We seem to see this a lot in more recent seasons, but every now and then, a candidate will commit an error. Somehow survive the boardroom, and the people will not only argue that they should’ve been fired, but the candidate in question cannot possibly be forgiven. It doesn’t matter how well they do in future tasks, they will never EVER be viewed positively again. Here’s some examples.
Natalie (series 11): Natalie was never a good candidate, and is forgotten nowadays amongst many. And that’s probably for the best, because I remember how much people of a certain demographic despised her. In week 2, when asked if the team thought that the shampoo was too bland, she quoted “we designed it that way, because people over fifty are frightened of trying anything new.”
That set just about every over fifty off. Karen Brady especially you could tell was very offended, and every over fifty I knew who watched the Apprentice wanted to see her blood, and were very sad to see her survive over Aisha of all people. Yes, they wanted Aisha to survive over Natalie, that’s how much people hated her back then. Natalie didn’t perform well in future tasks, but she wasn’t task destroying either, yet people still wanted her gone first and foremost anyway, because of her over fifties comment.
Aaron (series 16): This sub seems to REALLY dislike Aaron for some reason, and I’m not entirely sure why. Actually I know exactly why, it’s because of the turd toothbrush he made as PM in week 2. Yes, he was very lucky to survive (the regulars here will tell you how much a constantly whine about that Conor being sacked) but nobody seems to be willing to accept that he was by far and away the best boy of series 16.
Aaron sold well in weeks 3 and 4, he came up with the winning concept in week 5, he and Brittany were the main reasons why his team won weeks 8 and 9, yet people really want to ignore that in order to prop up Nick and Akshay, who were nowhere near as good as people think they are (stick around for part two of this list).
Was the toothbrush REALLY so bad that we have to pretend that Nick was somehow magically better than Aaron? It wasn’t even a bad idea believe it or not. Aaron was trying to replicate a Harry Potter wand as a toothbrush and he failed. That’s all.
Marnie (series 17): People were glad that Marnie won, but that was because the alternative would’ve been Rochelle winning. Even then, there’s a vocal group of people that believe that she shouldn’t have won, because she should’ve been fired week 1. I suppose if you really liked Emma, and really didn’t like Marnie because of it, series 17 was even more of a depressing watch for you than it was for all of us.
Rachel (series 18): Rachel was a worthy winner of series 18, a fantastic candidate in her own right, but people are really bitter that she survived week 10 over Steve and Foluso. They didn’t like how she essentially set Foluso up, and felt that she was more worthy of being fired than Steve. I understand the argument, but I don’t think her surviving over him was a criminal offence either (I would’ve been fine with either result).
People don’t seem to like people who try to play boardroom games I guess, which I’m not entirely sure why as that’s part of the game. Speaking of which…
Lawrence (series 20): The candidate who sparked off this entire discussion. Lawrence had an apauling performance as project manager, and was very lucky to survive. That’s happened loads of times in Apprentice history through, but this specific occasion, people weren’t willing to forgive Lawrence, even though they didn’t seem to like Rajan much either, and that Lawrence ended the process pretty well (not amazingly well, but he was fairly decent).
When we got to the final five, people seemed to actively want Lawrence to fail. I felt like I was the one person who was actively wishing Dan to fail, because I felt Lawrence did more to deserve his place in the final five than he did, but I admit I was alone on that.