Talk:The Apprentice (American TV series) season 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Canadian/Brent[edit]

In this season, candidates are not exclusively American: the cast contains cast members from Russia, the UK, and Canada. Yet none of the listed contestants is from Canada. Either one of the contestants has the wrong city attributed or the reference to Canada is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.154.199 (talk • contribs) February 21, 2006

  • Brent was born and raised in Toronto, Ontario, he moved to Florida after graduating from University here and went to Law school there, so it's been his home for the past 7-8 years (which I guess is why it's listed as his hometown now). Maelwys 02:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take this back, after seeing his performance on the show, Canada no longer wants him and will happily disown him... Florida, he's all yours! ;-) Maelwys 02:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Synergy needs to grow up and just deal with Brent. I think alot of their problems with him is personal not professional. Just because he is not fired the team leader runs into the bathroom and starts crying, then two of the members wish he was eaten by a shark. Good Lord they need to grow up and act like adults and not children on the play ground. Xen_Antares
        • I agree. People's responses to him have been pathetic. True, he's not the brightest person, but no one else on his team seems to understand the idea of brainstorming. I think this article reflects a slight anti-Brent bias, to be honest. --Jeremy Banks 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article does have an anti-Brent bias to it. How did he make hate comments to his team? They seem to be no different than anybody else's comments in the cab ride home. Remember in week three two of his teammates were hoping he would be eaten by the shark for crying out loud. Now true he did shoot himself in the foot, but I think the line of Brent making hate comments abnout his team needs to be removed. Xen_Antares 11:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add somewhere in this article that the ratings for the premiere were the lowest ever (and the program was #4 in its timeslot)? [1] Vikramsidhu 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the ratings have some significant impact on the show, I would say yes. Right now I don't think it's very notable. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeats?[edit]

Does anyone know if CNBC will be airing repeats later in the week like they have done in the past?--bigjarom 06:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup they've already began starting this week...check out the schedule Vikramsidhu 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. M.T. | Mr. Turcotte 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Buckman[edit]

On Week 4 (Post Grape Nuts Task), all of Synergy doesn't want to work with and/or for Brent whatsoever, and a lot of people thought Brent made them uncomfortable. Brent really made a strong negative comment about Tammy as Project Manager, which really caused the Donald to feel that nobody liked Brent at all. It is really important for people to like each other when they are working. — Dark Insanity 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there will be a shuffle[edit]

I think that Synergy and Gold Rush will continue to be exactly the way it is, though Week 10 shows us that we are to be expecting some broken alliances, a romance that could turn nasty all around. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation?[edit]

Can anybody tell me what this point means (from the episode 9 notes):

  • This is the second time someone got fired from the job interview in the show's history, the first one was Clay from Season 4 after his non-exempt win from the Star Wars task.

This obviously wasn't the second time someone got fired... or it would've been a really boring first 4 seasons with nobody ever getting fired ;-). Nor was it the second time someone got fired without a final boardroom (since it was the second time this season alone). So... what is this supposed to be referring to? --Maelwys 11:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid putting spoilers until after the show finished airing 10/9 Eastern/Central.[edit]

You definitely should think about commenting any possible spoilers that may arise since Gold Rush's win is considered to be grounds for lowering the show ratings--you have to watch the show first before Gold Rush actually wins. I don't know how Gold Rush wins, but please watch the show before jumping into solutions. Therefore, don't display the Dreamworks Reward Detail until after the show finished airing. Thanks. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Episode 13[edit]

This episode was a classic case of Trump getting what he wants, no matter what happens on the task. First, the guys deserved to lose. The final decisioin was clearly subjective. Second, Trump chose to ignore the rational advice of Ivanka and Bill and fire Tammy anyways.

It makes you think, "Do the actions on the tasks really matter?"

  • No, I think in Episode 12, keep in mind that the Xbox 360 display had to be retail-based, and Synergy's display lacked price points, therefore the guys deserved to win because they focused in putting price points and examples on what "things" you can place on your Xbox360. Second, people wants to know how much they can actually buy the product for, and they are not at Wal-Mart just to kill time without paying anything. Therefore, the guys deserved to win because they were concentrating on a key aspect of the display—Price Points. Also, the same as with the Embassy Suites task. Synergy's loss was mainly a customer relations issue. Allie didn't listen to her customers whatsoever, and the guys deserved to win mainly for customer relations issues because in the world of business, 99.8% of creating new line of employee uniforms are related to customer relations. Listening to wants, NOT fashion trends is the key to winning the task—a key reason why Lee and Sean are the final two.
I don't think Trump's decision was subjective in any manner because all final decisions are based on customer relations and how well the deliverables are relating to the topic.

Lack of Carolyn and George[edit]

Is it worth noting in this article the lack of appearences by Carolyn and/or George during the season? In fact, I don't think both of them were on together for more than a handful of episodes. Vikramsidhu

The T[edit]

Does anyone know where the giant T from the opening is (if it really exists)?

Speculation, POV and just plain poor writing[edit]

Without delving into the obvious un-encyclopaedic nature of this article (never mind the fact that it's not really an article, just a huge bullet-list) here are some passages that I'm going to delete as speculation, POV or just plain bad writing. I'm posting here first since I'm sure if I just did this the Apprentice fanatics would have heart palpitations...

Because this process was conducted after only preliminary introductions, some reasoning was a bit arbitrary—such as Allie picking Sean because of his British accent. Speculation
Purge this—I really don't see a reason why it should be here. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summer is the second woman to be fired in the first episode. She was warned by Lenny before the boardroom about the need to keep quiet, but did not heed his advice. Should Summer have heeded Lenny's advice all the way through the boardroom, then Tarek would've been the first one to go. Change to Lesson Learned: People need to remain silent and not open their big mouth when a firing conversation is commencing.
It seems that for the first time since season one, no one will be safe from getting fired on the next task, even if they are the winning project manager for the previous task. Change to During this season, the exemption for the winning Project Manager was eliminated.
I'd rather say "In Season 5, winning project managers from the previous task are no longer eligible for exemption from firing." — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should Dan have brought Lenny back for the least, then Dan would've been safe. Change To Lesson Learned: Head Clerks and/or Project Managers need to bring the proper people for internal review, as in real-world business, those responsible for the task's failure needs to be the ones disciplined and/or terminated. People should never believe in personal vendettas as according to Bill Rancic, having people reviewed just because of personal reasons is the "easy way out".
The margin of defeat and/or sales results only gave Trump enough information to fire one person Speculation - it has never been asserted that the margin of defeat actually determines how many people get fired...it's more of a Trump's whim kind of deal—Rebuttal to Speculation—I would change it to "The execution of the task only gave Mr. Trump enough information to fire one person".
This is the fifth time a Project Manager got fired in this season alone. While the last two times were not for choosing the wrong people back to the boardroom, so far Gold Rush's project managers combined did a horrible job-to-date. POV
Week 6 Modification: Lesson Learned: Effective Decision-Making is extremely important during real-world, day-by-day management tasks. Bryce believed in disciplining and terminating those who contributed the least, which is extremely ineffective decision-making.
It would have done The Donald justice to fire two people, but judging from the fact that he wanted a 15-week job interview, opted to fire only one. POV
Purge it — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of British spelling ("whilst" instead of "while") was noted during the printing of Gold Rush flyers, when Sean used the British spelling. It was noted by Lee and corrected. Change to The use of British spelling ("whilst" instead of "while") was noted during the printing of Gold Rush flyers, when Sean used the British spelling. It was noted by Lee and changed to the American usage.
Mr. Trump's lesson of the week, Work and Friendship, covered the differences between friendship and business, and neither Allie and Roxanne had an idea about that. POV((REBUTTAL)) —Change to: Lesson Learned: Mr. Trump's lesson of the week, "Work and Friendship", covered the differences between friendship and business, a serious flaw plaguing Synergy's two remaining candidates.
Although it seems that Andrea was suffering from tuberculosis or laryngitis, this wasn't the case because it was actually a minor sinual irritation that Andrea needs to be very careful of. WTF? Tuberculosis? Where the hell did that come from? Reply from Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)—Tuberculosis (TB) was a "Romantic Era" disease that killed a considerable amount of people, it should be wikilinked because of the WTF remark.[reply]
Viewers were convinced after the final episode airing that Sean made the fewest mistakes. POV Since they didn't release the poll results you can't really assert this as fact
LOSE IT—Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Massey from Season 2 was the only other person who heard Mr. Trump's trademarked coup de grace, but she wasn't a likable character at all. POV


I'll check back in a day or two, then move on to the other season articles (e.g., The Apprentice 4, etc.) which are just as bad. Comments? --69.157.109.57 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it as it is. It is a very bad idea to purge what you have said because some of them are critical plot elements. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 03:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know why you think there is a PLOT involved in a game show. --69.157.120.36 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK on second read I realized this statement comes across as rude. What I mean to say is, this show (at least in theory) isn't predetermined or scripted; in fact, if I understand correctly, there are even laws against that type of thing in a contest-type television show in the United States. So, what I meant to say was, I think you mean - some of these passages contribute to the overall understanding of the season as a whole. We just have to keep in mind that an encyclopeida article about a season of a show should relate only facts about the season, events, actions and statements that appeared onscreen. Offscreen speculation, either personal or by the public in general, should not be part of the factual narrative. --69.157.120.36 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are passages that contain real-world business lessons that needed to be heeded. Also, if the fired project manager would've chose wiser, then they could've survived, even though they did a crappy job throughout the task. I have to at least keep the "things" that contain business lessons because it's really crucial that you shouldn't be involved personally in real-world business. Also, Summer's firing is also a lesson learned. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the bad writing isn't a cause for outright deletion, the POV statements and speculation should be removed immediately. Sue Anne 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, that's why I posted here instead of just going ahead with the edits. I wanted to get feedback and see what others thought about it. I've gone thru the list above and marked each one with why I think it needs to be removed or cleaned up. Mark Kim, can you help me out by looking over the list, and discussing the points you think shouldn't be removed?
One other note, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to Trump as "The Donald" throughout the article text. It should be "Donald Trump", "Trump", or "Mr. Trump" I would think. Thoughts? Feedback? Flames? Thanks --69.157.120.36 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should probably be changed to Trump. Mr. Turcottetalk 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to that. Preferrably Mr. Trump. "The Donald" is just his code name. Mr. Trump sounds better guys. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contestant MySpace[edit]

well, i've found the apprentice season 5 contestants's myspace website..for some reason, it wouldnt allow me to put them..i dont really get the problem. whoever keeps sending me messages, plz explain! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sli723 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject[edit]

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Apprentice_(American_TV_series)_season_5&oldid=1216358415"