TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . ABOUT US . CONTACT . CHAT  
Bomis   Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through February 04, 2005

The TVClubHouse: Other Reality Shows ARCHIVES: Apprentice III: Ferbruary 3rd - **SPOILER**: Archive through February 04, 2005 users admin

Author Message
Reader234
Member

08-13-2000

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:46 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
aw... thanks for taking the time to spoil!! I'm in Texas!! Just got back from Billy Bob's the hotel has a computer in the business center!!

I appreciate the information!!

CHEERS! *clink**

Csnog
Member

07-18-2002

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:52 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Michael is so out of there the next time his team looses. He lost the respect of the other members. Danny was a poor leader but Michael let the team down.

Pamy
Member

01-02-2002

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:57 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
It pisses me off that ppl quit these shows!! They took a spot of someone that could have played!

Dee
Member

08-08-2000

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 10:41 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I'm on the West Coast (so thanks for the spoilers!) and am at the part where Danny is going to fight to get Michael "un-exempted". Who does he think he is? Trump makes the rules, not Danny and his team.

Dipo
Member

04-23-2002

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 10:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I can't believe these people are so stupid, I thought they went to college!!!! How in the world can they think they can challenge the exemption, OMG, that is crazy.. Did they not see what happened to Bradford?? Extremely shortsighted.

Carlito
Member

03-26-2004

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 10:43 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Pamy,i totally agree with you! BTW Txbabe great job spoiling!!!!!
Michael was so obnoxious with his exemption and needs to be the next one gone from that team.
I dont think any of the contestants on either team has learned from previous shows that they need to jell together to win and not go to the BR.
They all seem very selfish and judging the way they chose their project leader,no one wanted to step up.Poor Danny got suckered and the cab ride was pure danny.It was hilarious.

Starshine40
Member

07-30-2002

Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 11:08 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I'm glad to see Danny go. He was a disaster not just in this job but in previous challenges.

If Trump had taken the exemption away it would have been him going back on HIS WORD and I didn't think he would do that no matter what Michael did or didn't do. Trump has to show that he is a man of his word whether the other party is or not.

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:28 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I was sad to see Danny go. I had a soft spot for him because he reminds me very much of my beloved baby brother. He also just seemed like a nice guy (I'm not arguing that he wasn't a disaster, I just liked him). I didn't like that Trump, Carolyn & George were against him for bringing in an exempt person. While that wasn't the best idea, I think that Trump allowing Danny to bring him in made Danny think there was a chance he might take back the exemption. Had Trump said "You can bring him in, but I'm not going to fire him", Danny most likely wouldn't have taken him. (I guess they did away with the option of bringing 3 people with you this season.). But was there anyone Danny could have brought in that would have changed the outcome? It didn't seem like anyone did anything worthy of being fired. Their event was a success, it was just the lack of an overall theme that cost them the competition. I know someone from the losing team had to go, but I think it is awful that the worst performer had the exemption.

Newman
Member

09-25-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:59 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Let's discuss the flaw of the show.

If you are the Project Manager, and your team loses, you get fired. It's your fault. Who would want to be the PM? It's too risky. Unless the task was about brides and you ran a bridal shop, why volunteer to be PM?

Trump should take away the exemption gimmick. What's the point of it anyway? It was exposed this week. Michael did nothing on this project and was pouting in the corner and could have cared less if his team won or lost.

He threatened Danny with physical harm. What kind of bullcrap is that? Why should that be rewarded or is intimidation what you want in the corporate boardroom? Probably is. It's a dog eat dog world.


Bigsister
Member

09-02-2001

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:36 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Seems to me the point of the exemption gimmick is to convince people to be Project Manager. Newman just stated that if you are PM and your team loses, you get fired. So there needs to be something to make people want to be PM.

Jimmer
Member

08-30-2000

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 7:52 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I can’t believe how poorly some of these people appear on national TV. Seriously, would you (or Trump) want to hire someone like Michael after viewing this show? It would be like hiring someone who would say

“Well I got my bonus for this year so I’m not putting in any more effort.” Or

“If I don’t like what my Manager decides, I’m simply going to sit around and not do my job.”

On the other topic, it’s clear that the Project Manager is an endangered species. Invariably, the losing team’s project manager gets fired. But I’m sure there must have been examples where this hasn’t happened – can someone name a few?

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:47 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Jimmer, I am not sure why it seems this go-round that the PMs are more at risk. Compared to the first 2 seasons, it seems that they are. My guess is that everyone is familiar with the show so much, that they will let the PM take the heat and maybe they are not as aggressive if they aren't PM as they know the PM will be on the chopping block and will be the main contender if everyone else lays a little lower.

Does that make sense? I think they should do away with the PMs at this point....

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:54 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Here's a rundown of the shows from Seasons 1 & 2. Red= PM fired, Blue = other than PM fired.

Season 1:
Ep 1: Project Manager(PM) is Troy, David is fired
Ep 2: PM(Jason) is fired
Ep 3: PM(Sam) is fired
Ep 4: PM is Kwame, Bowie is fired
Ep 5: PM(Kristi) is fired
Ep 6: PM is Omarosa, Jessie is fired
Ep 7: PM is Katrina, Tammy is fired
Ep 8: PM(Erika) is fired
Ep 9: PM is Kwame, Omarosa is fired
Ep 10: PM is Troy, Heidi is fired
Ep 11: PM is Amy, Katrina is fired
Ep 12: PM(Troy) is fired

Season 2:
Ep 1: PM is Pamela, Rob is fired
Ep 2: PM is Ivana, Bradley is fired
Ep 3: PM is Elizabeth, Stacie J is fired
Ep 4: PM(Jennifer C) is fired
Ep 5: PM(Pamela) is fired
Ep 6: PM(John) is fired
Ep 7: PM is Wes, Stacy R is fired
Ep 8: PM(Elizabeth) is fired
Ep 9: PM(Raj) is fired
Ep 10: PM(Chris) is fired
Ep 11: PM is Wes, Wes and Maria are fired
Ep 12: PM(Andy) is fired
Ep 13: PM(Ivana) is fired


Looks like a lot more PMs were fired in Season 2...but I think most of the time the PMs have deserved to go. There have been exceptions, of course.

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:03 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Thanks Cdbga! That is nice to see. Also makes me think the contestants are wising up and letting the PMs "have it" as they have more at risk just by being PM.

Jimmer
Member

08-30-2000

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:42 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
That’s a pretty fascinating list. I only started watching The Apprentice around episode 3 in the second season, so virtually all of the shows that I have seen had the PM fired. They should probably try to do something about that trend as it certainly doesn’t encourage leadership ambitions.

One of the problems that Project Managers have on the show, is that they have no material way of encouraging their team to support them. They can’t offer them a direct reward and they can’t “fire” them either. One would think that the other team members would want to co-operate to make themselves and their team look good, but they may feel that helping a PM now will hurt them down the road.

Leadership is a key test of The Apprentice and success in business in general, but I feel that the show is over-emphasising the role of the leader and de-emphasising the role of the support team. Everyone in business has a boss, unless you are the sole owner, and therefore the qualities that are shown in supporting a leader should also be important. You would think that Trump would want people working for him that will support him.

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:11 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I couldn't agree with you more Jimmer. I think both Bill & Kelly were examples of this...both were good leaders, but also knew how to follow. They worked hard at all the tasks, because they wanted their team to win. I don't know what the show could do to change things. Maybe if they added some sort of MVP bonuses or something. Like on Wickedly Perfect, when they gave away that truck to the person who had the best personal project the first week. George or Carolyn could give the rewards at their discretion, so it would be based on performance rather than just being the PMs favorite that week. I don't know...this isn't very well thought out, just something that came to mind while I was typing!

Roxip
Member

01-29-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:17 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
There have been many times when the fired person wasn't the project manager, although I'm horrible at names so I'm not going to try and do that! For instance, Omarosa wasn't the PM when she was fired.

I thought this task (or at least as it was shown on tv) was rather difficult to understand and hard to measure. Were they supposed to judge based on who gave away the most cups of coffee - who brought in the most people - who had the best-looking booth? In a way I thought the college people did one thing better - by giving away things on an interval they kept a steady flow of people - I was afraid (and I was pulling for the non-college grads) that this was going to pull in more people, because once the $10,000 was given away what was the incentive to stay? I think a better idea for Net Worth would have been to give away smaller increments of money over a longer period of time - but they won anyway so who cares...LOL!

Roxip
Member

01-29-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:19 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Oops...sorry, I got distracted so my post was after-the-fact and irrelevant to a certain degree.

Cdbga
Member

10-04-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:15 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I think they were judging on the overall marketing concept. Net Worth won because they had a cohesive campaign, but Magna didn't really have that. Prior to judging, though I did think that Magna might have won, because they seemed to have a much larger crowd. But, perhaps that was just in editing. It was hard to tell from what we were shown, but a lot of their emphasis seemed to be on the IPod giveaway, more so than pushing the coffee. The judges didn't mention that, however.

Pamy
Member

01-02-2002

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 1:59 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I liked Danny and hated to see him go. Mike will go soon enough.

What job does Verna have? I missed what it said under name.

Buggles
Member

09-07-2002

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 2:26 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Pamy I feel the same way about Danny. I thought he was gonna kick azz in the beginning... what a disappointment :-(

About exemptions. Even if the person sits back or tries to sabotage the team and is 'safe' for that week... it still reflects badly on them. They ultimately will be fired for it. Its a good 'weed out' or 'character' test in that way I think.

DT def does NOT want employees who take the initiative to tinker with his rules, lol.

Babyjaxmom
Member

10-20-2002

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 3:59 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
My thinking on the exemption is that if the boss (DT) makes the rules, the boss can break them, too. And in this case, I really thought he should. When someone sits back and does nothing to help his team, and especially when that same person threatens his team leader with physical harm ("I'm going to throw you out that window" or whatever it was he said to Danny), that should not be accepted in any way, shape or form. Threatening a co-worker is not okay in any working environment (unless you're a professional wrestler ). I was hoping DT would see that and give Michael the boot. He'll go for sure next time they lose. I can't see that Trump--or anybody else in the corporate world--would want to hire Michael after his behavior on this project.

Slightly OT, didn't anybody else think it ironic that the project was for Nescafe when they were in the news just this week? The guy on the label was never paid for the ad. He just thought he didn't get the job and didn't realize they were using his picture on the jar until he saw one in a store--15 years after he posed for the picture! He just won about a $15 million settlement. Can't believe Nestle tried to get away with that one!

Happygal
Member

11-15-2004

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 4:51 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I noticed something odd at the end of the show last night. When Stephanie and Michael were getting into the elevator to go back up to the suite, she hooked her arm into his. Considering they are being portrayed as "enemies" who can't stand each other, I thought that was weird. Did anyone else notice this?

Whoami
Member

08-03-2001

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:46 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Haven't had time to watch my tape of last night's ep yet. But I wonder it DT might have considered taking away the exemption if it was his idea. How would he look as a boss if he let one of his subordinates basically tell him he should change his rules?



Curlyq
Member

07-10-2002

Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:24 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I wouldn't be surprised if the exemption was gone by the next season. I remember that was one of the questions in the survey NBC did for The Apprentice. The question asked for feedback about the exemption and I think I remember being able to type in my own comments about it.

It would probably be for the best that they take it away, but not in the middle of the competition. As soon as that little group started kicking that idea around of getting around the exemption I had a feeling it would backfire. If Trump fired an exempt person it would basically render all future exemptions worthless, as if to say "You're exempt next week...as long as you don't do anything that ticks me off."

What they did manage to do was draw attention to the fact that exemptions aren't always earned because sometimes teams win in spite of their leaders rather than because of them, and it also put Mike in the spotlight for next week. I'll bet they'll be watching him closely from now on, and the previews suggested he might carry his sex-sells-all mentality too far in the next project.