Author |
Message |
Luvmykitties
Member
01-02-2004
| Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:10 pm
OK - I am shocked with the extra footage seen tonight. I will just watch on Saturdays from now on because a lot more comes out in the boardroom. (imagine all the other stuff we don't see? I'd love to see the extra footage of Donald, Caroline and George talking ) Ivana knew about Stacie calling the temp agencies! And she basically said that she gave Stacie that assignment to keep her busy and out of the way (I'm paraphrasing) That is real proof of how the show is edited. During the project they made it sound like Stacie blindly took that upon herself. By Ivana admitting that she gave Stacie an "aimless" task, - which also took up someone else's time (the temp agency) - made Ivana look even more incompetent. Although I can see the reason why Trump fired Bradford, I totally think Ivana should have been fired this week. She failed at every turn on this project - including being indecisive in the boardroom. She couldn't even give a reason why she brought Bradford in. SHe just agreed with Trump when Trump said "because he's stupid - right?"
|
WoodpeckeŽ
Member
07-16-2002
| Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:24 pm
Is Branford related to Marci from BB 3? If not, he certainly must compare notes with him about "bonehead reality show strategies".
|
Curlyq
Member
07-10-2002
| Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:30 pm
What Trump did was absolutely ridiculous, and reminiscent of the nonsense he pulled last season. He fires the wrong people at the wrong time for inane reasons, and keeps problem people for good TV. Even at the end of this episode we heard him and his two yes people talking about how dramatic it was and how it doesn't get any better than that. Bradford's move was perfectly honorable and logical in my opinion. He simply knew he didn't need an exemption because his work stood on its own. A man with two good legs doesn't need a crutch. And why should he have expected Ivana to want to compete against him when she had clearly done a worse job than he did? I expected Trump to respect his self-confidence, especially since he admitted that Bradford did a great job. Bradford wasn't giving up an advantage over the competition because he knew he still had the advantage (his work). He wasn't throwing away a pat on the back, either. He was trusting that Trump would value good work and not fire someone just because they were available for firing. For Trump to characterize this as a "life-threatening mistake" was way over the top. It would only be a mistake if Bradford had done a poor job and needed that exemption. Ivana shouldn't have brought him to the board, plain and simple, and she wasn't going to until Trump practically dared her to. The guy is trying way too hard to make dramatic TV. As soon as everyone agreed they had a problem with Stacie, he knew he had his new cash cow. This all reminds me of last season when he fired one woman for not being offended enough at Omarosa's remarks, rather than firing the offender.
|
Fruitbat
Member
08-07-2000
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 5:55 am
Curlyq said..."and keeps problem people for good TV" Yes he does. He admits this. This is a TV show. Trump and Mark Burnet are creating entertainment. They are business men at work and doing an excellent job. I am enjoying the product very much!
|
Mauiwowee
Member
07-30-2004
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:11 am
I will also begin watching on Saturday as the extra boardroom footage was terrific & I agree with Fruitbat-- I am also enjoying the product! As far as not firing the offender goes (Omarosa), I think it is fair to fire someone based on their poor reaction to offensive comments. Trump is not looking for a doormat or fly off the handle person. Sticking up for one's self is paramount while remaining cool. It is also helpful to have an Omarosa or Stacie around to see just how someone will handle/deal with that type of person/personality...Look what happened to Kwame with Omarosa. I think Trump knows exactly what he is doing. Enetrtainment, yes--but more than that--a look into a persons character when they are faced with challenging situations and people. It is a job interview to help run a Donald Trump company afterall.
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:33 am
I do not think Stacie is this year's Omarosa. At least not yet.
|
Fruitbat
Member
08-07-2000
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:35 am
I agree Mauiwowee.
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:51 am
In the future, I hope we can just have one thread discussing a particular show. This week we have 2, this one and the spoiler. I totally enjoy this show and I don't understand a lot of the objections here. Donald can fire whomever he wants to. Many bosses fire or hire people for a number of different reasons...
|
Fruitbat
Member
08-07-2000
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 7:04 am
MODERATOR! Could you please combine the two Apprentice threads? Two threads are unnecessary and become redundant. Julieboo, I agree. Unfortunalely new threads are started by posters who think they need to have one for a specific subject within the show. TAR is the same way. Too many threads. You post your comments then realize there are 2 others with the same conversation.
|
Puttergirl
Member
08-11-2000
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:44 am
I've posted the new questions for the poll. If you're not playing, its not too late to start! We need more players
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 9:18 am
Julie, I agree with you. Texas is a no-cause state wherein you can be fired without being given a reason. After watching last night, Jen was not the only one who had a problem keeping her mouth shut. I could see the dirt flying behind Bradford as he just kept digging himself in deeper and deeper. It was interesting to learn that Ivana had given Stacie the task of calling temps. Isn't editing amazing? Ivana obviously chose Jen and Bradford thinking that would make the chances of getting rid of Stacie even better.
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 9:31 am
I thought that too--that Ivana chose Jennifer to have at least one more person on her "side." Actually I think that's kinda smart, (assuming that person really is on your side) so when the heat comes on you, your ally can turn it on another person....
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 9:36 am
Mods, could you take this thread and merge it into the Spoilers thread. Can I ask everybody to try to keep discussion about each show in that particular show's spoiler thread? I also have one more request, please don't make thread titles with spoiler information in them--such as "Bradford's Firing." Thanks!
|
Uhoh
Member
07-23-2002
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:49 pm
i agree that bradford's firing was silly - in context. trump was goading him, telling him he was the only one who could be honest, who was safe, and on and on. that's when bradford finally said he'd give up his exemption, he didn't need to be exempt on a technicality, he could stand on his own performance and two feet. theatrics - but that's what trump likes to do in front of a camera regardless of circumstances. caroline was getting on my nerves on the show - actually, the whole tenor of the boardroom was. one minute they're encouraged to talk back to trump, over him, etc. - the next, they shouldn't be speaking. okay, i'll admit i haven't had fortune 500 executive experience. i was in business for years in middle-manager positions at smallish companies before starting my own (very) small company 20 years ago. i've not worked for other people in a loong time, and when i did it wasn't a break-the-glass-ceiling position. but man, i'd as soon shoot myself as work for people like trump or caroline <shudder> - and i'd take bradford as an employee any day over neurotic stacie or helter-skelter ivana.
|
Peeper
Member
06-14-2004
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 8:15 pm
I agree with you Curlyq. I was not crazy about Bradford...but Trump's firing of Bradford made no sense at all. I mean Trump firing someone for being too cocky???? Give me a break. As for making good TV...I would have been more satisfied with the show if Ivana had been fired like she should have been.
|
Curious1
Member
08-31-2002
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 9:03 pm
DH and I were talking and we decided that maybe Trump fired Bradford for the sake of the game and it's "new" twists. Maybe Trump felt that if he let Bradford forgo his exemption without suffering consequences that all the future PM's would feel they had to do the same and therefore would not see any benefit to "jumping" at the chance to be a PM. Seems to me that this is a change that maybe Mark Burnett wanted and in his (and donald's) mind Bradford was screwing up the twist for the duration of the game. Just my thoughts....
|
Fruitbat
Member
08-07-2000
| Monday, September 20, 2004 - 5:32 am
Curious, those who watched the extended version on Saturday said that is exactly what happened. Trump is not going to fire someone he thinks will make him a good employee just for drama. He confers with producers and they discuss keeping one above another if they can get some good TV. This happened with Sam last year. He let him ride another week because of this but he knew he had to go just as the guy who he fired in his place did. He said on The View that they both were marked for firing. I think Bradford angered Trump on a personal level as well as showing poor business sense. He did not respect the rules of the game. Kind of like the guy who called Mark Cubans game stupid and got booted 15 minutes into the first show. I agree that Carolyn seemed over the top in her anger over what appeared to be very little. Can't really tell because so much is edited out though.
|
Wendo
Member
08-07-2000
| Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:07 pm
Well, I realize I'm a week late but I wasn't able to catch up on my Tivo'd Apprentice until yesterday. About Bradford being fired? I would've fired him too! When he did it all I could think was, that was stupid. There's a time for being honorable; when Bradford was immune, that wasn't the time. He was GUARANTEED to stay on another week; another week to impress DT and become the apprentice. I would've fired him for being stupid. As Woody said, it was a Marcellas move. That's what I was thinking when I watched it. LOL! IMO, I think Trump thought, Why would I want to hire someone who would CHOOSE to make such a stupid mistake. Good show, I'm entertained as well.
|