No Top Chef fans? Season Finale spoilers inside.

Surprised there isn't any Top Chef discussion.

Honestly couldn't believe that Sam did not make it to the final round.

Marcel seemed like a better overall chef, but not the personality.

I am curious if the producers stepped in and said they had to pick Ilan since there nobody really liked Marcel.


Food looked damn good though.

jpeac2 wrote:Honestly couldn't believe that Sam did not make it to the final round.

Agreed. I think Sam should have won it, but I think Marcel v. Ilan made for better TV.

The 'we all hate Marcel' angle was tired tired tired by the end of it. I almost wanted them to pick him the winner - but then I didn't want to hear him gloat.

Ilan was only slightly less annoying. But they sure talked themselves into anointing him with the 'who is a better chef today' speech.

Besides, how do you forget your fish

Gastro -

Couldn't agree more about the fish, and the failed salad.

Sam was so solid and humble.

Sad the season is over.

Call me naive, but when Colicchio insists that the producers vetoing his decision to axe all of the contestants except for Marcel after the head shaving fiasco was the very first time they've influenced the judges' elimination selections, I believe him. When the question of producer influence is raised, he strikes me as a fellow who would simply avoid answering rather than flat-out lying about it.

The blogs are very, very illuminating. And he raises the point this week that when they're making their decisions, nothing has been edited and they haven't seen 99% of the interaction between the chefs. They have no idea who the audience will and won't like, who will or won't come off looking like an ass, or enough about the personal dynamics of the group to know which selections would or wouldn't make for "better TV".

If it seemed like their selections were coming out of left field, I might feel differently. But I don't think there's been a single elimination that seemed obviously off-base to me. The best I can say is read the blogs on the Bravo site, which are posted immediately after every episode. They fill in a lot of gaps that the show leaves out. Most of them I could take or leave, but Tom's and Gail's are VERY illuminating.

From Tom's blog this week:

So many people have insisted that there must be some ulterior motive in how we make our choices -- ratings, for example. I’m stumped by this one since I fail to see how letting everyone’s favorite go is actually good for ratings! But the important thing for people to realize is that this show is shot months in advance. As we move ahead with the Quickfires and Elimination Challenges in an insanely condensed four-week stretch (that precludes much sleep, let alone Machiavellian scheming) we have no idea who among the contestants will turn out to be the audience favorite or villain six months hence. The judges have no idea what the chefs are saying in their individual on-camera interviews, and no clue how any of them will come across after editing. The idea that we plot out victories and losses based on projections of popularity is nuts.

Interestingly, I watched last week’s episode with Sam at the CNBC studios in New Jersey as we prepared to go on Andy Cohen’s Watch What Happens web show that night. “Marcel’s food was really good,” he said, and I found myself respecting his willingness to look objectively at what must have been a crushing disappointment.

The thing is -- and I could see that Sam got this when we spoke that evening -- if our job as judges was to decide based on aggregate performance, then why even have a Finale? For that matter, why bother with a Super Bowl or World Series, or any competition that caps off a competitive season, since a straight analysis of the stats-to-date could probably determine the winner. My feeling is that by the time we get to the end round, it is assumed that each competitor is among the best based on a season’s performance, and now they must dig deep and bring it again, faster, brighter, stronger, better than before.

I was a huge fan of the first season and highly recommend it if you haven't seen it. I thought this season was boring in comparison and there were fewer interesting and likeable contestants. (I LOVE Lee Anne Wong, who now has a blog and cooking demos on the Bravo site.)

It was great fun to see Waikoloa though. We used to stay at an Outrigger next to the Hilton-- sadly turned into condos now.

Considering the disclaimer at the end of the show, which states something to the effect of, "some elimination decisions were made in consultation with the producers," it is reasonable for one to believe that at least some eliminations were made based upon what made for good TV.

Case in point: Both Sam and Ilan had each won the most elimination and quickfire challenges in the season. Doesn't that mean that, all things being equal (as they seemed to be in the second to last episode between Ilan, Marcel and Sam), that Sam and Ilan deserve to make it to the final? I find it really hard to believe that Marcel wasn't chosen because the "bad guy" wouldn't help boost ratings. Better ratings, of course, benefit everyone associated with the show, including Colicchio and Gail.

Tom Colicchio wrote:we have no idea who among the contestants will turn out to be the audience favorite or villain six months hence

This statement is particularly disingenuous because they were at least told by other contestants that Marcel was a real problem.

Having said that, I am convinced that the judges ultimately denied him the title because he can't work with anybody in the kitchen. You can't be "Top Chef" if you can't keep staff.

aschie30 wrote:]Case in point: Both Sam and Ilan had each won the most elimination and quickfire challenges in the season. Doesn't that mean that, all things being equal (as they seemed to be in the second to last episode between Ilan, Marcel and Sam), that Sam and Ilan deserve to make it to the final?

First off, if your memory of the second to last episode is that Ilan, Marcel and Sam were all neck and neck, I suggest you watch the episode again. The judges all made it very clear that they thought Marcel was the clear standout and Elia was a clear elimination... the difficult decision was between Ilan and Sam.

Read the quote from the blog above. No, it absolutely does NOT mean they both should make it to the final. What Tom says in this blog post, and what they've said all along, is that you're not advancing or being cut based on history. You're advancing or being cut based on how you did in THAT CHALLENGE. You may not like that judging standard, but it's been applied very evenly over the entire run of the show. At times, they've looked back a bit when they're trying to make a particularly difficult decision, but they've been very consistent in juding the challenge at hand, not overall performance. We've seen extremely talented chefs eliminated despite a strong history because of one stupid mistake, and we've seen hacks hang around because other more talented chefs happened to be just a little worse on that particular day. IF you watched the episode, it was crystal clear that all the judges thought Marcel rocked the finals part one up and down, and if Tom's story is to be believed, even Sam agreed. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe the simplest and most obvious answer... that Marcel and Ilan advanced because in the second to last episode, they put out the best dishes.

Dmnkly wrote:The judges all made it very clear that they thought Marcel was the clear standout and Elia was a clear elimination... the difficult decision was between Ilan and Sam.

I did watch the episode. I heard Gail say that she thought it was or should be unanimous that Marcel should go forward and Gail was heavily advocating for Marcel (I get the distinct sense that even Tom defers to Gail's decisions). However, the judge's actual comments did not show that they were unanimous about Marcel. Padma was explicitly advocating against Marcel and the guest judge was not so keen on him either. I do agree that the judges were unanimous about Elia being eliminated, but I got the sense that only Gail and Tom were unanimous about Marcel going forward. Maybe they're the real decision-makers, but still, based upon what I saw, I wouldn't say that all the judges were unanimous about Marcel.

Dmnkly wrote:Read the quote from the blog above. No, it absolutely does NOT mean they both should make it to the final. What Tom says in this blog post, and what they've said all along, is that you're not advancing or being cut based on history. You're advancing or being cut based on how you did in THAT CHALLENGE. You may not like that judging standard, but it's been applied very evenly over the entire run of the show.

Really? In the first season, Heather made it to the finaly seemingly based upon her overall performance in the series because all of her food produced in the semi-final was either received badly or lukewarmly. The person eliminated, David, except for mistakenly not producing a dish, had produced food that consistently rated at the top of the comments. (Also, the judges never indicated that it was David's failure to produce that one dish that was the reason why he did not go forward.)

Therefore, I have to respectfully dissent from Mr. Colicchio's claim that the overall season's performance does not factor into who they will put forward.

aschie30 wrote:Really? In the first season, Heather made it to the finaly seemingly based upon her overall performance in the series because all of her food produced in the semi-final was either received badly or lukewarmly. The person eliminated, David, except for mistakenly not producing a dish, had produced food that consistently rated at the top of the comments. (Also, the judges never indicated that it was David's failure to produce that one dish that was the reason why he did not go forward.)

Again, your memory and mine differ greatly. I remember them stating outright that Dave simply didn't complete the challenge, and while there was no "you only did two dishes so you're disqualified" quote, it was quite clear that they had a problem advancing somebody who hadn't done what they were asked to do. I was left with the distinct impression that if he hadn't screwed up, Dave probably would have advanced instead.

I also remember her name being Tiffani, since we're addressing memory here and all

Dmnkly wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Really? In the first season, Heather made it to the finaly seemingly based upon her overall performance in the series because all of her food produced in the semi-final was either received badly or lukewarmly. The person eliminated, David, except for mistakenly not producing a dish, had produced food that consistently rated at the top of the comments. (Also, the judges never indicated that it was David's failure to produce that one dish that was the reason why he did not go forward.)

Again, your memory and mine differ greatly. I remember them stating outright that Dave simply didn't complete the challenge, and while there was no "you only did two dishes so you're disqualified" quote, it was quite clear that they had a problem advancing somebody who hadn't done what they were asked to do. I was left with the distinct impression that if he hadn't screwed up, Dave probably would have advanced instead.

I also remember her name being Tiffani, since we're addressing memory here and all

Well I'm notoriously bad with names but I'm far from senile.

I think anyone has to take Colicchio's comments as nothing more than crafted for public consumption. Of course, the judges take into account factors outside of the individual show in making their decisions. Look at the two finales - based upon televised comments, aguably both challengers produced better food or put in more effort in completing the challenge. But in the end, I got the sense that the unsavory personalities of the challengers ultimately sunk them. Last season, Tiffani/Heather lied about making a dessert that she took no part in making. This season, Marcel's alleged unfair and/or dishonest tactics in completing the challenges and/or overall inability to work with others ultimately made him the less satisfactory choice.

aschie30 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Really? In the first season, Heather made it to the finaly seemingly based upon her overall performance in the series because all of her food produced in the semi-final was either received badly or lukewarmly. The person eliminated, David, except for mistakenly not producing a dish, had produced food that consistently rated at the top of the comments. (Also, the judges never indicated that it was David's failure to produce that one dish that was the reason why he did not go forward.)

Again, your memory and mine differ greatly. I remember them stating outright that Dave simply didn't complete the challenge, and while there was no "you only did two dishes so you're disqualified" quote, it was quite clear that they had a problem advancing somebody who hadn't done what they were asked to do. I was left with the distinct impression that if he hadn't screwed up, Dave probably would have advanced instead.

I also remember her name being Tiffani, since we're addressing memory here and all

Well I'm notoriously bad with names but I'm far from senile.

I think anyone has to take Colicchio's comments as nothing more than crafted for public consumption. Of course, the judges take into account factors outside of the individual show in making their decisions. Look at the two finales - based upon televised comments, aguably both challengers produced better food or put in more effort in completing the challenge. But in the end, I got the sense that the unsavory personalities of the challengers ultimately sunk them. Last season, Tiffani/Heather lied about making a dessert that she took no part in making. This season, Marcel's alleged unfair and/or dishonest tactics in completing the challenges and/or overall inability to work with others ultimately made him the less satisfactory choice.

Certainly, but the conspiracy theory only holds water if these final selections fly in the face of who seemed to be the better chef in the end! Is it so hard to believe that in an enormous sample pool of two finals, the "more likeable" person happened to be the one to put out better food both times? I don't remember the details of Harold's and Tiffani's menus enough at this point to comment on them, but regarding Ilan and Marcel, I think Marcel's lame salad had a LOT more to do with him losing than whatever bad guy persona he has or hasn't taken on with the judges. And what's more, by the end of the season, I think Ilan was at least as unlikeable (if not moreso) than Marcel. This wasn't a clear cut good guy winning.

I know people want dearly to believe that the producers are up there pulling the strings and making Tom and Gail dance when somebody they like is eliminated, but it's a conclusion that defies all logic and most of the available evidence. What possible motivation could they have for cutting the runaway favorite of season two? One would have to believe that they were deviously intelligent enough to craft a very carefully constructed final while simultaneously stupid enough to drop their biggest draw... only to then spend the final episode almost completely ignoring the huge dramatic rivalry that they'd supposedly set up so carefully.

Dmnkly wrote:I know people want dearly to believe that the producers are up there pulling the strings and making Tom and Gail dance when somebody they like is eliminated, but it's a conclusion that defies all logic and most of the available evidence. What possible motivation could they have for cutting the runaway favorite of season two?

Who was the runaway favorite? I didn't notice one. While there wasn't in my opinion a clear favorite, I do think there was a clear villain. I think every reality show has some degree of puppeteering. Anyone who says that it doesn't is either naive or ignoring multitudes of admissions over the years by various individuals who either produce or participate in them. Tom's carefully crafted statements (no pun intended) in his blog do not really answer the question as to whether there is or has been producer input in the show's outcomes. He's claiming that it doesn't help the show's ratings to cut a favorite, which he claims they do. I generally don't see too many "favorites" on the show, but in each season there's been a clear villain, and each time the villain made it to the end. Now, you could debate all day about how the villain deserved to be in the final, but in my opinion, it's been murky as to whether the villain deserved to be there. That, in my opinion, does show that there's some amount of puppeteering and did I mention -- the show has a disclaimer at the end stating that the producers have some input in elimination decisions. Why put a damning disclaimer when you don't intend to avail yourself of it?

*Edited to correct typos and add pun alert.

aschie30 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:I know people want dearly to believe that the producers are up there pulling the strings and making Tom and Gail dance when somebody they like is eliminated, but it's a conclusion that defies all logic and most of the available evidence. What possible motivation could they have for cutting the runaway favorite of season two?

Who was the runaway favorite? I didn't notice one. While there wasn't in my opinion a clear favorite, I do think there was a clear villian. I think every reality show has some degree of puppeteering. Anyone who says that it doesn't is either naive or ignoring multitudes of admissions over the years by various individuals who either produce or participate in them. Tom's carefully crafted statements (no pun intended) in his blog do not really answer the question as to whether there is or has been producer input in the show's outcomes. He's claiming that it doesn't help the show's ratings to cut a favorite, which he claims they do. I generally don't see too many "favorites" on the show, but in each season there's been a clear villian, and each time the villian made it to the end. Now, you could debate all day about how the villian deserved to be in the final, but in my opinion, it's been murky as to whether the villain deserved to be there. That, in my opinion, does show that there's some amount of puppeteering and did I mention -- the show has a disclaimer at the end stating that the producers have some input in elimination decisions. Why put a damning disclaimer when you don't intend to avail yourself of it?

*Edited to correct typo and add pun alert.

First off, I'm not naive as to the ways of television in general. I have a friend who worked on documentaries for a couple of very highly-regarded documentary-type cable channels who talked about how when they weren't sure about something, they'd just make it up. And we're talking about what is ostensibly educational programming, here... not light entertainment. I also understand all about selective editing and trying to spark controversy and all of that. One of the things I liked about Top Chef, especially in season one, was that there seemed to be less of that than one would generally expect, not because I'm some naive flower who doesn't believe they WOULD do that... simply that based on my own observations of the show, their selections have indicated to me that they probably aren't. Their elimination choices have rung incredibly true to me over the course of two seasons.

Regarding the disclaimer, that could mean that the producers are the ones making all of the decisions and the judges are reading from scripts, or it could mean that before the judges announce each elimination they have to look over at the lead producer and say, "All good? Great. Let's go." I'm sure the reality is somewhere in between but I tend to believe it heavily favors the latter. If I felt the judges were eliminating people who clearly shouldn't have been eliminated, I might feel differently. But 90% of the time their choices are exactly what I'd expect, and the other 10% they're choices I understand even if I felt it the less likely choice.

As to Tom's comments, in this post, no, he does not answer directly. In past posts he has said outright that the producers have never in a single instance vetoed the judges' decision, EXCEPT for the hair shaving fiasco when they wanted to DQ everybody except for Marcel, and the producers would only let them eliminate Cliff... for obvious reasons.

As to the "clear villain", season one, I agree, absolutely. This was decidedly NOT the case with season two. If you read comments in the blogs, read the polls, read the commentary on the reality TV sites, it's clear that there's a huge split on Marcel. Half seem to think he's evil incarnate while the other half doesn't see what the big deal is and think he's being treated horribly by the rest. Personally, I was rooting for Marcel in the final episode. Yeah, he's kind of an asshat, but Ilan's response to him far outweighed any annoyances Marcel might have provided, in my mind. As far as I'm concerned, the guy who won was the nastiest one of the entire bunch, and I'm far from alone in that assessment. If you don't get that Sam was the runaway favorite (popularity, I mean), then maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt you've read any of the peripheral comments or press on the show. Go to any food or reality TV site and read the commentary about Sam's elimination. There was a clear crowd favorite in season two, and they axed him before the finals.

Furthermore, have you considered that the reason the finals were comprised of the two in the "big rivalry" is probably because, knowing who the finalists were, the producers spent half the season creating that big rivalry through the editing process? I think you have it backwards. I think it's highly unlikely that they knew Marcel was their big villain and Ilan was his big enemy and they therefore conspired to make them the finalists. I think it's highly likely that, knowing who their finalists were when they went into editing, they creatively cut and selected clips to create or emphasize that rivalry over any of the numerous other personal conflicts that I'm sure went on. You don't think if Sam had made the finals instead, he could have just as easily been portrayed as Marcel's big enemy?

I don't really think that you or anyone else is naive to the possibility that reality TV is rigged to some extent. And, for the record, like you, one of the reasons I like this show is that it is less reality - meaning, there appears to generally be no rhyme or reason as to their choice of "characters." They're all generally normal people, not extreme personalities or caricatures that would make for good TV. The quickfires and elimination challenges are simply geared towards separating the wheat from the chaff, and not trying to create conflict between contestants. They just cook in a finite amount of time and that creates most of the drama.

I also think it is one of the less tinkered-with shows. The results of the challenges tend to be impossible to predict but the eliminations do generally toss someone who, over the course of weeks, the judges did not like. At some point, the luck runs out for certain people. It's easier to believe that the eliminations are justified in some sense because the concept of judging someone's food is so subjective that inevitably every chef has some good comments and bad comments. I do think the person who eventually gets eliminated (unless its someone who really screws up like Frank in the beach episode) is the person who cumulatively had the most negative comments up until that point.

However, if there is a time when the elimination choices get weird, as I've intimated in my above posts, it's in the episode prior to the final. Then you start to see where the choices tend not to necessarily follow who made the best food (for the reasons I've stated in prior posts) but what at that point would make good TV.

I don't know how you could say that Marcel was not the clear villain. In all blogs and/or commentary, there's always going to be different opinions. However, within the context of the show itself, it was clear (at least to me) that Marcel was being built up (in part, through selective editing, in part through his own comments) as the villain. Almost every episode contained some comment or another by a contestant about how bad Marcel is, and then would immediately feature Marcel himself talking about how much better he is than this person or that person. Ilan, on the other hand, was a wallflower to me up until the third- or fourth- to the last episode. Sure, he made a few comments here and there, but I thought to myself during the season that unless Marcel seriously screws up, he'll make it to the final for good TV. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Marcel himself admitted that he willingly alienated himself from the others because he thought it might increase his chances of getting to the final.

I, too, looked at some polls and going into this episode, I saw that Marcel was overwhelming not favored. During the episode, the Bravo poll showed Ilan favored by a pretty decent margin. So Ilan couldn't have made much of a villian-impression. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily have pinned Ilan as his "big rival." I think anyone versus Marcel would have created some element of a rivalry.

As for eliminating Sam, the internet favorite, again, Colicchio's comments ring hollow. Plenty of shows have generated a ton of press when favorites were eliminated (and I'll assume you're correct that Sam was indeed the "favorite"). American Idol - there was more press last season when the rocker got voted off than if he hadn't; same with Jennifer Hudson. Same with Survivor. It almost helps the show to kick the one that everyone loves to the curb. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but Sam's elimination prior to the finals does not make the show pure.

But again, I do think that this is one of the better reality shows because there are less shenanigans, less setups for confrontation, less annoying characters who are there because producers think they'll help ratings, etc. But do I think the show's eliminations haven't been tinkered with by producers? No, and I think Colicchio's comments are too vague on this point.

I'm a fan of Top Chef and have followed it from season 1. As far as I'm concerned, Colicchio is a terrible judge/host. My reference point is Tim Gunn from Project Runway. Not only is he a professional in the field, just as Colicchio is, however, the major point for me is Gunn has some human qualities that rarely mimic that of Colicchio. I've never seen Colicchio give any constructive criticism. Rather, he flashes that sardonic smirk, as if he's saying "good luck, you're going to fail. but i'll certanly enjoy watching it." I don't see much concern for the contestants, nor an interest in seeing them succeed. Not even any subtle suggestions. Everything is "okay" or "we'll see." I'll continue watching the show, but I just find too arrogant for his own good.

fela wrote:I've never seen Colicchio give any constructive criticism. Rather, he flashes that sardonic smirk, as if he's saying "good luck, you're going to fail. but i'll certanly enjoy watching it." I don't see much concern for the contestants, nor an interest in seeing them succeed. Not even any subtle suggestions. Everything is "okay" or "we'll see."

In his defense, the difference here is that Tim Gunn is not a judge on Project Runway and Tom is. I would imagine that's why he steers clear from giving advice. I think he's been pretty good this season--though that may only be in comparison to Gail and Padma, who have been almost laughably bad.

Kristen

I love Tim Gunn and have wondered why they don't have a figure like that on Top Chef-- maybe Lee Anne? I suppose one problem is that you can stop sewing and talk; not so easy with cooking.

kl5 wrote:In his defense, the difference here is that Tim Gunn is not a judge on Project Runway and Tom is. I would imagine that's why he steers clear from giving advice.

In fact, he said in one of the blog posts a while back that the producers felt his role as judge required that he maintain a certain distance and not get too chummy with the chefs. He has said his instinct is to get in there with them and he dislikes not being able to act as a mentor/teacher, but understands where where the producers are coming from and respects the request. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

As for somebody fulfilling that role, it sounds as though Lee Anne has become more and more involved with the production team over the course of this season, and it sounds like she is also involved in casting for season three. Perhaps she's being groomed for this type of a position?

I like Tom Colicchio because I thought he was the perfect foil to the always cranky Gail and Padma. Even worse was the episode where Michelle Bernstein was the guest judge and she upped the crankiness to a whole 'nother level. I was kind of surprised to see her on the panel of judges for the finale. I think Eric Ripert was my favorite guest judge because of his ability to constructively criticize.

I think as viewers you can only pick your favorite by their actions and how you imagine their food to be, we really cannot taste the food and therefore accurately judge. When the whole business about Marcel "not respecting the kitchen" was going on, I loved that Tom reminded them that this competition was about the food. The group mentality of hating Marcel really got old and they all made themselves look extremely unprofessional by their words and actions. While I was never a big fan of Marcel's, I did develop a bit of respect for him when I learned that he cooks at Joel Robuchon. Gotta give him some props there.

As for who ended up winning, I really believe it could've gone either way. I admired Marcel for trying to put it all out there, but think it spoke volumes when his two "sous chefs" didn't have the best things to say about how he ran a kitchen. On the other hand while being a head chef is not a popularity contest, I thought how Ilan handled things with Betty when she was having trouble plating was terrific. Really showed that he knew how to handle authority.

Kristen...I agree with you about Gail and Padma. Gail spends SO much time finding fault, it's positively annoying.

I think Padma is brutal. They need to replace her with someone else.

Not saying she was any better than the first season lady. But still.

jpeac2 wrote:I think Padma is brutal. They need to replace her with someone else.

Not saying she was any better than the first season lady. But still.

At this point, the hostess options have got to be running low. How many rail thin models are out there who (a) eat and (b) can distinguish beef from tilapia?

Agreed, they need to ditch the idea of some model and bring in someone who is a complete and utter foodie.

Actually, they should just make Gail the lead and then bring in some other uber-chef.

I thought this whole season was a disappointment, I'm not sure I really wanted anyone to win. The producers clearly chose the cast based on drama and not talent, which is a shame. Last season, there were so many talented chefs, it was almost impossible to choose a favorite (well, after LeeAnn). This season, there was so much deadweight, it was nearly impossible to care.

I did think Padma was an improvement over Katie Lee Joel, but not by much. Supposedly, they approached Alpana Singh, but she turned them down. She probably would've been a good choice, actually.

As for eliminating Sam, the internet favorite, again, Colicchio's comments ring hollow.

Actually, not so much to me. In fact, TC's judgment is one of the few quotes I remember from any reality series: "That's right, he didn't cook anything!" (Based on that alone, our friend Fred the retired lawyer from "Check Please"--"Two million years ago they invented fire. They should've used it!"-- would have certainly booted Sam off.)

And again, this was a very close call, between Sam and the eventual winner.

jbw wrote:

As for eliminating Sam, the internet favorite, again, Colicchio's comments ring hollow.

Actually, not so much to me. In fact, TC's judgment is one of the few quotes I remember from any reality series: "That's right, he didn't cook anything!" (Based on that alone, our friend Fred the retired lawyer from "Check Please"--"Two million years ago they invented fire. They should've used it!"-- would have certainly booted Sam off.)

And again, this was a very close call, between Sam and the eventual winner.

I just caught a repeat of this Check Please! episode and that quote jumped out at me. Well, "watched" in quotes because the "model" espoused such hardcore minstrelsy I had to switch the channel or gag. Has there been discussion of "our friend Fred the retired lawyer" on LTH?
If so, please direct me to the appropriate thread post-haste. That poor guy gazed at the "minstrel" as if he was from another planet(first contact...totally incomprehensible). Funny stuff.

---

My take on Top Chef:

Sam shoulda won it.

Marcel had a difficult time(being the subject of what's-his-name's repressed homosexuality vis a vis wrasslin' and head shaving), not that he's an easy person to like...empathize with...but, not like.

Wolverine(as he's been caricatured) espouses all the hubris and ignorance of many would-be lights involved in things culinary; he has the training and the talent of a possibly-innovative chef, but I question his lack of? further education. It's chefs that relegate their matriculation to culinary schools that often reduce the profession to mere technical application(degree in car mechanics? air conditioner repair? how 'bout gun cleaning?). I'm much more interested in those whose education encompasses other fields with diverse degrees who come to gastronomy later, than those(possibly Marcel?) who shine parochially, but are ultimately dimmed by a lack of the academic gestalt(the same might be said of liberal arts business majors/frat boys).

Not to mention he's young, full of himself(as a defense mechanism, I believe), and, problematically, harbors zero obvious self-reflexivity.