Gene: "Mr. Trump, I want you to know that I have spoke for years . . ."
But probably never before the same group twice.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
This is where I get frustrated with the reality producing gimmick of the show. In real life David would have been fired weeks ago but because he brings drama he's still around. And once again a team loses member after member because of the dysfunction. Very frustrating. It's true that David didn't cause the loss himself this time; the team would have been much better off without him and he should have been fired weeks ago.
Gene was SO unprepared and so bad in his runway presentation that it's hard for me to believe that he wasn't either trying to get fired, or trying to get Wade fired. In the boardroom, I don't know if he just felt uncomfortable or embarrassed or what, but he seemed to just sit there with a semi-smirk on his face instead of defending himself or having anything at all remotely intelligent or appropriate to say.
I know everyone has been saying that there's not one potential apprentice in the group, but in this episode, I thought Stephanie showed some great potential. I'm picking her as the winner of this season.
As for the casting for this season, I agree that this cast is wacko compared to past seasons. But I attribute that to this season's theme of second chances. I know everyone is struggling nowadays, but most of these guys were let go for a reason, right?
I don't think there is. They showed a scene from the boardroom, and there were four men on the left and six women on the right.Originally Posted by shoepie;4084748;
Again, I'm late catching this episode...thank goodness for DVR! but I didn't agree with Trump saying Wade should have tested Gene and Dave to see if they had MC qualifications. BUT....he should have at least been watching to see if they were completing their assigned task adequately. We, the viewers, saw enough to know he'd never be able to do it when the time came. Wade should have been aware of it, in real time, as we were in edited time.
And was Dave's job to only deliver one line???? What's up with that?
This seemed like the easiest challenge ever! Not a lot to do so it should have been darn near perfect.
As for that one woman, saying she noticed and pointed out the scabby guy's legs, all she did was ask if he should be wearing shorts. Not good enough in my mind, if she had to use that as an excuse to save herself. She should have said why the model shouldn't wear shorts!! Or at least suggested putting makeup on his scabs. They call it "concealer" for a reason.
But the women's presentation was wonderful for a lot of reasons but the storyline about the day in the life of "Tristain" was great and the briefs were not so briefthat it became too sexual, which was good.
I'm one of the unemployed right now, and I actually agree with your quote. My bad move was political. I angered a partner in the firm I worked for. It was a stupid mistake and cost me my job.
However, even with that concept, that these people were "let go for a reason" you ignore the fact that they should be competent and rational. Not everyone who was let for a reason was let go for incompetence. I know it sounds fair, and it makes you feel safer, but in this environment you can be let go because someone just doesn't want you there. It's still a reason, but it's not a good one.
I'm surprised anyone would want to be around David, who is just flat out bellicose. He should be wearing a shirt that says "doesn't play well with others" because he seems incapable of taking any self inventory.
Let me tell you, I was a bit tentative to post that because I know that it isn't the case for everyone in the world.
But people like David were obviously let go for a reason. I would like to think that he didn't act that way in the real world and that he's just hamming it up for the camera, but why would you want to put on a character that puts you in a bad light on national television? Who knows, maybe potential future employers may be watching this show; there's a slim chance they would hire David after watching him act like a buffoon.
In fact, Mahsa is one of the few who actually had a job while filming the season. But I recently read that she was fired from her firm. Of course, it wasn't stated that she was fired because of her behavior on the show--she was fired for simply appearing on the show without telling her boss. But I'd like to think that her nasty attitude had something to do with it.
No offense... As I've said, I believe it's probably true, but not all the reasons someone is let go point to competence.
I would say in David and Mahsa's cases, attitude means a lot. I think when you're a nasty person, it shows up in a bunch of ways. The only places that hire someone like them are somewhat dysfunctional (and yes, I've worked at places like that too, hasn't everyone?), and they enjoy (or seem to) the discomfort caused by a nasty person.
I think, all in all, most offices end up getting rid of the behavior problems early on. To be honest tho, I remember a previous co-worker saying she'd be let go from three different jobs until she was at the firm we both worked at. It was a good match for her personality. She wasn't mean, or dysfunctional, but I could understand that she had a specific personality that may have made other firms bad places for her. Maybe Mahsa and David should hope for a firm that can help them become better employees?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote