Re: Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- From: "michael adams" <mjadams25@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:39:19 +0100
"NoSpamThanks" <nospamthanks@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4fc4a79d$0$2959$a8266bb1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There seems to be a consensus that there is something
a bit off in this series of The Apprentice.
Jumped the shark.
I've only watched bits of this one.
From what I've seen nothing much has changed. As with most thingsno matter how good the original idea amight be things get stale
after a couple of years. Its impossibly to come up with anything
really rivetting within the same format. Unless they start having
fist fights in the boardroom, or there's any stand-out
crumpet/beefcake interest right through to the final.
The supposed "big change" - Sugar seeking a partner rather than
an apprentice seems to have made not a jot of difference,
The only reason it was introduced was possibly bacause
he could only take on so many new "apprentices" before the
viewers finally smelled a rat.
According to another post the ratings have held up reasonably
well - if not as compared with past series -at least as
compared with any other programme in that slot costing the
equivalent amount of money.
And so it makes commercial sense for them to run it into the
ground until the ratings finally collapse.
michael adams
,,,
One view blames the lack of comedy gold such as
100 chickens for 100 chicken pizzas, or sandalwoodgate
but this series started off with half the women getting lost
just outside the zoo for half the episode, and we have
Adam who seems to have stepped out of a 1970s
sitcom: apologising to women for complexity;
rejecting sushi as no-one could want to eat raw fish;
and this week in a fine dining restaurant, negotiating
a free mug of tea to wash down your egg and chips.
So it cannot be that
Danny Baker once remarked that television is now
run by people who do not themselves watch terrestrial
broadcast television. I wonder if Apprentice producers
are familiar with the programme or do they prefer
the American series?
There is less time spent showing the task and more
time spent in the boardroom. The task footage has
large subtasks surgically removed: in most tasks we
can see posters and products which are never
mentioned but someone must have created them.
Nick is clearly highly regarded by his colleagues:
never brought into the boardroom; praised by
losers on You're Fired; and look at the reception
he got when he was picked to switch teams.
Yet what has he done? Clearly a great deal and
whatever it is, he must do it very well, yet we are
shown nothing of this.
Even in the boardroom, what in earlier series
was Lord Sugar questioning contestants and
observers in order to understand why a task had
been won or lost, has now degenerated into
candidates shouting at and over each other.
This conflict and emotion is what producers
imagine we want. This is the same mindset that
claims people only watch Formula One for
the crashes.
This series is unsatisfactory because the producers
stop us understanding the tasks and playing along
at home. Look at the complaints that firings seem
arbitrary or are based on Sugar's knowledge of
candidates' business plans.
By reducing task footage (and what is left can be
confusing as editors try to cram in everything
that will later be referenced in the boardroom,
often at the expense of the narrative) and corrupting
boardroom scenes, the producers undermine
the series by making it too hard for viewers to
follow in an intelligent manner.
--
NST.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- From: hognoxious
- Re: Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- References:
- Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- From: NoSpamThanks
- Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- Prev by Date: Re: SPOILER - Game of Thrones
- Next by Date: Re: Shatner on HIGNFY
- Previous by thread: Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- Next by thread: Re: Apprentice -- what has gone wrong
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
