindlessly agreeing with whatever crap came out of Trump's mouth.

Well, I think that they are just like us. They seem to actually like some of these people, and therefore the experience is probably more enjoyable for them.

I like S3 way better than S2 -- mostly because the women of S2 seemed less like professionals and more like actress/model wannabes. The S3 people seem a little more real professionals on both teams.

I couldn't care less who won S2 because everyone was backstabbing pigs 100% of the time. At least S1 & S3 have people who bonded at least a little and who can put pettyness aside occasionally. Please let the women this season act like business women and not like whores playing dress up (Ivana).

For me, it's not a matter of liking the TA3 contestants more than TA2's. It's a matter of hating them less. But I still hate 'em. Well, hate is a strong word, but I certainly hav=ve no favorites and that's what sucks. I could be bothered to root for any of these people because they have all be edited as fairly boob-tastic.

There has yet to be a great idea, yet to be an underdog, yet to be any real great boardroom. It's just been boring. And that's mainly due to the candidates.

I honestly felt as though the TA2 women were far more driven and intelligent. Sure, they were also imbalanced (and I'm sensitive to that) but , god damn, that's what made them fun to watch!

The tasks have eroded into blatant product placement ads and have little to no point. It's about how much money you raise. And when the TA3 peopel ARE assigned atask based on some sort of merit other than financial (i.e. creative) they just tank. This crop of peopel can not be "the best" of what they saw. It's just unpossible (TM Ivana)

The problem is, TA3 people have seen TA1 or TA2, so now many of them just slink around and refuse to take a risk.

And if my instincts are right and Erin makes into the final two, then this show will oficcially slip into camp/joke status.

I personally enjoy Season 3 a bit more then Season 2, but I still think both are miles behind Season 1.

The first season somehow manage to be almost perfect. They had likeable people who were smart (Bill, Troy, Kwame) and had the perfect villian (Omarosa), who was evil, but you could tell she had some intelligence.

The other seasons seem to have problems balacning that out. There are more likeable contestants in Season 3 then Season 2, but I haven't seen anything out of them. I'm rooting for Kendra pretty much by default. People like Bren and Erin can be entertaining to some, but what have they done besides think up cucumber commericals and flirt with Trump? The rest are just bleh.

I hated most of the Season 2 cast, but I really did think people like Kelly, Kevin, and even Jen M. were smart. They just weren't nice people.

That being said, this season the firings do make sense. Besides the Pamela, Stacie J, and Baldford firings (but I did agree with the Baldford one), there were other annoying ones as well. I didn't like Trump firing Raj, because Raj had shown he had a lot more to offer then Ivana. I didn't like Any getting fired for the wrong reason. And Kevin and Sandy kind of shafted.

Basically, this season I'm kind of bored sometimes, but at least I don't want to chunk things at the television. And at least I am rooting for Kendra because I like her; unlike last season were I just decided that Kelly was the lesser of two evils.

I'm just hoping that TPTB manage to find another good cast next time around. The show isn't broken, it just needs some fixing. There won't be another Troy, Bill, Kwame, etc, but they can find likeable people. Survivor is making a comeback, because of people like Tom and Ian. The Apprentice should be able to do that. Hell, they could get Boston Rob. Rob might as well try out for this show as well.

Somehow, season I managed a semblance of novelty, surprise, likeability (even loving to wait out O's demise) and most of all, there was a true feeling that the winner did desire the apprenticeship with TD. Ok, I'm a dreamer.

Yes, Heidi and Erin got on my nerves, but they were fully rounded. Bitchfests abound in the corporate world, at all levels, so this didn't bother me.

Season two felt rushed, slimmey, outright dragging viewers in the mud and everything else that might be around. Not only was there no one to root for or against, I just wanted out;there was a sense of home invasion...who were these people and where did they come from? Better yet, who the hell judged them appropriate candidates?

If I wanted to watch Jerry Springer, I'd watch Jerry Springer, but it seemed as if he had invaded TA and I waited for him to burst out of TD abdomen while in the boardroom.

Season III-definately an improvement from last year; that said, the "you can never go home again" is obviously true.

I wish TPTB would decide whether they want to be an all out game show or truly be aiming for business skills. Once this is resolved, then the show can settle in to it's final identity imo.

we are a few weeks behind the US in viewing, so I'm steadfastly trying not to read the recaps until they air in Australia.

Although the candidates in TA3 can seem a bit boring, overall they are much better IMO than season two.

So far I'm liking Angie, Tana, and Alex. Kendra seems ok too but I haven't seen much of her. And I have to say, it is *such* a pleasant change to have likable women on this show. The only reason people have forgotten the shrews of season one is because the harpies of season two were so much worse.
(For the most part I am exempting Amy from this, but she never got that being attractive and selling sex are two different things, and one is not appropriate in a board room.)

I wish the product placement tasks would go, they are no fun. It would be much better to see them selling lemonade on a street corner again. But I guess you can't get a sponsor to pay for that, can you?

I also wish that Troy had been brought back as a contestant for the Street Smarts team. He rocks :D

I agree. I think the main problem of S2 was the attitude taken by Trump and the Viceroys--if they had slapped down the right people at the right times, the season never would have become the grotesque spectacle it ended up. But Trump was outright condoning the shrieking fights, and Carolyn seemed to hate the contestants so much that she ended up sometimes seeming as annoying and hyperbolic as the Wannabes.

But now that they're back on track, I'm finding that they don't have much to work with (or against). The S3 bunch is IMO a bunch of dullards who haven't brought much to the party--their ideas aren't great or even interesting, their mistakes so eye-rollingly obvious that when the Viceroys call them out for it, my reaction is along the lines of "Well, duh."

As unbalanced as someone like Maria was last season, she showed more in the space of that one fashion episode than I think any S3 candidate has shown in total. I can't imagine anyone in S3 being able to PM that task as well, or even as well as Mosaic did, and I can't believe I've said something positive about Maria...

Maria lucked out thanks to the fashion designer she chose.

Season 2 was sometimes easier to watch than season 3 because I didn't give a shit about most of the losers in season 2. I could HATE HATE HATE them and laugh when they went down in flames. When you are a completely embittered observer who enjoys the stock cars toppling over, you don't have to put forth any effort. That's fun in the short-term but by the end of the season, I felt degraded. Seeing Pamela in that final task, doing ALL the work while a world class shirker (Jen) couldn't even master one simple conversation or handshake -- it was heartbreaking. It was the antithesis of everything The Apprentice was supposed to be about.

I don't care about education, I just care about people who can stand up for themselves, work hard, have a modicum of humor, and are multidimensional. That's what I like about this season. The layers. It isn't always pretty to see meltdowns and psychotic breaks, but I feel like I can relate to even Chris better than I related to most of the season 2 Rastan Death Robots.

The first half of the season was increasingly unwatchable, with the Tara firing episode being the watershed (I really had a difficult time getting through that episode, from boredom at the task, and then anger at what happened to Tara), but things rebounded with Audrey and John's meltdowns and the shadings this brought out in their teams. What I'm happiest about is that I actually want people to win. I'm not just rooting for people to get fired and see themselves humiliated on national TV. I want Angie, Kendra and Tana to do well. I even find myself agreeing with Chris or Bren or Alex sometimes. I don't think Bren or anyone could have handled the Apexonyourhouses because they only cared about destroying everything in their path to survive another boardroom. They were toxic waste and they were one of the biggest reasons season 2 was agony.

The women, and their clothes, are far and away better, LEAGUES better, than just about every female in the first two seasons combined IMHO. They are far more diverse, their relationships are more complicated, and they don't dress like refugees from a Madonna video.

For me, the only real difference is that Season 1 had a handful of outstanding candidates who have blotted out the mediocre or weak candidates like Jessi, Tammy, Heidi, the guys who got fired in the first two episodes, Katrina . . . I'm still puzzled about how Heidi managed to make it into the final six, and I'm REALLY glad that Gene Simmons didn't make an appearance in Season 1, because when I think of Heidi and Gene Simmons in the same room, ew!!! Personally, I consider the absence of an Assorama to be a good thing. So, it would be great to have a two or three top-notch candidates to throw into the mix next season, but so far, I'm enjoying this season.

I have to say, I like watching Apprentice again this season. Last season I didn't want any of them to win; I just wanted some to lose more than others. It wasn't like sesaon one, where I was rooting for two or three people, and respecting two or three more (and all of the final four fit into one of those categories...Nick was a bit of a tool, but still a decent contestant imo). Season Two? Was just an hour a week devoted to getting my hate on.

This season? I'm way rooting for Kendra. I'm rooting for Angie, too. And I like Tana, and Craig, and Alex, just fine (so far, of course). It's just more fun for me to root for people as well as against them.

the one firing i enjoyed most was the firing of andy.

while it may not have been a "formal" debate, with a moderator, andy absolutely was out-thought, as sandy's criticisms of both jen and andy's lies were spot-on and factually true and correct, andy basically went in there and lied about sandy's performance, lied about sandy's contribution, lied about not having an alliance. there's nothing smart about lying.

if anyone needs a debating coach, it's andy. when george asked andy "why didn't you tell sandy you made the decision" andy response "i wanted to tell jennifer she was stronger" was completely preposterous, and sandy's response "so she can back you up?" was a spot-on counterpoint. Andy didn't explain his decisions with any credibility. Good on Sandy to reveal that--given she had no preparation, I was very impressed, Sandy obviously thinks very well on her feet.

andy so deserved that ass-riping.

The one firing I was ticked off about was Sandy's, and that's because Trump couldn't tell the difference between a debate and a screechfest. Once Jen M learned that raising her voice impressed Trump, she did it at every occasion; however, she really needs to work with a coach who will teach her to argue effectively. Trump, in one of his most bozoish moments yet, decided that Sandy have "out-debated" by jen when jen made complete b.s nonsense about "moving across the country to get a 6-figure salary is a risk" and "going to Princeton is a risk" and "Sandy clear walks around feelign inferior" and "all you do is mock that". Jen wouldn't let Sandy get a word in edgewise, That was a screaming match, not a debate, but Sandy should class and restraint in how she conducted herself. Anyway, now that I've gotten that off my chest .

I'd like to compare Omarosa of Season 1 to Kristen of Season 3. They have a lot in common - making accusations about fellow castmembers, and they both have delusions of grandeur and an overinflated sense of their own importance.

I hadn't thought much about Omarosa lately until reading Kristen's Fishbowl interview. As awful as Omarosa was, I think Kristen is even worse. Though many will disagree with me, I think Omarosa is the more human of the two. I had almost forgotten it, but in one of the early episodes of TA1 (maybe the first episode?) Omarosa took Tammy aside and tried to help her by telling her that some of the others had a problem with her. I believe it was about Tammy going off and eating lunch.

Of course, Omarosa did so many heinous after that, so it's hard to remember that she once showed a glimmer of humanity.

Omarosa got caught in a trap of her own making. She'd lie or exaggerate about something, then would continue to lie to try to make the first untruth plausible.

Some of the memories have faded a bit, but IIRC, Omarosa never came out and said Ereka called her the N-word until she was asked point-blank on The View by the odious Star Jones. Prior to that, she only referred to "the pot calling the kettle black" comment and hinted that more serious things were said behind the scenes. Although the pot/kettle comment probably did have some negative racial connotations when it was first coined, most people don't use it that way today. I know I have used it, along with many other black people I know.

This is just my theory, but I think upon reflection, Omarosa realized how ridiculous she appeared by making such a big deal over a passing comment. To make herself look less foolish, she started suggesting that worse things had been said, but was never specific. But when put on the hot seat by Star Jones, she said the N-word had been used.

I don't think Omarosa ever really intended to come right out and say that, or to try to ruin Ereka's reputation. Let me make it clear that I'm not trying to justify what she did in any way. But I understand why she did it. I've seen it again and again - someone tells a lie or makes a mean comment. Instead of coming clean right away or apologizing, they tell another lie, and it becomes progressively harder to own up to the truth. I've personally found it easier to tell the truth, because it is too exhausting to try to keep lies straight. But Omarosa appears to be someone who will say anything to try to make herself look good, not realizing that most people can see through lies.

She showed signs of this with the falling plaster. I don't doubt that she had a small lump and a headache for a day or so. But she exaggerated her injuries and slacked off work to such a degree and probably felt that she had to keep up with the charade. That was a really missed opportunity. Had she worked her ass off after that little accident, she might have earned some grudging respect from viewers and really become "The villain you love to hate" instead of just being hated.

From what little I've heard of Omarosa lately (I've tried to avoid news about her), she's embraced the villain role. But I suspect it's because she has no choice. Through her terrible behavior on the show, especially doing her best to ruin Kwame's chances in the finale, she really ruined her own reputation. I don't think that people in the fields she'd really like to be in, like politics or hosting a talk show, will really consider her. She's become a joke, and gigs on shows like Fear Factor are the best she can do. She lost the chance to gain the respect that I think she secretly craves in her heart of hearts.

I didn't think that anyone could surpass Omarosa for sheer awfulness until Kristen came along. Some of the bitches in TA2 were pretty bad, but most of them are lightweights compared to Kristen. Her post-show activities show her to be even more hateful that Omarosa. I'm not a fan of Audrey's, but Kristen's accusations about her behavior on the show are just disgusting. Especially the way Kristen slings mud, then says, "But I don't know this for a fact."

Well, if she doesn't know something for a fact, why is she saying anything at all about the matter? Moreso than even Omarosa, this is one hateful, delusional woman, who is trying to deliberately ruin the reputation of a fellow contestant. And the insults she's flinging at Donald Trump make Omarosa look like an amateur. At this rate, she may be the first contestant (that I know of) to be slapped with a lawsuit (slander or libel, I'm not sure which applies in this case).

IMO, she's outdone Omarosa in a very short period of time in the contest of who can do the most damage to their own image in the wake of their appearance on the show. She strikes me as one of those people who will never back down from a perceived wrong, but I think that will eventually prove to be her undoing.

I agree, especially about the rushed part. Maybe it's because they have 2 more candidates each in S2 and S3. In the first ep of S1, there was a short introduction for each of the candidates with little clips of them in their everyday life and they each got to introduce themselves to Trump in the boardroom, telling him a little about themselves. This helped me sort them out very quickly, and I was able to see firsthand how they communicated in a business setting. For these past two seasons, they've jumped right into the task, and our only clues to their identities are the first-name labels put on the screen when they do a confessional. Since the camera is mostly focused on the soon-to-be loser, it's hard to feel like I'm getting to know anyone until right before they're axed.

My memory is that Sandy's performance on that task was fairly weak. Her main responsibility seemed to be designing the label, and her segment of the presentation to the Pepsi staff was so-so: she struggled to explain their promotional vision. From what I recall, her issues seemed in the boardroom were primarily with Jenn, not Andy, and no, whatever the merit of her points, I was not impressed by her argumentative style, particularly her tendency to over-personalize issues.

Season 1 is still head-and-shoulders above the other two. Tasks were won by teams that, for the most part, actually worked together. They came up with clever and creative solutions to the tasks.

Season 2 was crap. The highlights of the season were not related to task performance, but to the depths to which the vile harpies would go (capped by the awful, degrading drop trou incident). Interesting, yes. Impressive, no.

Season 3 is better than Season 2, in at least I don't hate everyone. Still, it lacks some truly unique, extraordinary performances. Teams are winning tasks by getting out-sucked by the other, not by excelling. There's a glimmer of hope that Tana or Kendra may actually be competent, but that's not enough for me. I would like to be awed by some of the ideas, the way I was during Season 1.

I think part of the problem - for me at least - is that most of the tasks are so boring.

There is nothing like the Great Scavenger Hunt through New York City from Season 1, in which teams had to display ingenuity and bargaining abilities. There is nothing like the Market Stall day where they had to be creative and really entrepreneurial in their approach. Even selling lemonade was more interesting than most of what we saw in Season 2 and so far in Season 3.

Sponsored tasks have really killed it, and I suspect that is why we see so much less of the actual tasks than we did in season 1. Sure, even 2nd task in season 1 was a new Trump product but that was par for the course really. It gave me opportunities to laugh at Trump. And it was better than Nescafe / Pepsi / whatever the liquid soap product was.

I don't think that what Sandy did was professional or even a good strategy, but I think she thought at that point she was as good as fired, so she had nothing to lose. Trump even said after they left that he thought she was gone until she showed him how much spunk she had. Although it was annoying how Trump dumped on Andy for being outscreeched, I don't think it was Sandy's intention to "outdebate" Andy, as Trump kept saying. She was just venting because she thought it was already over for her, and venting, by nature, is often personal. I don't think she even imagined it was going to save her. I almost wish she had been fired after that, because I'm still waiting for the day someone gets fired and really blows their top. But Tobacco Chris is giving me hope...

ITA The sponsor tasks are all alike - take this totally mundane product and sell it. None of the contestants were chosen for their creative genius, so the resulting campaigns are predictably blah. Yawn.

This is SO very true. Sponsorship placement has replaced any interesting aspect of figuring out how to accomplish a successful outcome on a task. Like you, divaflip, I actually MISS tasks like the Great Scavenger Hunt and the Flea Market Stall Thingy. At the time I was wailing about giving those (much more professional, IMHO) candidates tasks that were more challenging and showed their management & leadership skills. Wow! Never thought at the time I'd be wishing I could watch Crazyeyed Sam trying to sell a cup of lukewarm lemonade for a grand....just to keep from falling asleep watching These bozos market This Week's Sponsor over & over.

Yawn.

You mean Kelly's Hole in the Bottle idea in the Pespi task wasn't creative?

Just kidding. I do think that is one of the problems. This season, one of the best task (in my opinion) was the motel task, becasue there wasn't really any sponsors (besides Yahoo). It was just the group trying to clean up a motel and it was hilarious. Season 2 best task probably was the ice cream task, because it as less about the sponsor and more about the groups just trying to sell the damn ice cream. But the most boring episode were episodes like the coffee task this season and the Mattel task in season 2. They just weren't that good.

Only product placement that works, is Trump products. Trump Ice episode was a good example. It's just amusing watching Trump pimp his own stuff without any shame. Other products aren't as fun.

Other complaint:

They do need to step it up with the rewards. Most are boring as hell. The only entertaing ones was the one when Raj was forced to run around in his underwear and the one were Bill, Troy, and Kwame got to stay at the casino. Because where else can you her Bill yell "Boo-Yah!", Troy scream "Penthouse Baby!" and Kwame declaring "This is some Pimped out Rap Video Shit!" I swear, that was priceless.

Good point. TPTB are putting too many parameters around the tasks. They've over-defined the tasks.

The Scavenger Hunt was pretty free-wheeling and allowed us to see prioritization and time managment as well as ingenuity and bargaining abilities.

On Market Stall Day, the teams had to pick their products and marketing approach. They didn't have Nescafe or Dove handed to them.

Even the Burger King task this season didn't allow them to invent a new burger. BK gave them a choice of five burgers. It would have been more interesting to see them create the new burger and then sell it.

The ice cream task in S2 had more creativity than the Nescafe, M-azing, or Dove tasks. The teams had to create the flavor from scratch first and sell it both on the street and to local businesses.

Although there is a certain amount of logic in having them sell existing products - that's a large part of Marketing (not all marketers get a hand in designing a product) - there are too many of those tasks the past two seasons. There was no essential difference in the Dove task, the motel task, the Nescafe task, the Gran Turismo task, and the mini-golf task. Take a product we'll give you, develop a selling/marketing approach, and put it into action within pre-set parameters (build commercial, decorate hotel, build event, build billboard, build arcade game, use this space, target this demographic, etc.). The Airstream task was the only one in which teams were really challenged to create from scratch.

Instead of mini-golf, why not have them create a booth/arcade/carny of their own design/creation? Sales, games, golf - whatever they come up with.

That said, the creativity displayed by the candidates has really gone downhill the past two seasons. Instead of a circus in a park for the Nescafe task, why not go down into the subway, into the bus terminal, or into the ferry terminal, and hand out free coffee (if that crap can be considered coffee) to arriving commuters. And not just coffee: hats, office chotchkees (cubicle clips, pens, etc.). Unless they were restricted to the park - again, too many restrictions.

Season 1 was by far the best. Season 3 is better than 2 as far as enjoyable to watch, but I don't find myself connecting with the apprentices. As bad as season 2 was, I miss it. I liked the guys (Pam included) team. They had their fights, but in the end winning was their goal. I hated the way the women hounded each other. Season 3 had better have a good finale, or Trump/Burnett will loose many viewers.

yeah, continually having to sell new Trump products was great. Each new 'greatest xxx in the world' claim left me in hysterics. the whole Trump Ice thing was fantastic :D

Y'all have defined for me one of the Big reasons the show is becoming more boring every week. I couldn't really put my finger on it before we started talking about these "Product Placement Tasks", but this really is SO repetitious!

And, what's worse....none of these "brilliant" businesspeople seem to be able to come up with a more creative marketing plan than handing out paper flyers on the street!! That is just mind-boggling to me!

Sandy's experienced idea of the bridal website and Kendra's excellent idea of partnering with other businesses in the area were SO refreshing! Kendra's idea almost made me wake up to watch the task this season.

Or skip the rewards! Reward them by turning off the cameras for a day!

The rewards segment has been boring and pointless - in every season. It's not like there aren't other good uses for the time - for one thing, they could edit the BR so the conversations make sense.

The rewards should probably just be good food and drink. Send the winning team out to a nice restaurant or something, and for God's sake, leave the camera's at home. Generally speaking, the couple times they've done this, the contestants seemed content. Sure, it's no shopping spree for diamonds, but it beats the hell out of meeting with a boring old guy or being stuck in the apartment with Michael making pizza and strutting around like Fat Bastard talking about how right-sexy he is.

OMG! Too Right!

I agree that making the reward a nice, Relaxing dinner at a great restaurant would be a great reward for several reasons. First, it seems that, for the most part, the contestants have not been native NYers and would love the opportunity to dine at NYC's best places. Plus, with the cameras off, it would be a great time to bond with fellow team members, get to know each other better, or even smooth some ruffled feathers before a situation blows up.

Yeah, the diamonds & pearls were exciting to a fashionista like myself, but, for the purpose of the show, it is yet another product placement opportunity. These ppl all talk about the lack of sleep, exhaustion, tension created by no down time & constant cameras in your face, even lack of proper food in the suite. If TPTB really Cared about the contestants welfare, a relaxing, non-camera dinner at a nice place would be a Super reward.

Meh, hard to root for someone who was kept hidden until half way through the season. At least in season 1 we were exposed to all of them right away, up front. We got an idea of who these people were and whether or not we liked them.

By season 2 we had no clue about Sandy, Stacy R, Wes, Chris and JenM until mid way through the season.

This season we got all the annoying candidates thrust in our faces for the first 6 episodes, so by then many people were so disguested they checked out.

Yeah Kendra's rational and has come up with great ideas - but, really, isn't she supposed to do that? Isn't that why she was chosen for this show? You know the format has lost it's appeal when we're actually surprised/happy when one of these peopel does something professional and shows good business sense.

None of these people. NOT ONE. Has shown any level of exceptional/real skill. None of 'em. Noen of them has shown us exactly why they were chosen for this show, other than they're all deficient/cluless/obnoxious in some way.

At least in season 1 and maybe even season 2 we could understand why Katrina, Amy, Bill, Kwaame, Troy, Heidi, Kevin, Kelly, Andy, Pamela etc. were selected.