Author |
Message |
Producerchic
Member
06-29-2004
| Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:35 pm
Reality TV World
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-17-2003
| Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:52 am
ROTFL Poor marcus. I dont care how he was 'edited'. They couldnt edit the blank look that he often had when people were trying to get him to explain his part of the tasks. Marcus seemed to wander off and often be on a completely different task then he was 'told' to do. His laziness and inability to focus during the Zathura Float was not just an 'editing trick'. I am sure his professional reputation has been hurt. He truly looked like a bumbler. There is no way he could debate anyone unless given the topics ahead of time so he could be completely prepared with notes. We saw that marcus was completely unable to communicate adequately 'on the fly' in an unrehearsed boardroom. Does that make him a bad person? NO, but he truly seems self deluded.
|
Rslover
Member
11-19-2002
| Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:43 pm
"I was in there for two hours, fighting for my life, and Donald says out of nowhere, 'I bet you'd make a good wife,'" Jennifer told the paper. "I would say there's ... some sexual discrimination going on there." Wow, what a chauvinist
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 1:11 pm
Which one was Jennifer? I can place her face, but can't remember when and why was she fired? Never mind... I found the article about her firing...
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 9:47 pm
NBC needs to lighten up. What bullcr*p. All the contestants us the "unfairly edited" ploy, and what jury is going to give NBC $5 mil over this nonsense?
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Friday, November 18, 2005 - 8:09 am
Puzzled, it's actually in the contracts they sign before they start filming the show. I think CBS uses a similar clause. Basically, the producers have the right to do what they want with the film, and the contestants cannot say anything about how they are portrayed. Markus seems to have taken it to new heights however. Which really only confirms, in my mind, that he's a missing a cannon ball somewhere.
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Friday, November 18, 2005 - 8:20 pm
Even if it's in the contract, they'd have to go to trial, and risk losing. It's just unrealistic to expect the contestants not to say anything about how they're portrayed, so there's a good chance a jury wouldn't give NBC an award.
|
Hummingbird
Member
08-21-2002
| Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:08 pm
Ya wanna talk about something totally inappropriate to be asked during a job interview? How about when the Donald asked the nice Jewish kid if he had ever had sex? I am glad he aswered, "I am not comfortable answering tha question."
|
Dalm_dad
Member
07-06-2004
| Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:11 pm
Puzzled, I would think that the contract with NBC is pretty tight. You can take two views: 1. A jury would not feel bad for the contestants because they are all glory-seeking and need to take what is dished; or 2. Stick it to the big corporation. I would think this is one instance where the plaintiff would not be sympathetic. Just my opinion. Dalm.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:53 pm
Add to that the very clear clause in the contract, and I would bet the jury would not feel a whole lotta sympathy for the plaintiff. Plus, by now, everyone knows what they are getting into on this show. Else, why did they apply?
|
Sunshyne4u
Member
06-17-2003
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 1:17 am
Jury would have to consider the case if the Plaintiff could produce witnesses that will testify that they will NOT do business with the Apprentice reject BECAUSE of what they saw on the tv show. The plaintiff would also have to produce a list of jobs/ contracts lost AFTER they appeared on the show. Personally I think it really unlikely that a company would admit to that information. (that a tv show swayed their opinion LOL) But a list of lost contracts would look suspiciously like the Show DID slander the plaintiff's reputation.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:28 am
I'm willing to bet the contracts signed by Apprentice wannabes are pretty iron clad. Heck, even my rental lease states my landlord is not responsible for damages I might incurr if THEY can't produce the promised unit within 30 days of the scheduled move in date... and its a standard, "tear off the pad" lease!! I can't see The Donald or the production company not having sole contractual rights to decide what is shown on THEIR show. Proceeding with this lawsuit will just make them two time losers and will further illustrate The Donald made a wise decision in firing them. I don't have much sympathy for them anyway. They are upset and angry because others did not share their self image views...Yet no one twisted their arm to sign on to be on this show...They took a gamble and they lost...
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:36 am
You're right Kep. If these contracts could be broken, there would've been many MANY more lawsuits filed by contestants. Remember that woman who was fired from her job (after calling some NY women bad names)? She couldn't sue for the way she was depicted. And remember, NBC is only threatening to sue if these peeps don't stop whining about "bad editing." Again, yes, there is editing. But these people opened their mouths so there could be footage. Markus just had his massive ego bruised.
|
Dalm_dad
Member
07-06-2004
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:13 pm
Sunshyne, You are discussing issues that would only be relevant to damages if there was liability. However, the iron-clad contract and unsympathic plaintiffs would never lead to a finding of liability. Dalm.
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:00 pm
I wasn't talking about contestants suing Trump/NBC. I was referring to NBC/Trump being the plaintiff and suing a contestant for talking about his/her experience on the show. I think there's way too good a chance that, in a trial, NBC would lose, for them to pursue it. After all, just how is NBC hurt by it? If anything, the more controversy, the better for them. I know I wouldn't be lining Trump or NBC's pockets with money from a contestant just because they complained about the editing.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:32 am
Puzzled... I don't think recovering damages would be NBC/Trump's goal if the contract is broken by the contestants. Its not so much that the contestants "hurt" NBC/Trump, but they made a contractual promise to NOT discuss the show without prior permission from the powers that be. They broke that promise, they broke their contract... Contractual law is a tad different, and there would be no guarantee that there would be a jury anyway....sometimes Judges decide contractual cases. I honestly believe the contestants would lose because they broke the contract...no getting around that. They (NBC/Trump) would win the "breach of contract" case, (no doubt in my mind) and their "damages" may be minimal, probably just a bit over fees and costs of the suit. The real downside to the suit for the contestants would be defending themselves, and since they would most likely be the losers, they wouldn't be entitled to recover their fees or costs. Can you spell COSTLY boys and girls?.... I know I wouldn't want to find myself in court having to hire lawyers to fight a losing battle for me...
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Friday, November 25, 2005 - 7:41 pm
You may be right, but I really don't think it would fly. Trump/NBC would have to show how they were hurt by the breach of contract. If there are penalties specified in the contract, that's a different matter. Obviously the candidates aren't under a blanket order never to say a word about the show--so where is the line drawn? For them to consider someone complaining about their editing to be actionable is, IMO, just plain ridiculous. Then there's the PR--NBC/Trump would look like horses' asses, although that didn't stop Trump from trying to bully that old lady in New Jersey. With all his dough and influence, he lost that one.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 9:44 am
Actually, they would only have to show how they were hurt if damages were involved. And yes, it would be extremely costly for a contestant to try and fight a lawsuit by Trump and/or NBC and/or the producers. The contracts these contestants sign are legally binding. They are quite clear as to who owns the footage, and that the producers have the right to portray the contestants in any light they choose. There is no way a contestant would win a breach of contract lawsuit. Don't you think there's a reason they all sign contracts before one minute of footage is filmed, edited, and aired?
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 2:38 pm
If they're not suing for damages, i.e money, then what's the point? Not all clauses of all contracts can even be enforced, and some are written in just to intimidate.
|
Pamy
Member
01-02-2002
| Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 4:19 pm
I still can't understand how Marcus made it thru the ap process...he can't put a sentence together!! Isn't his business online?? I think that's the only way he could be successful..he doesn't have to speak!
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 7:48 pm
LOL, Pamy, I'm just picturing what his application interview must have been like. Maybe he confused them so much they thought he was brilliant, or something. Actually, I think there are only a few candidates they take seriously, and then they throw in some for the entertainment value.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Monday, November 28, 2005 - 11:44 am
"If they're not suing for damages, i.e money, then what's the point? " They could sue for an injunction prohibiting the contestants from giving any further interviews...they could also sue for "punitive damages" to punish the contestants for deliberatly violating the contract... Still costly to defend in my book...
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:20 pm
they could also sue for "punitive damages" to punish the contestants for deliberatly violating the contract... I just think they're blowing smoke. Punish the contestants for grumping about the editing, and that'll scare off applicants and wouldn't be the best PR.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:52 pm
maybe Puzzled... but it would give other contestants reason to think hard before actually breaking contract clauses. I personally agree with NBC/Trump on this one. What is the point of having a confidentiality contract if you aren't going to enforce it? If they simply allow these contestants to openly disregard the contract clauses because their egos are bruised, they would be setting a precedent for future Apprentice wannabes. Nipping it now seems like good business to me. It is what I would do if it was my show.
|
Dalm_dad
Member
07-06-2004
| Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:40 pm
I doubt other fame and fortune seekers could be scared off. Potential fame blinds risks. Dalm.
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:02 pm
I just don't get why they are upset because the contestants are complaining about the editing. As far as the woman complaining that Trump's remark was sexist--that wasn't disclosing anything--it was shown on the show. I wouldn't give Trump/NBC a penny. They're making a packet off the show and should just quit whining.
|