TWoP Forums > 4-3: "Something Old, Something New" 2005.10.06

Full Version: 4-3: "Something Old, Something New" 2005.10.06

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

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

NurseSusy

Oct 9, 2005 @ 4:51 pm

I agree that Rebecca should have been grilled more about her oversight of the task. I was thinking that, as tasks go, this one was really easy. When you think about that motel task from last season, for example -- there have been other tasks with lots more actual physical work to do. This task, once planned out, should have been a no-brainer to set up and prep for. Jennifer W. should have had the use of all the women for set-up -- learning their demos could hardly have taken more than an hour or two. How hard would it have been to go to a deli and buy some platters rather than have a sorry grocery store cake? Rebecca should have been given a scheme for the layout and the signage and the catering that she approved in advance and checked on the execution of before and during the event. It makes no sense that she was unaware of the poor spelling on the cake. As someone has already remarked, why was no effort made to change that spelling? These women really seem incompetent to me.
[/quote]

I have read the required 15 pagesof upthreads so here goes:

I agree with the above observation. Rebecca did do a terrible job as PM, no theme, no layout, etc. Rebecca being smart along with Toral, decided to "Checkmate" The Donald. She boxed him into a corner (hence the confused look after the Boardroom) by making him decide between integrity (which is the top Instrumental value among execs polled) and brains, or the popular vote. This is what business negotiation is about to get your way. Set up the situation so the only smart choice is the one you want perhaps with some compromise. Toral's work is to structure deals and probably is an excellent chess player. IMHO Toral and Rebecca cooked this up since clearly Rebecca, Toral, and Jen W messed up the task. I'm sure Toral being a minority knows how to dump detractors.

The Donald recognized Rebecca's & Toral's strategy and had to show the TV audience he agreed with the popular vote about some Wharton School grad who couldn't demonstrate HDTV (Could The Donald and his business associates do it?That's for underlings or assistants, hence Toral's contention that the others should be assistants because they know how work equipment and leaders don't. Not saying that her contention is correct. It's her strategy appeal to The Donald this way) or stick with Rebecca, who would not give up her integrity for short term gain?

Rebecca and Toral were brilliant in diverting the issue from what really happened and clouded the issue with outrageous comments. Rebecca's integrity is a very important point in the business world, especially after Enron types and their ilk. I'm sure Toral has memorized everything about The Donald and has a made a strategy to win. I don't think her comments were unwise, just part of the plan. She used the "Straw Man" fallacy by attributing undesirable qualities to her competition (the blonde coven), aligning herself with The Donald "We're alike" strategy, and using psychology to manipulate Trump, through Rebecca. She is also prepping the ground with the men, hence her "Aren't we alike" talk with Marcus. Which is why she went with Rebecca to the hospital, as no one else had made a move, she took advantage of the situation.

The Donald was just flummoxed after the firing because he saw himself and strategies in Rebecca's and Toral's strategy. He has to be careful as to how he carries himself, because I'm sure his competitors are watching his every move. If he had fired Rebecca, would it come up in a business deal meeting. He couldn't tout his integrity if he had fired Rebecca. He was outfoxed.

As to the upthread post about video games in pediatrics wards. They have some already, as a nurse (not peds), children need distraction and fun and these wards have the facilities for all the electronics gear to be used.

And to Ms Alex's upthread post about women punishing by "self-destructive isolation" is right on. Rachel Simmon's devoted a book to this and how women socialize in a book called "Odd Girl Out". Well worth the read, not long or difficult.

So much for my first post.

quaintirene

Oct 9, 2005 @ 5:13 pm

I'm still not sure how the integrity card factors in Rebecca's favour here. The other women made it clear they felt that Toral was the the team member that performed the least well. We saw that on screen, it wasn't a Stacie J-style pile-on. Rebecca considers Toral a friend, so she would not bring her into the Boardroom. I admire her feelings of friendship, but that's not what 'integrity' is all about. In fact she would have had more integrity if she had brought Toral into the Boardroom regardless of their friendship. Because Toral, Wharton grad or not, failed miserably in this challenge, and for sure was a contributory factor to the team's failure in the Boardroom.

Trump prattled on about how 'hard-headed' Rebecca was etc. but IMO that was just camouflage for Trump not firing the cutie just yet.

And I edit this to add that setting up an HDTV really isn't hard. The manuals are badly-written and unintelligible, but the onscreen menu tends to be straighforward and easy. I am assuming Toral knows her way around her laptop. So working on the TV shouldn't have presented any kind of a problem.

Lisetta

Oct 9, 2005 @ 5:34 pm

I'm still not sure how the integrity card factors in Rebecca's favour here.[/quote]
Yes, quaintirene, I don't really understand how Rebecca was demonstrating "integrity" at all.

Her friend, Toral, did a horrible job and, along with Jen W and Rebecca herself, deserved to be fired.

But...Rebecca was willing to ignore Toral's complete incompetence on the task (and Trump's wish to have her brought to the boardroom) just because "they're friends". How is that "integrity"? Loyalty, maybe. Maybe politicking. But...integrity? I don't get that.

And does Trump really want that kind of manager? Someone who will keep incompetent, divisive people--and instead recommend firing competent ones--just because of personal ties?

I thought she'd be great from her resume, but she was incompetent (on a relatively easy task), insulting to teammates (I didn't think her "clerical" remark was tactful at all), and rather obnoxious in the boardroom. I don't even find her exceptionally beautiful--good looking, but nothing so amazing--so I don't get why Trump is apparently so impressed by her.

blocked writer

Oct 9, 2005 @ 6:14 pm

I think Rebecca benefited from what I have come to think of as the "Screech Factor." For reasons I can't fully fathom, Trump sometimes seems to be impressed by people who yell or are very intense in their defense.

TA2's Sandy and Jennifer M. shouted Andy down, and even though his argument had more merit, IMO, Trump fired Andy. Trump went on to say that Sandy was a real firecracker (or something to that effect) and that she and Jennifer had out-debated Andy. That was pure Trump bullshit. They out-shrieked Andy.

TA3's Chris was like a bulldog when he defended himself. Trump may have kept him around partly for drama's sake, but I think he was also impressed a bit with Chris's passionate defense of himself. I think that's what made him console Chris when he broke down and cried.

It doesn't always work, but I do believe that intense arguing on one's behalf makes Trump think that person wants the job more than others. It's not enough to win the job, but it can sometimes buy a person a week or two.

He has to be careful as to how he carries himself, because I'm sure his competitors are watching his every move. If he had fired Rebecca, would it come up in a business deal meeting. He couldn't tout his integrity if he had fired Rebecca.[/quote]

I seriously doubt if Trump is all that concerned with a business associate questioning his integrity over something that he said or did on the show. He hasn't carried himself all that well or carefully. He had an open affair with Marla Maples while he was still married to Ivana, and had a bitter divorce played out in the press. He engaged in a nasty and public war of words with Mark Cuban over Cuban's knockoff reality show. He made boorish and gloating statements over the failure of both Cuban's and Richard Branson's reality shows.

He made insulting comments about the design for the new Twin Towers. He brags and boasts constantly about how everything he has or is associated with is the biggest and best. He never concedes defeat graciously, but tries to spin every setback and backruptcy look better than it is.

All this behavior indicates to me that Trump isn't overly concerned about looking like someone with integrity. I think he's a bare-knuckled fighter, and more likely wants to be seen as the last man standing in any fight. He appears to be more concerned about the criticism he's received for poor business decisions on the show, not that they lack integrity. If a competitor brought up the Rebecca situation, I think Trump would laugh in his or her face. JMHO.

Trader Joe

Oct 9, 2005 @ 7:09 pm

I dont think Rebecca's "integrity" can prevent her from being fired. You can have integrity and still be incompetant.

marylou

Oct 9, 2005 @ 8:56 pm

Thoughts:

Keupi's comments upthread about getting around on a broken ankle are spot on. If I were in Rebecca's shoe, I'd try to use a wheelchair whenever possible, at least until the broken bone was weight-brearing, which Rebecca's wasn't tolerating yet. I thought she did okay given she probably feels like crap and is on pain pills.

I hate all the blondes. The only one who seems competent is Alla, but I hate her anyway. The only women I see having a shot are Marshawn and possibly Rebecca. Toral is right (though bitchy) about none of them having what it takes. Thing is, she hasn't shown us that she does either yet.

I'm not sure if the women self-selected their dark-to-light order in the BR, but when I saw that, I flashed back to E1 where the contestants were all standing in a couple of clumps in one shot and then neatly arranged by height in the next. Hmm. I also suspect they use stylists on this show.

It was nice to see they guys working together so well. Randal did a great job, as did Markus. Clay and Josh have to go. The others have made no impression yet. Overall, not a lot of talent in the candidates. At least last season's were interesting.

Ashforth

Oct 9, 2005 @ 9:22 pm

If I were in Rebecca's shoe[/quote]
Hee! marylou, good one.

I agree that between the pain, the pain meds, and the difficulty in getting around and doing the simple things that we take for granted, Rebecca did persevere. Though some have argued that she should have taken it easy instead of being PM, I think she rightly figured that if she did that, the rest of the team would say she didn't contribute and as much as they hated it, she should be fired for her own good and because she had shown she couldn't help on the tasks.

Of course, with a different PM they might have won and none of them would have been fired.

RainbowRat

Oct 9, 2005 @ 9:34 pm

And another thing: The description of the episode* promised "a nasty surprise" for one of the candidates. What occurrence on that episode qualified as a nasty surprise? I mean, I didn't really see anything that made me cackle joyfully and make me go "OOOOOOHHHH s/he's gonna HATE that!!"

So?

*On Comcast's On-Demand, when I press the info button on fancy remote. (If you care.)

natashapierre

Oct 10, 2005 @ 8:12 am

I can't believe that Rebecca after doing a bad job as PM, after leaving Toral after being told to bring Toral to the boardroom, after bringing undeserving Jen M. and referring to her integrity gets by with it after snapping at George! That was one of the worst things, and I've never seen Donald tolerate that before[/quote]

He likes those chickies with the long, dark hair ... She'll offend him past the point of no return soon enough, though, I'll bet.

AdrienneP

Oct 10, 2005 @ 9:24 am

And does Trump really want that kind of manager? Someone who will keep incompetent, divisive people--and instead recommend firing competent ones--just because of personal ties[/quote]
Happens all the time, unfortunately. The incompetent ones do a better snow job and get promoted; I can't tell you how many managers I've seen who haven't earned the job or don't deserve it, and how many of THEM have been promoted to director, or executive director level. And I've even got questions about a few of the VPs I've seen as well. The thing is, the people below them can see all the flaws and cover for them constantly, while the people above them only see results. God Bless America.

After re-watching on Friday, I was struck by the criteria they gave for judging. Of the items Caroline read was, "presentation and knowledge of the technology/equipment." Now you could possibly say that presentation includes the "event" stuff that Jen W did, but I heard that as how the technology was showcased and the presenter's knowledge of it. If that's the case, the actual "event" stuff was even less of a factor. Yet even Caroline didn't pick up on that, and still insisted that the lack of balloons and the food were THE factor. The event sucked, but if Toral hadn't fucked up so badly on her HDTV demo, I think the girls might have won.

I agree the Rebecca probably has a great strategy for sticking with Toral against the sorority girls, but she also better be careful. Rebecca said she'd be willing to be fired herself to save Toral, but I'm certain Toral would not do the same, and would throw Becky "under the bus" in a second if she had to.

illogic

Oct 10, 2005 @ 10:07 am

The Donald was just flummoxed after the firing because he saw himself and strategies in Rebecca's and Toral's strategy. He has to be careful as to how he carries himself, because I'm sure his competitors are watching his every move. If he had fired Rebecca, would it come up in a business deal meeting. He couldn't tout his integrity if he had fired Rebecca. He was outfoxed.[/quote]

And I'm sure he remembers the public reaction to Stacie J's firing. Some people stopped watching the show for good after that. The situation isn't quite the same, and the fallout might not have been so harsh, but firing Rebecca might have looked bad p.r.-wise.

I still think Rebecca might have been the one to go if she pulled Toral in with her, for reasons I've discussed upthread.

And the blondes' attack on Toral wasn't really an attempt to get Toral fired. It was an attempt to get Rebecca fired. They knew Rebecca would stick by her, and brought up the "error in judgement" argument very quickly. None of the blondes were in danger this week, and they could have just leaned back and watched Jen W get canned. She was never much of a threat. Neither is Toral, really. But Rebecca is.

That may also explain why Rebecca brought Jen M in as well. She probably figured bringing only one person in would backfire, and identified Jen M as the least vocal, least dangerous blonde to have in the room. Alla's too tough, and Kristi was able to knock out Melissa, so she may have been a problem in the final BR.

Now, Rebecca's protected herself against firing for at least one loss, provided she doesn't really screw up. Toral's next on the target list, and if Rebecca can stick it out until the teams get split up, she won't have to worry about the blondes for a while.

I really like the level of chess going on in this episode.

hesperides

Oct 10, 2005 @ 10:31 am

asdfasdf

quaintirene

Oct 10, 2005 @ 10:38 am

And the blonde's attack on Toral wasn't really an attempt to get Toral fired. It was an attempt to get Rebecca fired. They knew Rebecca would stick by her, and brought up the "error in judgement" argument very quickly. None of the blondes were in danger this week, and they could have just leaned back and watched Jen W get canned. She was never much of a threat. Neither is Toral, really. But Rebecca is.

[/quote]

However this reminds of that time in Apprentice 1 when someone and I can't remember who sent some close friend out of the Boardroom. Trump used almost the exact same words as he sent (I think it was) Kristina upstairs. He wasn't pleased.

I am still not getting anything more than misplaced friendship from Rebecca's 'integrity' comment, and I am certainly not getting a pile-on vibe from what the others said. It's happened many times in the Boardroom that an entire team has agreed on who was at fault for a loss. The Stacie J thing was in a completely different context. That time, the team said they were all terrified of her, couldn't work with her at any time on any task, thought she was crazy. This time, the team said they thought that Toral had failed on one particular task. No 'she's crazy'. No 'we are terrified of her because she spins off..' Just 'she was supposed to do something and she made a complete mess of it'.

I very much doubt that Trump even remembers the Stacie J thing. I believe he would have fired Toral on the spot if she'd been brought in, Wharton or no. All Rebecca proved to me was that she was glib, and that she wanted to protect her pal. She was lucky that Jennifer allowed that typo to go through. That was the icing on the cake (TM Marth Stewart) that led to her firing. Also I do believe Trump kept her because she is his kind of eye candy.

Edited to reflect the following post:

I assume that was the reason why he introduced that middle-aged business associate to Miss Universe. In fact, that's maybe why we saw that event! (Just kidding. Unless Burnett has a sense of humour, and I think he has!)

Lisetta

Oct 10, 2005 @ 11:11 am

Also I do believe Trump kept her because he is his kind of eye candy. [/quote]
You know, that may be a bigger factor in his choices than I'd considered.

Especially given his reassurances how this season's candidates are the "best looking ever". I think he really feels that's one big reason why people tune in.

Given that DT bias, it makes sense that he'd want to keep the ones he feels are beautiful around a bit longer, even when (like Rebecca) they deserve to go....

blocked writer

Oct 10, 2005 @ 11:37 am

I very much doubt that Trump even remembers the Stacie J thing. [/quote]

I have to disagree. I think Trump is hypersensitive to any criticism, and he received plenty of it in the press. There were stories everywhere -TV, newspaper, and internet. IIRC, some psychiatric association criticized his handling of the Stacie J. incident. Their contention was that he was a very poor businessman for allowing the hysterical claims of with Apex women to convince him that something was mentally wrong with Stacie, and then firing her in front of everyone. Most of the articles I read agreed that his handling of the situation was the worse way to do it - legally, ethically, and business-wise. So I do think that Trump is influenced by criticism of his past missteps on the show.

I don't think either Toral or Rebecca did themselves any long-term favors. Both of them could have made their arguments without alienating the rest of the team. Rebecca could have just as easily said that she wasn't bringing in Toral because she felt that Toral was overall a stronger candidate, her misstep with the remote nonwithstanding. She could have said she brought Jennifer M. in because she thought her calistenics were unprofessional.

Toral should have never brought up the issue of other people not being able to use the equipment in light of her own weak performance. That was just stupid on Toral's part, and just invited Marshawn's great comeback. She certainly should have never let it slip that she thought she was the only one woman who deserved to be there. I'm not all that impressed by any of the other women but Marshawn, so far. But I think it's idiotic to not only underestimate your opponents, but to openly let them know.

Toral and Rebecca may have gained a week or two, but they've shown their cards to everyone. Not a very bright move, IMO.

Another thing that never fails to amaze me is why PMs continue to discuss their choices for the boardroom ahead of time. I'd keep them guessing, and say "I'm taking in the two I feel most responsible for the loss, and that's all I have to say about it." They've had time to watch TA1 & TA2, and they should know that the plotting almost always comes back to bite you in the end.

Now Rebecca has pledged loyalty to Toral, what will she do if Toral is the clear-cut cause of a loss? Rebecca is not likely to be PM again anytime soon, but she will be called upon for her opinion in the boardroom. The same is true for Toral - will she protect Rebecca, even if Rebecca screws up on a task? Toral will look disloyal if she doesn't on the one hand, but unprofessional on the other hand if she does.

I don't know if anyone has refused to divulge their picks beforehand, or refused to indulge in backroom politics. Maybe they have, and I just don't remember it, or they didn't show it. But I'd love to see someone do that for a refreshing change.

I'd love to see someone openly state that they will take the ones most at fault in, friendships be damned. They should also expect to be taken in if and when they mess up - that's the way the game should be played. If I screwed up, I'd be trying to think of a convincing argument to save myself in the boardroom. But I sure as hell wouldn't expect the PM to protect me, because I wouldn't do that for them, whether I liked them or not.

deaja

Oct 10, 2005 @ 12:16 pm

What's to like about a former "totally nude" stripper who gave "private dances" to her clients for sums over $1000?? Hmmm what else...she's a backstabbing b---- who has fired workers in her salons because their clients didn't have the "look" she was going for!
[/quote]

Not to mention that her voice is nasal and fingernails-on-the-blackboard annoying!

ryan506

Oct 10, 2005 @ 12:48 pm

What a weird, weird task... a tech expo for grandmas and grandpas? And... the boys won? Especially with the old men ogling the womens' ginormous bazongas the whole time? This was... a truly bizarre episode.

Oh, and I loved that crazy old man telling the guys that computers are sent "from the devil." Apparently that doesn't apply to all electronics, as he seemed quite happy with his motorized wheelchair. I guess the devil lives inside of microprocessors, and not simple motors.

Toral: While I initially thought she might be one to watch, by the end of the ep she came across as just a dumb bitch. Clearly she's never done training sessions--the woman who she was "demonstrating" the TV to just looked completely lost the entire time she was sitting there saying, "OK, now press enter... and enter again..." It was obvious that she had no clue at all what she was doing. Trumpy will have her out of there before too much longer.

Clay: Even though you are one, stop acting like a fairy. And stop asking George questions relating to being an old man, even if he is one. Do you WANT to be fired? (On a slightly unrelated note, I especially love the screen capture on the NBC site of George raiding the snack table. Hee!

Markus: Wow. He actually was able to demonstrate something coherently and be useful and productive. I'm... floored. I still want him fired, however.

Jennifer W.: While the reception was kind of pathetic, I do feel like she tried her best to make it as appealing as she could, given that she had no help at all. But the misspelt cake, along with her incessant bawling back in the suite, killed any residual sympathy I might've had for her. It's a damn reality show--no one ran over her puppy.

A bizarre episode overall. I... think I'm done with it.

blocked writer

Oct 10, 2005 @ 1:10 pm

And stop asking George questions relating to being an old man, even if he is one. Do you WANT to be fired? (On a slightly unrelated note, I especially love the screen capture on the NBC site of George raiding the snack table. Hee![/quote]

I couldn't remember the name of the guy who asked George his opinion as an old man. That was so rude, not to mention stupid, on Clay's part. George might be up there in years, but he shows no signs of being forgetful. Since PR is a big part of the winner's job, I'm sure that slip of the tongue and error in judgment is going to cost Clay down the road.

I did love Randal's expression when he heard what Clay was doing. He had such a look of disbelief on his face like he was thinking, "Can I really be hearing this? What an idiot."

That screen capture of George eating is adorable. I think George is great, and I hated how Trump cut him off in the boardroom, only to agree with Rebecca. That only intensified my dislike of Rebecca.

Trump needs to watch his step with George. George as viceroy is one of the few things left that appeal to me about this show, and this isn't the first time Trump has been rude to him. I don't like that at all.

lauriecake

Oct 10, 2005 @ 1:10 pm

However this reminds of that time in Apprentice 1 when someone and I can't remember who sent some close friend out of the Boardroom. Trump used almost the exact same words as he sent (I think it was) Kristina upstairs. He wasn't pleased.[/quote]

You're right. Ereka brought Nick and Bill back to the boardroom and Katrina back upstairs. Trump wasn't happy there either.

polka dots

Oct 10, 2005 @ 1:32 pm

But...Rebecca was willing to ignore Toral's complete incompetence on the task (and Trump's wish to have her brought to the boardroom) just because "they're friends". How is that "integrity"? Loyalty, maybe. Maybe politicking. But...integrity? I don't get that.[/quote]

It's not integrity. But "integrity" is such a loaded word; it's hard to ignore it and not get distracted by it, especially if you're Trump and like shiny things and loaded words (including "Wharton grad").

I think Rebecca benefited from what I have come to think of as the "Screech Factor." [/quote]

Heh. First thing I thought was "Saved by the Bell."

That may also explain why Rebecca brought Jen M in as well. She probably figured bringing only one person in would backfire, and identified Jen M as the least vocal, least dangerous blonde to have in the room. Alla's too tough, and Kristi was able to knock out Melissa, so she may have been a problem in the final BR.[/quote]

Hmm. Another good point. And you're right, Jen M. didn't say anything in the BR to hurt Rebecca. I think Jen W. could've used Jen M. to help her argue against Rebecca but, like I said before, Jen W. is a poor debater and couldn't even bring up the fact that Rebecca was responsible for overseeing everything and, therefore, clearly approved of the crappy food and layout.

Also, from way way way upthread, I agree with the only poster that said that Rebecca resembles Evangeline Lilly (Kate from "Lost"). I don't really see the whole Sandra Bullock thing.

Lisetta

Oct 10, 2005 @ 1:50 pm

George as viceroy is one of the few things left that appeal to me about this show, and this isn't the first time Trump has been rude to him. I don't like that at all. [/quote]
ITA, blocked writer. That really bothered me, too. Plus, George was totally right to call her on that comment. Trump cutting him down, unfortunately, just underscored to me how foolish/rude Trump can act when he finds one of the candidates attractive. He's lucky George puts up with him. I'm afraid there'll come a day when he says, "Look, Donald. I don't need this cr*p any more."

George had a moment in a previous ep when he called one of the candidates out and seemed much less sexist, and much more objective than Trump. Oh, what can I say? I love George, and just -hope- he continues to put up with DT a while longer, despite the fact Trump really doesn't deserve it.

nenyadr

Oct 10, 2005 @ 2:42 pm

Troy and Kwame are an example of how to bring back your friend with class.

Another opinion on the Jen vs Toral debate (on who should be fired) ...

Presentation and food do play a huge part in how an event in perceived. In any event, one of the first things you notice is the decor and the food. I think the female team was at a disadvantage, they seemed to have a bigger room with light colors, whereas the men seemed to have a smaller room with darker colors, giving it a cozy feeling to start with. If the people are well fed, and have pretty things to look at, then they are much more prone to giving the event a higher rating.

That said, it seemed that they had a larger budget for this. I don't know who did the budgeting, but Jen should have put her foot down in regard to budgeting for her items. You can get balloons blown up for cheap. You can get a simple Kinko's sign for a fairly low price. You can have variety of food or drink for not that much money also (all sweets can easily make someone feel sick, you need to balance sweets and salt, and did they even have drinks?).

I think if they had shown Jen with more arguments with Rebecca, then maybe I would have thought she shouldn't be fired. Though I feel that Rebecca should have checked the decor more carefully, it is possible that Jen mislead her. I can easily imagine Rebecca asking about progress, and Jen saying "oh it's great, i've got balloons and signs and food my grandmother loves" which makes it sound so much better than what turned out...

quaintirene

Oct 10, 2005 @ 3:43 pm

I'd forgotten about that 'my grandmother loves cake' comment. Suppose her grandmother had loved pickles? Having what looked like just one fairly cheap-looking cake wouldn't get her very far in any group I've ever known, senior or otherwise.

And PS, a lot of seniors are heavily into technotoys. I was a bit miffed by this task in general. Let's show the mumblies how to work a computer. You can send pix of your grandkids. Yeah, right. Better if they'd said 'you can check your portfolios'. 'Old' does not equal 'doting fool'.

blocked writer

Oct 10, 2005 @ 3:59 pm

Plus, George was totally right to call her on that comment. Trump cutting him down, unfortunately, just underscored to me how foolish/rude Trump can act when he finds one of the candidates attractive. He's lucky George puts up with him. I'm afraid there'll come a day when he says, "Look, Donald. I don't need this cr*p any more."[/quote]

Lisetta, I also hope that day never comes, because George is a real asset to the show. By his rude behavior, Trump was almost as bad as Clay asking the equivalent of, "Look you old coot. What do you think we have planned for the other old coots?" George should have the respect of the contestants, and therefore, that respect should come from the top. Trump is such an ass sometimes. If he had allowed George to finish his comment, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it would have been interesting to hear what else she had to say.

This is another reason I like Martha's show more. I think Martha might notice an attractive face, but can you imagine her giving a cute guy any slack when he needed a smackdown? I don't think Martha would ever talk to the press about how handsome her candidates are. Trump needs to be Martha's apprentice for a few weeks, because he sure is crude and unpolished. He can wear all the tuxedos he wants into the boardroom, but it won't change the fact that he's lacking in class. And rude to George!

ETA:

nenyadr, I so agree with this:

Troy and Kwame are an example of how to bring back your friend with class.[/quote]

Why can't at least some of these people use Troy & Kwame as role models? Not only did they both go far on the show, but they have both been successful in their post-show endeavors. While on the show, they managed to be good friends, while never forgetting that they were competing against each other.

Fluffy Malone

Oct 10, 2005 @ 4:36 pm

But she was abrasive. Not only Rebecca talked at them, she talked down at them. Business may be tough, but it is not necessarily one-way ticket. Had this have happened in reality, Rebecca would have been dragged into HR. To start with, they would've hired a psychologist for her, then they would've sent her to various classes, and she would've been on probation for a long time. Her career within that company would've been dead one way or another.[/quote]

For being what someone who was being managed perceived as abrasive? I have to disagree. The only thing that would have gotten her in trouble in any company was the fact that she did not get results. If the event had been a deal in the works, and she lost out to someone else, that would be a problem. But, as long as there hadn't been any illegal actions on her part, I don't see any reprimands or sessions with a psychologist based on the fact that someone didn't personally like her management style. You have to work with all types in the business world, and discrimination or harrassment are usually the only issues that raise alarms.

INow a show about real business skills would be boring as hell, but to fire a banker for not being able to run a t.v. over an event planner who can't plan an event is silly.[/quote]

I agree. Toral really should have prepared better for instructing how to use the TV, but Jennifer W. was incompetent in her own field which made her dismal performance in this task even worse. They were both pretty delusional, though, in that Toral seemed unaware she botched up 8 different demonstrations and Jennifer W. seemed to think she had genuinely done a good job until they actually got into the boardroom. In the end, I think the right person was fired, though, and I saw Rebecca's decision as more of a strategy to save her butt in the long run by having an ally rather than a friendship move. I'm sure she was aware Jennifer W. would not be able to hold her own in the boardroom and so she took a gamble in wanting to stick around longer and not be the next outcast operating on her own.

ConanGrammarian

Oct 10, 2005 @ 4:40 pm

Why can't at least some of these people use Troy & Kwame as role models? Not only did they both go far on the show, but they have both been successful in their post-show endeavors. While on the show, they managed to be good friends, while never forgetting that they were competing against each other.[/quote]

Kwame and Troy definitely set the bar pretty high in not letting friendship interfere with competition. But the final five of Season 1 all did a good job in showing some class. Remember Bill, Kwame, and Troy all going out for a nice dinner instead of sitting around the suite trash-talking and trying to get together an alliance to gang up on the third party?

Don't forget Kwame and Bill toasting each other on the roof on the last night. Contrast that with Kelly and JenM not even speaking with one another on the final night.

The class factor is what has been missing over the past few seasons: Ivana, the coven, the StacieJ gang-up, the harpies out-screeching Andy in the boardroom, the Baldford's blatant sexism, John's chain wallet, temper-boy, the schizophrenic blink-monkey, etc.

Randal and Marshawn seem to be reasonable bets to bring a little class back to TA. Most of the others haven't gotten too far out of hand, yet. Capital Edge does seem to be starting the descent into tacky with the blondes vs. the brunettes.

Lisetta

Oct 10, 2005 @ 4:52 pm

George should have the respect of the contestants, and therefore, that respect should come from the top. [/quote]
Exactly. I even think it's interesting how on TA:DT it's "George", "Carolyn", and "Mr. Trump" to the contestants (as Trump models calling G/C by their first names, almost as if they have the status of the contestants rather than the status of Trump).

I like it on TA:MS that it's "Charles", "Alexis", and "Martha". I don't think Martha be rude and dismissive to Charles just in order to ingratiate herself more with an attractive candidate. I can't picture it, and I'd be disappointed if she did.

blocked writer

Oct 10, 2005 @ 5:10 pm

Kwame and Troy definitely set the bar pretty high in not letting friendship interfere with competition. But the final five of Season 1 all did a good job in showing some class. Remember Bill, Kwame, and Troy all going out for a nice dinner instead of sitting around the suite trash-talking and trying to get together an alliance to gang up on the third party?

Don't forget Kwame and Bill toasting each other on the roof on the last night. Contrast that with Kelly and JenM not even speaking with one another on the final night.[/quote]

Thanks for reminding me about Bill joining in the dinner with Kwame and Troy. Bill and Kwame's toast on the last night was further evidence of the class that's been so lacking in the subsequent seasons. I do believe that Kendra tried to behave with class, despite some serious provocation on the part of her viper-like competitors. But other than that, class and grace under pressure has been sadly wanting on this show.

I do hold out hope for Marshawn and Randal. They both seem to be able to conduct themselves with restraint and professionalism. I hope it lasts.

karenk

Oct 10, 2005 @ 5:12 pm

Any time someone insists "I must be intelligent because I graduated from ____ school," I remind myself that Dubya graduated from Yale and has an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Maybe Toral can hire one of her teammates as her executive assistant in charge of operating the friggin' television. Honey, I don't think you can be all high and mighty about being above running a TV set when you're ON TV. On the other hand, maybe the old Luddite guy was right and the TV was from the devil.

But that "event" was pathetic. It looked dull, dreary and dismal. Sorry, Jen W -- take your sugar-free cookies with you for a taxicab snack!

atlantis81

Oct 10, 2005 @ 5:37 pm

TA2's Sandy and Jennifer M. shouted Andy down, and even though his argument had more merit, IMO, Trump fired Andy. Trump went on to say that Sandy was a real firecracker (or something to that effect) and that she and Jennifer had out-debated Andy. That was pure Trump bullshit. They out-shrieked Andy.[/quote]

Yeah, that was a sad, sad day... Trump, what an idiot, and he admitted it when he ended up hiring Andy anyway. Love Andy.

On-topic... I think Rebecca thought she was showing integrity because a) the rest of the women were ganging up on Toral for not knowing how to program an HDTV; b) Trump would have fired Toral because everyone else was ganging up on her; c) Rebecca did not feel Toral deserved to be fired (I mean, what top exec has to know how to program an HDTV to do their job anyway) and d) by not bringing Toral into the boardroom, she was not caving in to the peer pressure brought on by the other teammates.

About Rebecca -- I had no problem with her management style, and it pissed me off a bit when Kristi and Alla and Felisha (?) talked about how they weren't motivated. In reality, it's not always the project manager's job to motivate; it's YOUR job. The Apprentice-ship (yeah, right) should be enough to motivate them, WTF? I also don't have a problem with her delegating the event planning to Jennifer W., since she was supposedly a professional event planner. What Rebecca did poorly, I think, was make assumptions about her team's technical experience -- none of them seemed to give good presentations. Not that I'm defending Rebecca at all -- I liked her, but I was pretty disappointed in the result.

I was so glad to see Jennifer W. go.

ConanGrammarian

Oct 10, 2005 @ 5:41 pm

...I mean, what top exec has to know how to program an HDTV to do their job anyway...[/quote]

Answer: A top exec who has been assigned by his/her boss to do a presentation on programming HDTV.

...it pissed me off a bit when Kristi and Alla and Felisha (?) talked about how they weren't motivated. In reality, it's not always the project manager's job to motivate; it's YOUR job. The Apprentice-ship (yeah, right) should be enough to motivate them, WTF?[/quote]

Agreed there, atlantis81. In the "real world" if you don't have enough work and want to get ahead, you tell your boss, "I've got some bandwidth here boss, what can I help with?"

Jaded Cat

Oct 10, 2005 @ 5:59 pm

Kwame and Troy definitely set the bar pretty high in not letting friendship interfere with competition. But the final five of Season 1 all did a good job in showing some class. Remember Bill, Kwame, and Troy all going out for a nice dinner instead of sitting around the suite trash-talking and trying to get together an alliance to gang up on the third party?[/quote]

Ah yes, I remember it well. I wanted to be there just so I could get my fill of the complete eye candy that those 3 were.

There were some real gentlemen on that first season, never seen any until this season. Randal is a standout so far.

I think Trump was right to fire JenW for her failures but I think if Toral had been brought to the BR, she would have been a goner. Rebecca caught a lucky break, in part due to her pursuasive speech but I think she and Toral are in Trump's sights now, so they need to be careful.

NurseSusy

Oct 10, 2005 @ 7:26 pm

Upthread I wrote that Rebecca used integrity as an issue to trump Trump. I never wrote that Rebecca had integrity or that the issue had anything to do with integrity. It was just to muddy the waterss and deflect attention on what a poor job she had done as PM. As Fluffy Malone wrote

I saw Rebecca's decision as more of a strategy to save her butt in the long run by having an ally rather than a friendship move. [/quote] Rebecca and Toral are allies not friends. I don't recall Rebecca ever saying that Toral was her best friend. That was assumed by the blonde coven, The Donald, and his Viceroys. But maybe she did. Rebecca kept saying that Toral was not at blame for the failure of the task and she was sticking to her opinion.

I think Toral and Rebecca will hang there close to the end. They have all their energy to staying in the game with strategy and tactics, whereas Trump has other distractions than just thinking about The Apprentice 24/7.

As to the upthread post from Karenk about reminding one's self about President George W. Bush's education. What is your point? He has been elected to lead this Superpower nation twice, but his education has nothing to do with it. Then what has contributed to his overwhelming political success?

Susan StoHelit

Oct 10, 2005 @ 7:47 pm

A techno-event for seniors (presumably the group of seniors who are afraid of or intimidated by technology, or who don't see any reason to use it - not the techno-savvy seniors) shouldn't have included complex programming of a HDTV - if it's not so simple that it is fairly obvious, it shouldn't be in the event. I think there were two failings of the women's event - the decor and food was lousy; and the technologies chosen were horrible! An overcomplicated TV with a better picture than their eyes can probably see; a heart rate monitor for people living in a seniors home where the main fitness goal is to keep walking - not hard core workout types. In that sense I wouldn't blame Toral - she should have learned it - but a piece of technology that complex did not belong in the event. What we didn't see was how they picked out their technologies - I wonder who was at fault for picking such lousy items.

TiVO was a great choice - newish technology so the technosavvy may not have tried it yet, and incredibly easy to operate and set up (I did it not that long ago - the interface is extremely well done). Photographs, internet, email - those are useful.

The scoring system for the event was pretty sloppy - it should have had something about how many people came to the event, did they stay, how many exhibits did they look at, etc.

NurseSusy

Oct 10, 2005 @ 7:53 pm

I looked Jen W's bio as I was confused by all the event planner hoopla. I was surprised! Jen W kept saying she was an event planner, but her bio states that she is a real estate broker over 70 agents in Arizona and has just opened a restaurant.

Why didn't she say "I'm NOT an event planner, but a hotshot real estate broker!" in her defense. Unless she counts "open houses" as events that merit a lot of planning. Oh, I get it! Her event was like an open house with cake (ugly, I'm sure NY has better bakeries), cookies, and punch, and this is how she planned it. Which is why there were no signs. But I don't get no balloons, I have seen balloons at Open Houses outside on the sign.

Hoola

Oct 10, 2005 @ 8:00 pm

If Rebecca spoke to me the way she spoke to the other women or George, she might have gotten some hot coffee in her lap (TM Lynette). I bet her abrasiveness is a large reason why she didn't continue a career in finance and instead went into the less collaborative world of free-lance journalism. She is a horrible leader, and that horrible event didn't happen without a lot of incompetence from the top down. And when someone is incompetent like Toral is, it's perfectly fine for everyone to agree that she needs to be fired. It wasn't ganging up and the women were not inventing reasons to fire her a la Stacie J. or Markus.

blocked writer

Oct 10, 2005 @ 8:11 pm

And when someone is incompetent like Toral is, it's perfectly fine for everyone to agree that she needs to be fired. It wasn't ganging up and the women were not inventing reasons to fire her a la Stacie J. or Markus.[/quote]

I agree with this, at least as it applies to Toral and Stacie J.

Although I didn't like the comment one of them made about Toral not being their caliber, I don't think it's wrong to point out what someone did wrong. I just hate the plotting tactics so many of them use.

I do think that the guys had good reasons to think poorly of Markus's business skills in the first two episodes. I don't admire the way they went about it, and Randal showed in episode three that Markus could be effectively lead. But Markus did give the team good reasons to think that the team would be better off without him. There might have been somewhat of a "fratboy" mentality at play, but Markus wasn't an innocent victim.

quaintirene

Oct 10, 2005 @ 9:22 pm

They have all their energy to staying in the game with strategy and tactics[/quote]

I must respectfully disagree with this. As of right now, Rebecca presents as someone who will support her friend/ally to the point of hurting herself as well as a team leader who will not listen to her team. Toral appears to be a candidate who is so over-struck with her own abilities that she didn't bother to prepare her presentation. If she had, she would have worked out how to program that tv and wouldn't have looked like a complete fool. An MBA from Wharton is nice. Preparing ahead of time to make sure you nail your task and make your team look good is priceless. Toral's excuse, which was basically that she was a big important exective who would normally outsource this stuff to a peon, made no sense at all unless she has been living under some rock somewhere and hasn't made any attempt to watch any season of the show she has applied to star in. If she had she would have known that the Apprenti do menial stuff all the time and this is not unusual.

Either way, Toral and Rebecca have strategized themselves into a fairly deep hole. I shall watch their progress with interest.

auntiemame

Oct 10, 2005 @ 10:07 pm

Toral has only an undergrad degree from Wharton. She dropped out of Columbia Business School. Which makes her sense of entitlement slightly wacky. On the Toral thread there's a discussion of how Toral is not here to win, but to famewhore. I buy it.

illogic

Oct 10, 2005 @ 11:01 pm

Either way, Toral and Rebecca have strategized themselves into a fairly deep hole. I shall watch their progress with interest.[/quote]

Toral has, but Rebecca's pretty safe unless Trump does a double firing. It' s Toral, not Rebecca, who's on the chopping block. Rebecca's leadership, good or bad, didn't really come into question. Her decision not to bring in Toral did.

If the women lose this week, even if both Rebecca and Tora get pulled in, Toral's more at risk. Trump likely won't punish Rebecca next week for the same decision he refused to punish her for this week. If one of the blondes or Marshawn are project manager, they'll pull in both Toral and Rebecca, unless someone else really stinks up the place. Toral won't survive, and Rebecca skates.

If Toral volunteers for PM, which she may do to save face, and she loses, she won't bring Rebecca in. If she did, she'd be toast, because of what Rebecca did for her last time.

CheekyCricket

Oct 11, 2005 @ 11:06 am

. I don't recall Rebecca ever saying that Toral was her best friend. That was assumed by the blonde coven, The Donald, and his Viceroys. But maybe she did.[/quote]
When Rebecca and Toral returned from the hospital, she said she had "found a friendship" with Toral (not her "best friend" and not in the boardroom). I don't think there was any need to make assumptions.

Also, for all the talk of the "blonde coven," I seem to recall that a good deal of the boardroom criticism of Toral came from Marshawn and Jennifer W. (both brunettes). The only woman who seemed to respect Toral was Rebecca.

rsenor

Oct 11, 2005 @ 12:56 pm

I wish I worked at the companies you've worked at. The bosses in both companies I've worked for since getting my degree could make Rebecca look like a dream, and not the least bit abrasive. There are managers all over the place who regularly talk down to and/or rub their employees the wrong way. I do think she will need to ease up a bit on the attitude if she wants to win (treat her team like Kendra did, not like Tana), but I definitely think she was not abrasive to the point of no return there. Certainly not censured by HR-level problems. [/quote]

ITA.

Although I don't think her attitude was entirely horrible in this episode, I think she showed signs that she will, in the future demonstrate the type of hardcore bully-bitchedness that garners nothing but hate from employees. Whether she can temper it enough to make it far in the game is questionable.

Were it grounds for censure, I'd have a trail of these censured harpies in my wake.

rsenor

Oct 11, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

If there are two different, glaring problems with a project, why does the PM get a pass? [/quote]

Unfortunately, I think getting the pass comes down to whether you have a kick-down kind of attitude (or rather, having employees you are willing to kick-down to) or not. At least this is what the last two episodes demonstrated. Last week, Chris defended himself but didn't pass the buck (at least in any logical way) as PM. This week, Rebecca defended herself and did. Had it been Toral in the boardroom, who knows if Rebecca would have done the same ( I doubt it). Not that Trump is consistent or anything, but just a theory.

Madhoo

Oct 11, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

rsenor, your theory really makes sense. How unfortunate though, that passing the buck is rewarded more than the taking responsibility of a manager?

nenyadr

Oct 11, 2005 @ 2:54 pm

How unfortunate though, that passing the buck is rewarded more than the taking responsibility of a manager?[/quote]

I see it as each person should be responsible for their faults. They are competing for a "leadership" position (even if it's as a sycophant) in the Trump Corporation. I loved how in season 1, they would take on leadership positions within the group, especially if there was something lacking with the current PM. I think the PM should be responsible for overall management, role assignment, and as the final word for decisions, but s/he should not be solely responsible for errors the team makes. If you can't manage yourself, how are you going to run a coporation?

That's what really annoyed me about Kristi's remark about not being motivated. WORD to those who said being on this show, and running this competition should be motivation enough. If she needs someone to motivate her, how can she be the head of a company? Trump isn't going to give her little "go get them" speeches.

Basically ... UGH! I still think they should make all the candidates watch highlights of season 1 ... Learn from Bill, Troy, Kwame, and even Amy...

ETA: I wonder if anyone did a webcam presentation? That would have been cool! I still enjoy seeing my little niece and nephew on the webcam, it doesn't matter whether someone is 10 miles away, or a 1000, it would be nice to be able to see them at times ...

auntiemame

Oct 11, 2005 @ 3:04 pm

I'm not saying Rebecca doesn't deserve some responsibility for the loss, but IMO if she chooses an "ooh, ooh! pick me! pick me!" event planner (Jen W.) and the event planner creates a boring, banal event that is widely criticized, wouldn't the fault lie more with the event planner than the project manager? If anything, that crap-ass event planned by Jen W. and her shruggy "oh well" about the horrible "tethno" misspelling leads me to believe that she didn't believe that she would have to take the responsibility for the problem herself, and that she and the Heathers were plotting against Rebecca, hoping that with their passive-aggressive do-nothingness they could undermine her enough to get her fired.

If she was a bitchy manager -- and I'm not sure she was -- it would make sense that it was because caught her team plotting or standing around or whatever. And I'm sure they let her be project manager because, with her ankle broken, she'd be less likely to take total control and would thus be more easily fired. Just a theory.

rsenor

Oct 11, 2005 @ 3:27 pm

How unfortunate though, that passing the buck is rewarded more than the taking responsibility of a manager? [/quote]

I thought about adding that...I really remember thinking last week that its sad that Chris, in the end, did the respectful, stand-up thing, but got fired anyway.

I think if there is something large, and glaring, that a PM or M (for that matter) is responsible to notice and if not correct it, at least attempt to correct the behavoir of the individual causing whatever problem is occuring. Again, a reason it was sad to see Chris go. He gave his best effort to damper marcus's antics, but without avail. From what we saw, Rebecca made no attempt to remedy anything that went wrong in terms of setup, decorations, refreshments, etc. I think she should have been held responsible for that.

Hoola

Oct 11, 2005 @ 3:45 pm

but IMO if she chooses an "ooh, ooh! pick me! pick me!" event planner (Jen W.)[/quote]

I'm going to rewatch this episode tonight because my memory is a little fuzzy, but it was Rebecca who said in confessional that she picked Jen W. because Jen had experience in event planning. I don't know why I thought Jen was an event planner. It makes sense because her personality on the show seemed very different from event planners. Jen's resume on the site says she owns a real estate agency and a restaurant. They never showed Jen demanding to take on that responsibility. Still, I should think that anyone could have done better at that task, except for Toral. And I really wonder how Rebecca was spending the planning time because she seemed to pick the stations and assign tasks pretty early on in the task.

AlmondEyes

Oct 11, 2005 @ 8:10 pm

Aaaaaaand the intellectual horsepower argument from two seasons ago rears its ugly head.

I just caught the CNBC repeat. Wow. I neither have a business degree from Wharton or Chicago, nor am I an investment banker. According to Rebecca and Toral, I'm probably not smart enough to post in this thread. Or do anything, for that matter. I should just kill myself now.

Shut. up. Toral. Wouldn't it make sense to figure out the technology at your assigned station before you purport to demonstrate it to others? Oh, I guess they didn't teach that at Wharton. I'm so sick of her 'look at me, I'm sooooo much smarter than everyone else here' bitchface. Ummm, not so much.

Have these people learned nothing from past seasons? Rebecca, I suggest you talk to Erika and Katrina. They can probably educate you on the perils of letting friendship get in the way of whom to bring back into the BR. Hell, even Troy brought Kwame into the BR, and they were totally in luuurve.

I was surprised that Trump fired Jennifer W instead of Rebecca. I imagine he's waiting for Toral's turn as PM, and whether brings Rebecca back into the BR the next time their team (Matchstick? Excel? Too many Apprentice shows and Apprenti; I'm so confused) loses - and face it, they will. I don't care if Toral's team loses the next task by $1; the minute they lose again - next week, perhaps? - she's toast. But Rebecca made a yoooge mistake in not bringing Toral to the BR. She's definitely painted herself into a corner, though, and she's not long for this show.

FuManchu

Oct 12, 2005 @ 5:21 am

Nothing irritates me more than a sense of entitlement because of the university you went to. Particularly when it flies in the face of common sense, as Toral's claim did.

An acquaintance of mine recently boasted that employers would automatically hire him because he'd gone to a fairly good university. Complete rubbish. I just finished at Oxford and I've no idea if anyone will want to hire me. There are any number of ways you can get into a top university - you're not automatically competent for doing so.

The way I look at it, a good degree gets you the interview, but you get the job itself on your merits. Since the Apprentice is supposedly one long job interview, that means that going to Wharton got Toral onto the show, but she really should not rely on it to take her further. It's a massive sign of insecurity to assume that your university entitles you to special treatment - at least it only occurs to me when I'm feeling insecure, but I resist the temptation because it rarely works and makes everyone hate you.

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