TWoP Forums > 4-2: "There's No 'I' In Team" 2005.9.29

Full Version: 4-2: "There's No 'I' In Team" 2005.9.29

TWoP Forums > Current TWoP Shows > The Apprentice > The Apprentice General Gabbery

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Character Zero

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:26 am

i will throw in my 2 cents.
Markus is stupid. yes this is true. even though he brought up "smooth as silk", he at least dropped it after it was shot down. and even if he can't control traffic, it had nothing to do with them losing. and had the PM broght in Mark we would have been walking back to the suite. i don't think this is a case of the PM being the scapegoat. he totally missed Trump's (not) subtle hints to bring in Mark. if he can't catch that he needs to go. wait until Markus actually costs them the task and then call him out and fire him. Its getting too personal with these "this person is disruptive" firings. I believe there is such a thing as teamwork, but there is also bad descisions. yes he was annoying but that didn't cause the "I" to go from upper case to lower case. and he actually pointed out the "envy" confusion. sometimes there are cases when a team member does disrupt to the point of not being able to effectivly complete a task, but i don't think it applies to this one. i would like to think Trump will fire the person responsible for the loss, not the person no one likes.

Forsquilis

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:26 am

I know plenty of women who would have done ANYTHING to skate with some professional hockey players - so the reward was just fine.[/quote]
The problem is that we women who would like to skate with some pro hockey players, usually want to skate with SPECIFIC pro hockey players. Martin Brodeur, Stevie Yzerman (OK, enough about my fantasies). But...the Islanders? I can't even name a single Islanders player off the top of my head. I mean, suppose you were a football fanatic, and you were told your reward involved pro football and you got all excited, and then you were told you would be spending the afternoon playing with the Cincinnati Bengals. Would you still be as excited?

(And yes I know they're 3-0 right now, but Mike Brown will screw it up somehow.)

OK, topic...how did Chris manage to hide his total insanity so well? Because he had to be completely bonkers to decide it was a good idea to take Markus to the boardroom after Trump's explicit orders. Or did he want off the show like Chuck on TA:MS, but thought getting fired this way would bring him less grief than saying he wanted to quit?

ETA: "Humiligeddon". I love it. Rowsdower, do you mind if I start using this word?

Rowsdower

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:27 am

"Power ... Envy ... BLAH ... BLAH ... BLAH ... Lamborghini."[/quote]

That was just so far beyond embarassing, they haven't invented a word for it yet.

It was embarrasstropic. Demeanaclysmic. Humiligeddon.

Baby Fish Mouth

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:32 am

Previously they've bitched that PMs didn't marginilize bad players, now he's raking Chris over the coals about doing just that. The hell?"[/quote]

But Chris wasn't fired because he marginalized Markus. He was fired because he came up with a shitty advertising campaign, and then refused to acknowledge that his other creative person shared any blame for losing the task. Bringing someone into the boardroom because you don't like them is not a very good reason, and I think Trump & Co. have been pretty consistent about that.

Yeah, it seems unfair because in the long run we know that Chris would have made a better Apprentice than Markus. But if we judge on the individual merits of this task alone, it's a fair call.

Lily Bart

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:33 am

Markus is stupid. yes this is true. even though he brought up "smooth as silk", he at least dropped it after it was shot down.[/quote]

But he didn't drop it. Not until the Lamborghini guy shot him down.

It was embarrasstropic. Demeanaclysmic. Humiligeddon. [/quote]

Hee.

Character Zero

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:37 am

i am just saying had the Lamborghini guy not shot him down (if he hadn't brought it up in the meeting), we would have gone on and on about it during the entire task.

Princess PJ

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:41 am

If that was the tag line they were sticking to, why not show the car (in ANY other color BUT green) with the text "Your car." below it. Then, under that have a picture of several people tinted green with the caption, "Your neighbors." "Make 'em green with envy. Lamborghini."[/quote]

They wouldn't even need to mess with all that captioning if the tag line was, "Make 'em green with envy." Still short and to-the-point, but oh so much clearer than what they actually ended up with.

Mark needs to get off my screen, like, yesterday. He reminds me of some unholy combination of two of my most-hated bosses: the wanna-be graphic design "genius" who won't listen to anyone else, and the good-ol'-boy ex-jock who thought women were for typin'. Jesus.

Look Both Ways

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:43 am

That was just so far beyond embarassing, they haven't invented a word for it yet.

It was embarrasstropic. Demeanaclysmic. Humiligeddon. [/quote]

All good words. :)

Bathos (a real word) might cover it, too!

I agree, 100% with how horrifying it was. I had to cover my eyes and hold my ears. I was mortified for them.

erik316wttn

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:44 am

I don't understand next week's task. Is the X-Box going after the previously untapped geezer market or what?

Machiabelly

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:47 am

What I don't understand is how someone can understand that "Smooth as silk" is not good modern ad copy, but think that "green with envy." is. That isn't even a case of po-tay-toe po-tah-toe, it's po-tay-toe po-tay-toe

Rebirth of Italian Intimidation? Why not show a Lamborghini picking up John Gotti at his prison release...there's your Italian Intimidation being reborn. Plus, why not say the renaissance of Italian Intimidation, at least it is on theme.

Speaking of theme, that is where the women's ad was so much better then team penis. It may not have been a great theme, but it was one whole consistent thematic package. You know, like a real ad campaign done by grownups.

SmedIndy

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:49 am

To keep the F-1 analogies, Markus is like a Minardi - yet sometimes he finishes ahead of the better teams because they do something silly. Like Chris.

The problem is that we women who would like to skate with some pro hockey players, usually want to skate with SPECIFIC pro hockey players. Martin Brodeur, Stevie Yzerman (OK, enough about my fantasies). But...the Islanders? I can't even name a single Islanders player off the top of my head. I mean, suppose you were a football fanatic, and you were told your reward involved pro football and you got all excited, and then you were told you would be spending the afternoon playing with the Cincinnati Bengals. Would you still be as excited?[/quote]

Actually, yes I would. I would love to hang out with the Bengals, from Palmer and Rudi to their long snapper and punter. It would be great! And I know women who love the local minor league teams and their players as much as the 'big names'.

CaptainSnarky

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:54 am

He is far more polite than me:

DT: So, how did it go?

Randal: Well, my grandmother was still dead.[/quote]

Hilarious! Or, to borrow from Dorothy Szbornak: "It was a hoot. We closed the place."

Next week's episode looks like a disaster in the making. Can't wait!

Hickory

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:56 am

I thought for sure (wrongly, but for sure) that the men meeting with the car execs and the women not was foreshadowing that the women would lose, because we know what a hard-on this show has for proving the non-meeting to be the beginning of teams' demise.

sesstr

Sep 30, 2005 @ 10:56 am

Markus - Good grief this man grates to no end! I just want to reach through the screen, grab him by the neck and shake him until he snaps out of that muddled hypnosis. "Smooth as silk"?!! The cliche-est of all cliche expressions to advertise the most unique car in the world?

Plus, is 'silk' a concept men - the primary target audience - would be interested in? And then to go ahead and mention it when he was forbidden to do so by the PM? Markus shouldn't just have been fired - he should have been rocket propelled instantly from that conference room and dropped into the nearest Bed & Bath so that he could check out the silk section.

George, the reason a team member is sidelined is not irrelevant. What kind of logic is that?

The women's little skit was silly and corny but kind of cute. The video had flashes of briliance. The woman who came up with the 'permission' line ought to be in advertising.

Marshawn - huh? Paging Marshawn, hello, is this thing on? Did she not learn from Season 3, the 1st episode with fast food service, that a PM should never separate him or herself and ruminate about great thoughts while the others are working.

I don't know about what she did off-screen and can only go by what we see. After all, maybe Markus had a brilliant idea off-screen too. And if she was involved, I don't see why it would be deliberately cut out.

I think the only reason Alla and the others voted for Marshawn's immunity is because they didn't want to seem vindictive. It wasn't that her leadership was a disaster - it just seemed absent. I'm pretty sure that had they lost, the women wouldn't have been as forgiving.

Alla - awesome! She takes her Russian princess outfit but obviously doesnt' forget the brain. Hey, it isn't for no reason the Russians went to space first.

PittsburghDiva

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:01 am

For his lousy ad, lousy presentation--and, especially, for his ineptness as a manager in not explaining very well why Markus was detrimental to the team, over and over--I felt Chris deserved the firing.[/quote]

ITA. That, and his blatant stupidity to bring only Marcus in despite Trump giving him several chances not to.

Chris is *in* advertising, and that was the best they could come up with?

Rebirth of Italian Intimidation? Why not show a Lamborghini picking up John Gotti at his prison release[/quote]

Or Mussolini rising from the dead.

blackwing

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:08 am

I'm still not sure if I understand the difference between this week and last. Last week, the women's team had a horrible idea. One team member was consistently disruptive. They didn't lose because of the negative team member, they lost because of their porno XXX marketing campaign. The person who was disruptive got fired. Why didn't the person who came up with XXX get fired, since that made more of a difference than a negative comment here and there.

This week, the men's team had a horrible idea. One team member was consistently disruptive. They didn't lose because of the disruptive team member, they lost because of the poor campaign. And yet, not only does the disruptive member not get fired, but he gets praised for being right?

I agree that Chris got fired because he tried to pin responsibility for the loss on Markus and gave Mark a pass. However, when George got on Chris' case for marginalizing Markus and then blaming Markus for the loss, I think Chris should have said, "I attempted to marginalize Markus because he proved to be disruptive. However, despite my attempt to do so, Markus continued to interject his opinions and the entire team spent a lot of energy combatting him. I told him not to suggest "smooth as silk" as a slogan and two minutes later, he suggested it to the Lamborghini exec. He was consistently disruptive and I think the fact that he openly pointed out his dislike of our campaign to the exec, even before we knew whether we won or lost, shows that he is not a team player. I admit we didn't come up with a great campaign, but perhaps we would have been a lot more cohesive as a team if we didn't have one person who so consistently disrupted the project."

nubbs

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:10 am

I don't understand next week's task. Is the X-Box going after the previously untapped geezer market or what? [/quote]

Yes, GTG, (Grand Theft Geezer). You have to negotiate the aisles of a supermarket in your motorscooter.

Therixter

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:19 am

I loved the leap of linear-thinking faith required by the SMOOOOOTH segue to the reward (paraphrasing here): "Your project dealt with one of the fastest cars on the planet, so your reward will deal with some of the fastest guys on skates." FAST car, FAST skater? Purple Monkey Dishwasher? What? TPTB just need to stop trying to tie the reward to the project (unless there's an obvious tie-in, like if they had done those loops around the racetrack reward they did with Ivana's group a couple seasons back)

Italian Sports Car:Hockey as my shoe:crossword puzzle. I mean, there's a connection there somewhere, but why and who cares?

I'm surprised they didn't think of THIS reward: "You breathed some air during this project dealing with one of the fastest cars around, so your reward is to breath some MORE air while I make you a milkshake!"

Trumpasaurus. You crack me up.

erik316wttn

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:21 am

Yes, GTG, (Grand Theft Geezer). You have to negotiate the aisles of a supermarket in your motorscooter. [/quote]

I hear in one of the stages you steal a car, then drive it down the interstate at 15 mph with the blinker on.

Pity Free

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:26 am

I'm still not sure if I understand the difference between this week and last.[/quote]I think using a small 'i' for Italian trumps XXX. The men's campaign was so utterly bad IMHO that it doesn't even compare. Hello -- that 'green with envy' ad? It's already been done...for Volkwagon's Beetle! Klassy.

In the Balley's task, success was primarily the result of personal sales - I don't think the flyer was as critical as pricing, naming/designing the class, choosing a target market, or personal sales efforts. The disruptive Team Member crippled the women's personal sales efforts.

In sports car task, the men had to understand how to stir the emotions of the target market. They missed the boat. But this wasn't because of Marcus (as horrid and unemployable as he seems).

Princess PJ

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:32 am

I think the essential difference between this week and last week in terms of getting rid of the weak player, blackwing, was that a strong(er) case could made for Melissa's disruptions being the reason they lost the task. Last week, the women lost by less than one sale, and without Melissa's constant bitching, they might have made up the difference (who knows, maybe the potential winning sale was someone who Melissa even drove off with her incessant whining).

This week, as annoying as Markus was, he didn't keep the men from doing what they wanted to get done. Mark and Chris fucking LOVED their campaign and thought they couldn't have possibly done a better job. If Markus had forced them to go with a "so-so" campaign that was the best they could do because they had spent so much time dealing with Markus, I could see firing him. But they did *exactly* what they wanted to do, and it sucked.

Plenty of reasons to get rid of Markus, but not on this task.

TotalAddict

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:37 am

exactly what i was going to say. The difference between this week and last is that last week was about revenue, and the women lost by a single sale, which could well have been due to a single disruptive team member's spazzocity. This week was about impressing an advertising team, and the men took spazzocity to a whole new level with their massacre of the English language and their redundant, boring ads. There were a whole lot of people working on this week's horrible failure, and it was way harder to blame it on a single person's attitude.

EolivetB

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:43 am

heebiejeebie

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:45 am

But Chris wasn't fired because he marginalized Markus. He was fired because he came up with a shitty advertising campaign, and then refused to acknowledge that his other creative person shared any blame for losing the task. Bringing someone into the boardroom because you don't like them is not a very good reason, and I think Trump & Co. have been pretty consistent about that.[/quote]

I don't think Chris was fired because of the shitty ad campaign at all. That was why the team lost and put Chris at risk, yes. But I think Chris could have gone back to the loft had he brought in Mark and someone else he could have attached viable blame to in Trump's eyes.

I think Trump was determined to not let the week prior form a precedent. To the point of warning Chris against doing exactly what the women's team did the earlier project. The women's team complained basically about being forced to marginalize in exactly the manner that the mens team did this time. The women's team cmplained about the disruptive nature of Melissa in the exact same way. Melissa actually was the only one to complain about price point; which considering the margin of the mens' victory, was a much Yoooger issue on the win/loss of a team than Markus wanting a question mark, which might have been correct punctuation but actually made even less sense. Why the Lamborghini being asking if someone was jealous while it was green with envy? Markus might have thought the question was right but he still did not know the answer.

Markus was right choice for the boardroom. Until Trump arbitrarily decided that was not how he was playing the game. No more team loyalty issues. No more overall disasters must go for the sake of the team issues.

I actually wish Donny Deutsch and his razor nipples had shown up and both teams could have lost this task and maybe even two firings.

But all in all, I think Chris got fired because he could not follow directions. The very complaint he made against Markus. None of the flaws that Trump and George and Carolyn went after again and again were actualy done by Chris. And Trump did not smack him down for taking ultimate responsibility. Instead he harped on Chris bringing in Markus.

Lisetta

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:47 am

This task underscored that I've never understood the connection between the task and the firing. (Except that, whatever it is...it isn't consistent).

Sometimes people are fired for screwing up on the task. Sometimes they're fired for p*ssing off DT in the boardroom. Sometimes their fired for having a bad attitude.

We've seen Trump get rid of good people and keep worse people based on any and all of the above. Personally, I think there are good reasons to keep someone with a lot of "potential" (Chris, Bradford, Tara, etc.) who just made mistakes on a particular task.

Why let them go and keep someone you've already learned enough about to realize you'd never, ever have them working for you (Markus, Ivana, Chris, oh....so many).

Brinswan

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:51 am

Ooh, okay I for one thought Lamborghini guy was soooooo hot. I agree that he looked like a total asshole too. In fact that was my first reaction "wow, that guy looks like he's a real asshole, I bet he's really rich and goes home with a different chick every night, I bet he's really kinky too hm. . ." and then he smacked down Markus in the board room and it was awesome. "Does the phrase "smooth as silk" interest you at all?" "No."

Okay, anyways, he was hot. Sorry just had to get that out.

tiggertwo

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:53 am

blackwing, that's exactly what I thought, too. But this is just one more example of how completely arbitrary Donald Trump's decisions are. One week, it's the person with the ideas -- the next week it's the most disruptive person. [/quote]

And I was surprised that Markus' disloyalty to his team in front of the client didn't bite him more than it did (passing comment by Trump). I have a bad memory, but in a previous season, wasn't that one of the reasons someone was fired? I think it was Tammy from Season 1 (2?) but I don't remember the particulars.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't disagree with the reasons given to fire Chris but it would have been easy to find just as many good reasons to fire Markus. Arbitrary is a good word.

JTMacc99

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:53 am

This week, the men's team had a horrible idea. One team member was consistently disruptive. They didn't lose because of the disruptive team member, they lost because of the poor campaign. And yet, not only does the disruptive member not get fired, but he gets praised for being right?[/quote]blackwing, there was a yooge difference. Chris's mistake was very high on the Trump checklist of ways to get fired.

Let's review that now. (This list is just a draft. Feel free to make suggestions.)

Trump's Top Ten Reasons to fire somebody.

10. Smart-ass winking in the boardroom.

9. Made a critical mistake on the task.

8. Unattractive/no cleavage (women only.)

7. Did something to move from "Somewhat of a disaster" to "Total disaster".

6. Too bossy.

5. Not bossy enough.

4. Failure to stick up for oneself (doesn't shout down the other contestants.)

3. Not educated enough.

2. Too much education.

1. Ignored Trump's direct "hint" to do something in the boardroom.

So, in this case, Chris got fired for screwing up reason number one. Melissa got the axe because she pinged numbers 6 and 7, and what's-her-face only screwed up number 9.

It was REALLY obvious that Trump wanted to fire Doofus, but he couldn't forgive Chris for not listening to him when he told him not to bring in Markus or at the very least, bring in Mark. I would even say that Trump was angry at Chris for breaking rule number one, and was actually upset that Chris gave him no choice.

Hickory

Sep 30, 2005 @ 11:58 am

Lisetta, I totally agree: "We've seen Trump get rid of good people and keep worse people based on any and all of the above. Personally, I think there are good reasons to keep someone with a lot of "potential" (Chris, Bradford, Tara, etc.) who just made mistakes on a particular task."

I was hoping that maybe, just maybe, Trump would respect that Chris stuck to his guns. Doesn't Trump ever get sick of people who forgot how to think for themselves?

Hail Eris

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:05 pm

After all, maybe Markus had a brilliant idea off-screen too.[/quote]

Actually (ding!), the Yahoo!Bonus!Footage! shows that he came up with the "brilliant" Rebirth of Intimidation line that the guys all liked so much. (And some other dweeb -- still can't tell them all apart -- added the "italian" bit.)

He's still a Giant Tool.

netful

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:16 pm

The person who was disruptive got fired[/quote].
Yeah, but Kristi would have been fired had Melissa(?) kept her mouth shut. I think she was safe until she started saying that she couldn't work with women and that all women were intimidated by her, blah blah blah. I don't think that Trump was ready to fire her for being disruptive during the task. I think he was ready to fire Kristi until Melissa opened her mouth. Markus didn't dig himself a hole in the boardroom like Melissa did.

sesstr

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:16 pm

Rebirth of Italian Intimidation' is, if possible, even worse than 'Smooth as Silk'. That Marcus is so creative! If it was his idea, then Chris deserved firing just for going with it. First, 'rebirth' suggests the brand has been dead or out of favor which is somewhat negative and certainly not true. Intimidation is beyond awful, especially coupled with 'Italian' - it brings to mind Sicily, mafia, a swaggering man without class, a bully. Why would Lamborghini, a unique and extraordinary car marketed to the very rich want to be associated with such a stereotype?

It sounds like something Melissa would have written.

outtacontrol

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:31 pm

And wasn't Chris the one who said early in the hour that he hated cliches in advertising? Isn't "green with envy" a cliche?[/quote] I KNOW, depthfathom! Where the hell did RULE NUMBER ONE IN ADVERTISING go?

And jesus206, I was honestly wondering if Marcus was a plant -- both with the "Smooth as Silk" contribution, and his backstabbing during the presentation. I was horrified when he jumped in and just presented his dumb idea to the client. I'm afraid he's for real -- kinda sad.

blackwing

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:32 pm

I'm curious as to why Chris didn't pin the "rebirth of Italian intimidation" idea on Markus, then. It was a horrible slogan.

I did like the morphing car. That was cool. I don't understand why all those minds, some of them working in advertising, could not come up with anything better.

Here's an idea I thought up of just now. We see a shot of a minivan. We look inside, the guy is driving. He's got a screaming baby in a car seat, and a five year old kid repeating "are we there yet, are we there yet". Wife says "my turn to pick the CD". Selena's "Dreaming of You Tonight", a thoroughly female-appealing song, plays. Guy daydreams. We see a shot of the minivan morphing into a Lamborghini as the music changes to a hard rock and rolling song, like Lenny Kravitz's "I'm Thinkin Bout This Pretty Lady". We see long shots of the Lamborghini tearing up the streets. Maybe 15 seconds of the car zipping along. Then we hear a "honey! honey!" Guy's daydream ends. He's back in the minivan and he slams on the brakes. Voiceover tag line: "Lamborghini. Dare to dream."

Or something like that. Were they not allowed to hire actors for their commercial? Doesn't seem like you can do a lot with just a car. Those short clips of bits of the car the women had were more effective than the men's commercial, but kind of gave me a headache. Especially with that pounding "duhn" beats.

katarzyna

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:35 pm

I'm curious as to why Chris didn't pin the "rebirth of Italian intimidation" idea on Markus, then.[/quote]
Probably because Chris was trying to sell the idea that Marcus was disruptive and didn't contribut anything to the task. Once he said that, he couldn't very well turn around and say Marcus came up with an idea that everyone got behind, stupid though that idea might be.

Hickory

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:38 pm

I wonder if Adam will ever talk. He seems nice. Read: cute.

clafount

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:38 pm

Here's an idea I thought up of just now. We see a shot of a minivan. We look inside, the guy is driving. He's got a screaming baby in a car seat, and a five year old kid repeating "are we there yet, are we there yet". Wife says "my turn to pick the CD". Selena's "Dreaming of You Tonight", a thoroughly female-appealing song, plays. Guy daydreams. We see a shot of the minivan morphing into a Lamborghini as the music changes to a hard rock and rolling song, like Lenny Kravitz's "I'm Thinkin Bout This Pretty Lady". We see long shots of the Lamborghini tearing up the streets. Maybe 15 seconds of the car zipping along. Then we hear a "honey! honey!" Guy's daydream ends. He's back in the minivan and he slams on the brakes. Voiceover tag line: "Lamborghini. Dare to dream." [/quote]

That's great if you only want to sell Lamborghinis to men. Ugh. :( Sorry, I just really don't like that type of advertising. It seems really sexist. Or something.

LadyKenobi

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:42 pm

Hey, it isn't for no reason the Russians went to space first.[/quote]

They also got stomped at the end of the race :)

Hail Eris

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:45 pm

I'm curious as to why Chris didn't pin the "rebirth of Italian intimidation" idea on Markus, then. It was a horrible slogan.[/quote]

Heh. And indeed! It was rather funny, for those who haven't seen the E!B!F!, Markus muttered "Rebirth of Intimidation" after, essentially, everyone on the team had been saying the words "rebirth" and "intimidation" for what seemed like half an hour. Then the other dweeb triumphantly proclaimed, "Rebirth of Italian Intimidation" and literally everyone on the team (excepting Markus, of course) stood up and started high fiving one another, patting each other on the back and basically just having a big' ole circle jerk about how fantastic that crappy-ass slogan was!
Then there was a pretty funny complainterview with Markus where he says that everyone on the team is really supportive of one another, but that nobody wikes widdle baby Markus's ideas and boohoohoo waaaaah! I laughed. 'Cause it was true.

Edit: blackwing, I really like your minivan idea! I find it more appealing than the chicks' campaign, and clafount, I think it could work with a lady behind the wheel just the same as with a man! (It could be a whole series of ads.) That is, some soccer mom driving around a bunch of screaming kids, carpool, stuck in traffic. Fade into the daydream of tooling around some twist-y streets (maybe even in Italy, with all the pretty Italian mens!) in the Lamborghini -- and then the "Dare to Dream" catchphrase. (Although maybe "Make your dream a reality" is a better message when you're trying to get people to buy the thing...)

JennaC

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:55 pm

I'm curious as to why Chris didn't pin the "rebirth of Italian intimidation" idea on Markus, then. It was a horrible slogan.[/quote]

Markus did not come up with the entire slogan. The men were sitting around brainstorming and throwing slogans out. "Rebirth" and "Intimidation" were thrown in as part of other tag lines and Markus put the two words together. Another guy restated what Markus said, adding the word Italian. Unfortunately, that slogan was a team effort.

While we are on the subject of who did what, Alla wasn't the person who came up with the "Ask Permission" tag line. Someone else said the key words and she picked up on it.

I have read many of the posts and seems that many people are looking for consistencies in why Trump fires people. Well, there aren't any consistencies in real - life firings so why would anyone expect them on television?

Pity Free

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:55 pm

Here's an idea I thought up of just now. We see a shot of a minivan. We look inside, the guy is driving. He's got a screaming baby in a car seat, and a five year old kid repeating "are we there yet, are we there yet". Wife says "my turn to pick the CD". Selena's "Dreaming of You Tonight", a thoroughly female-appealing song, plays. Guy daydreams. We see a shot of the minivan morphing into a Lamborghini as the music changes to a hard rock and rolling song, like Lenny Kravitz's "I'm Thinkin Bout This Pretty Lady". We see long shots of the Lamborghini tearing up the streets. Maybe 15 seconds of the car zipping along. Then we hear a "honey! honey!" Guy's daydream ends. He's back in the minivan and he slams on the brakes. Voiceover tag line: "Lamborghini. Dare to dream." [/quote]Cute idea...but people who can buy Lamborghini's don't drive minivans. You have to hit the target audience which must have the following things: desire, means and buying authority. People who drive mini-vans probably don't have the means to buy a Lamborghini, even if they desire one and they make the buying decisions in their households.

The teams also only had 30 seconds for the video.

Hickory

Sep 30, 2005 @ 12:59 pm

I see what you're saying, JennaC: "I have read many of the posts and seems that many people are looking for consistencies in why Trump fires people. Well, there aren't any consistencies in real - life firings so why would anyone expect them on television?"

But it is essentially a game, and the game should have rules. How else do you know how to play?

JennaC

Sep 30, 2005 @ 1:06 pm

Here's an idea I thought up of just now. We see a shot of a minivan. We look inside, the guy is driving. He's got a screaming baby in a car seat, and a five year old kid repeating "are we there yet, are we there yet". Wife says "my turn to pick the CD". Selena's "Dreaming of You Tonight", a thoroughly female-appealing song, plays. Guy daydreams. We see a shot of the minivan morphing into a Lamborghini as the music changes to a hard rock and rolling song, like Lenny Kravitz's "I'm Thinkin Bout This Pretty Lady". We see long shots of the Lamborghini tearing up the streets. Maybe 15 seconds of the car zipping along. Then we hear a "honey! honey!" Guy's daydream ends. He's back in the minivan and he slams on the brakes. Voiceover tag line: "Lamborghini. Dare to dream."

That's great if you only want to sell Lamborghinis to men. Ugh. :( Sorry, I just really don't like that type of advertising. It seems really sexist. Or something.[/quote]

The people who can afford Lamborghinis do not necessarily dream of owning one. They need to be "challenged" to buy one. They need to be told why the should own one.

But it is essentially a game, and the game should have rules. How else do you know how to play?[/quote]

I don't think its a game. Its a job interview and no interview is the same because of the people involved, the location, the weather, etceteras. The smartest, best candidates don't necessarily get the job. The candidates who are prepared to handle the process which includes distractions get the job....as I am painfully aware of in my real life.

Susan StoHelit

Sep 30, 2005 @ 1:14 pm

I think Trump is pretty consistient - he almost always requires a fired person to be able to be blamed for the loss. You could do that with Melissa - she probably did lose them sales (and the awful XXX advertising was at the least a printers error, not a deliberate act - like spelling Italian "italian" in the ads for an Italian car company) - but not with Markus - he was the only dissenter for at least one bad section of the presentation they put together (not that anything would have saved them - they did a bad job everywhere).

I think Chris lost because he thought of it as a game. Trump doesn't like to be gamed, and an executive who plays games is useless.

polka dots

Sep 30, 2005 @ 1:27 pm

Jennifer M. scored a mighty impressive goal. Doesn't surprise me that she can skate. Pageant girls always seem to have many talents.[/quote]

Is this a foreshadowing? Like Kendra's (assisted) slam dunk during the basketball reward. Hmm. The woman has an unfortunate name but she's been pretty good so far. Contributing well yet still remaining low key. Like Kendra. Again, I say hmm...

That was just so far beyond embarassing, they haven't invented a word for it yet.

It was embarrasstropic. Demeanaclysmic. Humiligeddon. [/quote]

Oof. Yeah. Right when the women started that awful presentation, I seriously thought they were going to lose. It was just...so...bad. But then I saw Chris babbling Markus-like about water or some such nonsense. And yeah. Bad. Why do all Apprenti suck at presentations? Why?? Angie - AE ("Um...uh...well...hem...haw.."). Maria - Levi's ("If being sexy is wrong, I don't want to be right!"). Tana - Pontiac ("I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for this great opportunity."). Erin - Dove (stupid chef's outfits. Need I say more?). Okay, so that's only four, but still. It's always something with these presentations.

I thought for sure (wrongly, but for sure) that the men meeting with the car execs and the women not was foreshadowing that the women would lose[/quote]

Actually, yeah, me too. I forgot about it, but you're right. When I saw that the guys were meeting with the execs and the women weren't, I thought for sure that they would lose. I also thought they would lose with that god-awful presentation that made me want to rip my ears off and gouge my eyes out. It was a good thing their actual commercial didn't totally suck. If they had lost, I'm sure DT would've jumped on them for their non-meeting. Oh, and for their terrible presentation. "Ego-driven!" What? They might as well have said "Asshole!" "Narcissist!" "Self-absorbed!"

"Your project dealt with one of the fastest cars on the planet, so your reward will deal with some of the fastest guys on skates." FAST car, FAST skater? Purple Monkey Dishwasher? What?[/quote]

Hee!!

While we are on the subject of who did what, Alla wasn't the person who came up with the "Ask Permission" tag line. Someone else said the key words and she picked up on it.[/quote]

Yeah, it was Jennifer M.

JennaC

Sep 30, 2005 @ 1:34 pm

I think Chris lost because he thought of it as a game. Trump doesn't like to be gamed, and an executive who plays games is useless.[/quote]

Oddly enough, most of these candidates appoach the show as a game instead of business which I guess is understandable given the television aspect of it. Its good TV when Krista constantly whines and groans about Marshawn; however, in the real world, a business person would have expressed themeselves more diplomatically.....which would equal boring T.V.

On the other hand, I would take my bitching home and call my sister whereas these folks don't have an outlet for their stress, frustrations, fear, anxiety........

.

Kris223

Sep 30, 2005 @ 1:41 pm

I didn't think the women's presentation was that horrific. Certainly better than most of what I've seen from this show.

November Jones

Sep 30, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

Pretty good comments guys. Just going to add my two cents. The reason Melissa was fired last week was because she stupidly said she could not work with women. I think Trump and the Viceroys were leaning toward firing the PM with her silly editing mistake until Melissa kept giving rope to hang herself. Couple that with the fact that the women only lost by $11 even though they were in the "less desirable" locale, and the fact that it was a sales oriented task rather than an all out creative one and you can see why she was fired.

Markus didn't say he couldn't work with men, and he didn't come up with the campaign. Plus Chris said he marginalized him (etc. all things you all wonderfully pointed out.)

Sigh. He was such a tool for not bringing Mark into the boardroom too.

RichK

Sep 30, 2005 @ 2:00 pm

Cute idea...but people who can buy Lamborghini's don't drive minivans.[/quote]

I agree. It's one of these super-luxury things where you don't put a lot of reality into your ads. I thought they should have "rented" a thoroughbred race horse and done the comparison thing with that (I mean, they got the little horsie in their insignia and all).

Also, I don't think the "permission" thing quite worked. Your target market is either young mega-rich spoiled trust fund kiddies or established seriously successful showoffs, neither of which would think they needed permission to do anything, much less spend money. The more mysterious and exclusive you make it, the better.

skeevo666

Sep 30, 2005 @ 2:02 pm

big honking (i)talian sports cars.[/quote]

Heeee! Marry me, quaintirene!

They also got stomped at the end of the race :)[/quote]

Not to mention losing more people in the process . . . .

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.