:-(
Last night's finale of The Apprentice attracted record ratings for the show, with 5.7m watching on BBC2 as Michelle Dewberry was hired by Sir Alan Sugar
SP
Ahh, but it's Amstrad...
eh?
It's an Amstrad (Sir Alan's company) phone. Rubbish though.
Whenever I see those phones being used, I always think of, "Hello, Partridge - you're through to the static home." Says it all really.
Matrix posted:
NerdBoy posted:
Matrix posted:
NerdBoy posted:
Just caught the end of this for the first time, what's with the blatant product placement on that rubbish email phone thing? It's not even subtle...
Ahh, but it's Amstrad...
eh?
It's an Amstrad (Sir Alan's company) phone. Rubbish though.
Whenever I see those phones being used, I always think of, "Hello, Partridge - you're through to the static home." Says it all really.
NB
Whenever I see those phones being used, I always think of, "Hello, Partridge - you're through to the static home." Says it all really.
ha, I love how ludicrous it looks but obviously Sir Al loves it (or more to the point wants other people get the wretched things off his hands) so it has to make an apearence in there. Better get my complaint form sent out...
Spencer For Hire posted:
Whenever I see those phones being used, I always think of, "Hello, Partridge - you're through to the static home." Says it all really.
ha, I love how ludicrous it looks but obviously Sir Al loves it (or more to the point wants other people get the wretched things off his hands) so it has to make an apearence in there. Better get my complaint form sent out...
NW
That's interesting, as she was saying on GMTV this morning that she's been working for him for the last six months and he's helped her set up her own business.
amosc100 posted:
As I had already knew the outcome (see my previous post - where I got told off for not using spoliers) it was still damn good to watch. BTW I knew about 3 months (when the show began) that Ruth wouldn't win as she has been in the same office block as the company I work for in Manchester for about that length of time - plus when I have visited the Manchester office I have seen Ruth and her partner (I presume) a few times in the evnings in the nearby bar.
That's interesting, as she was saying on GMTV this morning that she's been working for him for the last six months and he's helped her set up her own business.
AM
It's just like the earlier comment where AMS knew who the winner was going to be whilst Ruth and Michelle (on a rival station at the same time) didn't know.
It's all about spin and confusing the public enough to a point they don't know what to believe. How else were they going to try to convince, and surprise, the public as to who the winner was going to be considering it was filmed late last year.
Even the supposedly "Live" programme - Your Hired was edited, and in some cases edited badly (especially in the last 3 or 4 minutes!
It's all about spin and confusing the public enough to a point they don't know what to believe. How else were they going to try to convince, and surprise, the public as to who the winner was going to be considering it was filmed late last year.
Even the supposedly "Live" programme - Your Hired was edited, and in some cases edited badly (especially in the last 3 or 4 minutes!
CO
Does anyone have the name, of the amazing music from the Appretice, used a few times, with strings? It was also used for the Olympic Bid. Also, that Piano one, with trills and some sort of rhymthical instrument was great. If anyone knows - that would be great!
NW
Details of the music used in each episode can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/?ref=/apprentice/
conaloharenewry posted:
Does anyone have the name, of the amazing music from the Appretice, used a few times, with strings? It was also used for the Olympic Bid. Also, that Piano one, with trills and some sort of rhymthical instrument was great. If anyone knows - that would be great!
Details of the music used in each episode can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/?ref=/apprentice/
NW
That is not strictly correct. According to The Times yesterday, the truth is that they filmed two endings last October and they were both 'hired' by Sir Alan in the interim - presumably to ensure they could both be guaranteed some form of income in the meantime.
He only informed told them which was the winner last Tuesday over lunch and the 'You're hired' programme with Adrian Chiles was filmed that afternoon....otherwise they would have had no hope of keeping the details of the winner secret.
It does rather make a mockery of the fact that he's supposed to make his decision based on their performances in the tasks though.
Apparently the same thing happened in series one.
Michelle's reaction when she was 'told' was quite convincing though. She should be an actress!
amosc100 posted:
As I had already knew the outcome (see my previous post - where I got told off for not using spoliers) it was still damn good to watch. BTW I knew about 3 months (when the show began) that Ruth wouldn't win as she has been in the same office block as the company I work for in Manchester for about that length of time - plus when I have visited the Manchester office I have seen Ruth and her partner (I presume) a few times in the evnings in the nearby bar.
That is not strictly correct. According to The Times yesterday, the truth is that they filmed two endings last October and they were both 'hired' by Sir Alan in the interim - presumably to ensure they could both be guaranteed some form of income in the meantime.
He only informed told them which was the winner last Tuesday over lunch and the 'You're hired' programme with Adrian Chiles was filmed that afternoon....otherwise they would have had no hope of keeping the details of the winner secret.
It does rather make a mockery of the fact that he's supposed to make his decision based on their performances in the tasks though.
Apparently the same thing happened in series one.
Michelle's reaction when she was 'told' was quite convincing though. She should be an actress!
DU
I don't quite understand the problem with this.
It's clear the producers couldn't have the winner decided in October and then hope to keep it a secret for the next six months.
So the decision had to be made JUST before going to air.
It's a pre-requisite for the candidates to quit their jobs before going on the show.
Given Michelle/Ruth each could have been the Apprentice in October and each had quit their jobs, it is not unreasonable for Sir Alan to offer them some employment for 6 months? They could hardly be expected to find work for just 6 months could they?
The reaction on the final episode was genuine, assuming this was the first take. They would have then told the two of them that they had to refilm it with the alternate scenario.
The reaction on "You're Hired" was also genuine- this was filmed on Tuesday evening (the night before broadcast) and Michelle was told she had won the job at lunch that very day.
It's clear the producers couldn't have the winner decided in October and then hope to keep it a secret for the next six months.
So the decision had to be made JUST before going to air.
It's a pre-requisite for the candidates to quit their jobs before going on the show.
Given Michelle/Ruth each could have been the Apprentice in October and each had quit their jobs, it is not unreasonable for Sir Alan to offer them some employment for 6 months? They could hardly be expected to find work for just 6 months could they?
The reaction on the final episode was genuine, assuming this was the first take. They would have then told the two of them that they had to refilm it with the alternate scenario.
The reaction on "You're Hired" was also genuine- this was filmed on Tuesday evening (the night before broadcast) and Michelle was told she had won the job at lunch that very day.
BE
I hope (and would imagine) that they informed them prior to filming those scenes that the winner wouldn't be chosen until 6 months later. What a horribly cruel thing to do if your scenario were the case!!
Dunedin posted:
The reaction on the final episode was genuine, assuming this was the first take. They would have then told the two of them that they had to refilm it with the alternate scenario.
I hope (and would imagine) that they informed them prior to filming those scenes that the winner wouldn't be chosen until 6 months later. What a horribly cruel thing to do if your scenario were the case!!
NW
But your theory doesn't make any sense!
The point is that he hadn't made up his mind last October! Therefore it would've been unfair to have filmed a shot with one of them being named the winner with a genuine reaction, and then doing it again when the winner could well be the person who is named in the second take.
My understanding is that they were told they were shooting two endings before they filmed them. Therefore the reaction isn't entirely genuine. But Michelle did a good job of faking it. I'd be worried if I was Sayed!!!
Dunedin posted:
The reaction on the final episode was genuine, assuming this was the first take. They would have then told the two of them that they had to refilm it with the alternate scenario.
But your theory doesn't make any sense!
The point is that he hadn't made up his mind last October! Therefore it would've been unfair to have filmed a shot with one of them being named the winner with a genuine reaction, and then doing it again when the winner could well be the person who is named in the second take.
My understanding is that they were told they were shooting two endings before they filmed them. Therefore the reaction isn't entirely genuine. But Michelle did a good job of faking it. I'd be worried if I was Sayed!!!
NJ
There's no way Sir Alan decided who would be the Apprentice last year. It'd have been all over the newswires by Christmas.
I don't buy this theory, in fact I would not be surprised if they shipped Michelle and Ruth off to the boardroom at around lunchtime on Wednesday, filmed the "You're hired" scene in one fell swoop and then shipped them off to meet Adrian a couple of hours later for the spin-off programme.
Neil Jones
Founding member
Dunedin posted:
I don't quite understand the problem with this.
It's clear the producers couldn't have the winner decided in October and then hope to keep it a secret for the next six months.
It's clear the producers couldn't have the winner decided in October and then hope to keep it a secret for the next six months.
There's no way Sir Alan decided who would be the Apprentice last year. It'd have been all over the newswires by Christmas.
Quote:
The reaction on the final episode was genuine, assuming this was the first take. They would have then told the two of them that they had to refilm it with the alternate scenario.
I don't buy this theory, in fact I would not be surprised if they shipped Michelle and Ruth off to the boardroom at around lunchtime on Wednesday, filmed the "You're hired" scene in one fell swoop and then shipped them off to meet Adrian a couple of hours later for the spin-off programme.