Christopher Gordon wrote:

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.

Chris,
Some very lively conversation about that infamous episode of "check please" was found on a post about Haro, one of the featured restaurants on that show.
It can be found here
http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6800

And yes, that was one of the funniest/brutal episodes I have ever seen of that show.

Sharona

Sharona wrote:

Christopher Gordon wrote:

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.

Chris,
Some very lively conversation about that infamous episode of "check please" was found on a post about Haro, one of the featured restaurants on that show.
It can be found here
http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6800

And yes, that was one of the funniest/brutal episodes I have ever seen of that show.

Sharona

ahhh

many thanks

I second Fred's nomination to good sport/wit du jour LTHforum.

I find minstrelsy and kultural parochialism/indoctrination abhorrent in any form; this one Check Please! contestant? did me in. It's one thing to take Bruce La Bruce's example and spook the horses. Quite another when the deployment of nominal essences is efficiently-debrided of reflexive critique. And that's my quota of opacity for the day.

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.

Just because producers don't veto the judges' decisions doesn't mean they don't have a hand in making them. In my opinion, those blogs aren't all that illuminating, it seems like they are put there to try to convince us of how fair and real the show is. Since when have ratings and money not been the bottom line in reality TV, though? For all I know most of what the judges write could be a lie to try and sell themselves as being 100% honest and ethical, increasing the show's believability. All three Bravo reality game shows have the same formula(they look and feel the same, with the same type of drama between the contestants, and the same general attitude from the judges, also the same elimination ceremonies), so it seems unlikely that the producers would give the Top Chef judges complete freedom in choosing who gets to stay or go. The fact that they kept Michael for soooo long when he obviously sucked made me think they wanted him to stay and fulfill David of last season's roll as a loveable underdog. Unfortunately he sucked too much and it didn't fly. Many of the contestants appeared to fill the character rolls of people from season 1: Sam was Harold, Marcel was Stephen, Betty was Cynthia, Suyae was Andrea, Michael was David/Miguel.

Marcel isn't as hated as Tiffany, but he was clearly the only villain type character this season, and it seems as if the producers tried to show that as much as possible. Several episodes ended with someone threatening to beat him up or yelling at him to "shut the f*ck up" because of his annoyingness. He even said someone at a bar hit him over the head with a beer bottle because of his roll on the show. I personally found Marcel very annoying(he seemed like a wannabe Stephen from season 1, but fake), but didn't quite understand the level of hatred that the rest of the cast seemed to have for him.

It was in my eyes a strange coincidence that they had the most villain like character at the end, same as last season. As Marcel got closer to the end, the judges talked up his skills more and more. The people that were obviously and consistently shown receiving the highest praise for their dishes throughout the show were Cliff, Elan, Elia, and Sam. Marcel might have been as good but they didn't show it as much with him until the end.

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?

In almost every reality show there is a villain, and it gets them ratings, so it seems obvious that the producers would have had their eye on one for Top Chef from the very beginning. I don't see how they could have not known about the one-sided rivalry with Ilan, when they are constantly interviewing the contestants on how they feel about each other. Betty would have been a more obvious enemy for Marcel in the end, but I don't think her skill level was high or refined enough for them to sell her as a final contestant. Michael moved on ahead of her as the underdog contestant(only room for one).

While Sam was more loved than Ilan, he was also less outspoken about his hatred for Marcel, and people involved in the show have made several comments about his lack of expression. I called it that they were going to keep Ilan and Marcel before the end of that hawaii elimination because those two were the closest thing to a rivalry left of the contestants. The reasoning that Sam didn't technically cook anything and therefore should be eliminated was suspicious sounding to me.

As far as drama, there was a whole lot. Cheating, people quitting, threats, shouting matches, breakdowns, physical fights. This show is made to be entertaining.

Since when have ratings and money not been the bottom line in reality TV, though?

Absolutely it's all about ratings and money. But this presumes that the way to improve their ratings is to fix the contest. I sumbit to you that the opposite is the case. To read the press, and Frank Bruni touched on this in his column this past week, Top Chef is a wild success specifically because it IS a real contest. And to read the commentary on the Bravo boards, the core audience is pissed off that season two strayed from the food and the competition and got too caught up in the drama. There's one thing the producers could do to completely destroy their ratings, and that's to give their viewers the impression that it isn't a legitimate competition. So sure, they could fix it, but all they do is risk alienating their audience. In the case of Top Chef, the almighty ratings and money are an argument for legitimacy, not against it.

The fact that they kept Michael for soooo long when he obviously sucked made me think they wanted him to stay and fulfill David of last season's roll as a loveable underdog.

Michael clearly hung around way too long. And I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact that every week he was either on a winning team, or somebody else made a big mistake and screwed the pooch, allowing Michael to coast on through. It seemed clear to me, at least, that he wasn't getting a wink and nod from the judges... he was just phenomenally lucky for about 3-4 weeks in a row. As obvious as it was that he didn't belong there, I don't remember once thinking that the person sent home had done a better job on that day than he did.

The reasoning that Sam didn't technically cook anything and therefore should be eliminated was suspicious sounding to me.

But this wasn't quoted as a reason for elimination! Sure, Tom seemed disappointed by it, but was there any contestant about whom a negative comment wasn't issued? In the end, as it was explained, Ilan moved on because his food took the challenge to heart, making better use of the Hawaiian ingredients and techniques. And furthermore, if you're just convinced the whole thing is fixed, there's a conspiracy either way. Ilan moved on because he was a more obvious rival to Marcel. But you yourself said that Sam was season two's Harold, so if this is the case then why didn't he make the final?

Bottom line is, like any conspiracy theory, no matter what happens there's an unsupportable explanation for it. But has there ever been an episode where you felt that the person eliminated had obviously performed better in that challenge? And if not, then why go through elaborate explanations of how the thing might be fixed, when the simplest and most obvious answer is that it's simply a legitimate contest?

Top Chef is a wild success specifically because it IS a real contest. And to read the commentary on the Bravo boards, the core audience is pissed off that season two strayed from the food and the competition and got too caught up in the drama.

It's a real contest, yes. But why in the world, if they were looking for America's true "Top Chef", would they have chosen these contestants? Right off the bat there are 5 or 6 who obviously aren't any of the 15 best chefs in the country. Considering how popular the show is, how could they even be the best of the ones who applied? I think the producers wanted to put colorful characters from different realms of life/the cooking world together and see what tension would arise from that. Right from the start there's no way a true "Top Chef" is going to win. Also, the contests themselves aren't necessarily a true test of who is a better chef. The way they are set up, any chef at any level could perform very poorly with the time and resource restrictions that are put on the contestants(at times much more difficult than you would find in real life).

The fact that Top Chef is about cooking makes it more of a draw for me, but I don't feel it has more integrity than other reality game shows known for rigging, such as Survivor or Big Brother. While the bravotv message boards may only care about Top Chef's competitions and not the drama, there are lots of people out there(including me) who are watching this reality show for the same reason they watch any reality shows, contest or not. They like to see the relationships between people and how they develop- what people say behind each other's backs. The drama is entertainment. And the suspense of who will win, regardless of the legitimacy of the contest, is fun too. There are numerous forums and blogs out there that represent these types of fans, and reality shows cater to these people as well. I also find it funny that the judges claim to be so appalled at the drama that goes on, when they know good and well its at least part of what keeps their paychecks coming. And they ask deliberate questions at the judges' table that bring out more of it.

There's one thing the producers could do to completely destroy their ratings, and that's to give their viewers the impression that it isn't a legitimate competition. So sure, they could fix it, but all they do is risk alienating their audience. In the case of Top Chef, the almighty ratings and money are an argument for legitimacy, not against it.

I think its in their best interests to convey an image of legitimacy, and they have large resources to help with that. But I don't think they will sacrifice the drama/entertainment portion of the show for legitimacy, and they wouldn't leave it up to chance either. Why would 5 or 6 of the people from season 2 seem to fill character rolls of people from season 1? Couldn't be just a coincidence.

Michael clearly hung around way too long. And I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact that every week he was either on a winning team, or somebody else made a big mistake and screwed the pooch, allowing Michael to coast on through.

Yep, which makes you wonder- what were any of these people doing here in the first place? They couldn't beat Michael? These are the Top Chef contenders?

The reasoning that Sam didn't technically cook anything and therefore should be eliminated was suspicious sounding to me.

But this wasn't quoted as a reason for elimination!

Yeah, in the episode Tom said it showed that his dishes took less effort than Ilan's.

But you yourself said that Sam was season two's Harold, so if this is the case then why didn't he make the final?

Because if Harold won again, people would point out the obvious- that season 1 just happened all over again, right down to the grand prize winner.

Call me jaded, and a loser, but after having watched most of the reality shows that have come out over the last 10-15 years many of them seem to follow the same formula: make you laugh, make you cry, make you mad, make you vindicated, make you bite your nails, make you want more. They create their stories, and so does TC.

Top Chef is a wild success specifically because it IS a real contest. And to read the commentary on the Bravo boards, the core audience is pissed off that season two strayed from the food and the competition and got too caught up in the drama.

Bottom line, we can't taste the food. These types of chef/food contests really prove nothing to me. The visual aspect is only a small part of the contest. The real proof is how the food tastes and until technology can remedy that, we can't really know how good the food is by watching the TV. I watch Top Chef and Iron Chef for pure entertainment value. I could hardly follow this season of Top Chef because it became pretty clear what the outcome would be. Quickly, the show became predictable. They weren't going to cut Marcel because who wants to watch everyone laughing and getting along? All of the Bravo reality series become interchangable to me. The final product is just incidental. The histrionics are the star of the show.

But why in the world, if they were looking for America's true "Top Chef", would they have chosen these contestants? Right off the bat there are 5 or 6 who obviously aren't any of the 15 best chefs in the country.

Well, of course, but that's an obvious given and exactly my point. Why rig the results and risk being perceived as illegitimate when the same ends can be legitimately achieved through the casting process? And since you bring up Iron Chef, do you believe Iron Chef is also rigged and not an actual competition? And if no, then why is it assumed one is legitimate while the other isn't?

Because if Harold won again, people would point out the obvious- that season 1 just happened all over again, right down to the grand prize winner.

C'mon, you've got to be kidding, right? When things work out conveniently, it's because it was all rigged and designed that way. When things don't work out conveniently, it was all rigged to make us think that it isn't? Are you serious? Do I need to point out why this reasoning is funny?

Again, I understand some people feel the final matchups have been conveniently full of drama. But I submit to you that, with good casting and good editors, ANY final combination will be full of drama. If not, you have bad casting and bad editors.

Well, of course, but that's an obvious given and exactly my point. Why rig the results and risk being perceived as illegitimate when the same ends can be legitimately achieved through the casting process? And since you bring up Iron Chef, do you believe Iron Chef is also rigged and not an actual competition? And if no, then why is it assumed one is legitimate while the other isn't?

Wait, the simple fact that they do rig it starting with the casting process makes the whole show illegitimate, and not a true judge of a "top chef". That's my point.

I wasn't the one to mention it, but YES Iron Chef is rigged! Do you not think so? What the hell is an "iron chef" anyway? And if they don't win a certain amount of the time, who's going to buy their "iron chef" status? I know for a fact the chefs know what the "secret" ingredients are and what dishes they will be making before the competitions. That is the definition of rigged, in my reality tv book.

C'mon, you've got to be kidding, right? When things work out conveniently, it's because it was all rigged and designed that way. When things don't work out conveniently, it was all rigged to make us think that it isn't? Are you serious? Do I need to point out why this reasoning is funny?

Nope, not kidding. Serious. I didn't really care about the outcome of TC, because its so fake, so any outcome would have been "convenient" for me. I don't think they plan everything out before taping, but they shape and mold the show as needed throughout the course of taping. There are behind the scenes documentaries and interviews showing this is a very common practice for reality tv shows. I've pointed out several obvious things, many of which you haven't contested, about TC that would make many draw the same conclusions about it.

But I submit to you that, with good casting and good editors, ANY final combination will be full of drama. If not, you have bad casting and bad editors.

Good point, they do spend a lot of time deciding who to cast and how to edit. Why wouldn't that carry over into deciding who to keep and who to kick off, when that is the other major variable in their control? Half of them were crappy cooks anyway(as shown by the fact that they couldn't beat Mikey), so why is it so important to be fair?

Fattymatty brings up another good point that we do not get to taste the food, so the judges can describe anyone's food any way they want. Another way they can direct the outcomes in a certain direction without us ever knowing. Sure they sound sincere, but I'm not the type to immediately trust whatever comes out of a reality show personality's mouth, especially when they have a lot of money and fame to gain by portraying themselves and their show a certain way.

I wasn't the one to mention it, but YES Iron Chef is rigged! Do you not think so? What the hell is an "iron chef" anyway? And if they don't win a certain amount of the time, who's going to buy their "iron chef" status? I know for a fact the chefs know what the "secret" ingredients are and what dishes they will be making before the competitions. That is the definition of rigged, in my reality tv book.

Well, it's widely known that the ingredient isn't a total secret to the contestants, and the producers of the show have said so themselves outside of the context of the show, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. As to the judging, you have three or four guest judges for every episode (depending on the season), their scores are publicly shown for most seasons, and you suggest that all of these celebrities, politicians and professional food critics are all part of a huge deception that has to this day never been revealed? Please. In any case, there's a huge difference between fudging just how "secret" the ingredient is (it's a secret which of six or seven possible ingredients they'll be working with), and rigging the judging itself.

Ditto on Top Chef. Creative casting is standard operating procedure and nobody has suggested otherwise, but that's not AT ALL the same as unfairly judging the actual competition. The former is mildly disingenuous at best, though I'd argue that it's plainly obvious to everybody, including the most naive viewership. The latter is flat-out deceptive and renders the entire show a farce. We can argue what does or doesn't constitute "fixing", but that's a semantic argument.

Good point, they do spend a lot of time deciding who to cast and how to edit. Why wouldn't that carry over into deciding who to keep and who to kick off, when that is the other major variable in their control?

Stated above! Creative casting and editing is expected and does not affect the outcome of the actual competition. Deciding who stays and goes for reasons other than merit isn't AT ALL the same thing. Consider what would happen if a producer in an interview tomorrow said, yeah, we cast chefs who we think will get into fights and try to make sure there's a really talented nasty person so we have a villain, and then we creatively edit to build drama. Does anybody stop watching the show? No. Now consider what would happen if a producer in an interview tomorrow said, yeah, it's totally scripted. The winners have nothing to do with who's the better chef... it's all about who we think will make for a better show. The show's done. The main reason it wouldn't carry over, as you say, is because there's nothing to be gained and everything to lose. All of the benefits discussed can be achieved just as well through means that would not be considered objectionable to the audience, so why resort to measures that would completely destroy the show if word ever got out? It doesn't make any damn sense, that's why it wouldn't carry over!

In the end, you don't know that it's fixed and I don't know that it isn't. It very well could be and I've said so from the start. What is ridiculous to me are the circular, illogical and self-contradictory arguments presented as evidence that the judging is rigged when the simpler and more obvious explanation is that it's simply an honest competition that achieves its dramatic needs through casting and editing rather than actually fixing the judging.

Creative casting and editing is expected and does not affect the outcome of the actual competition.

Creative casting absolutely has an effect on the outcome of the competition. Please explain to me how it could not? That alone makes me question the integrity of the entire show.

Now consider what would happen if a producer in an interview tomorrow said, yeah, it's totally scripted. The winners have nothing to do with who's the better chef... it's all about who we think will make for a better show. The show's done. The main reason it wouldn't carry over, as you say, is because there's nothing to be gained and everything to lose. All of the benefits discussed can be achieved just as well through means that would not be considered objectionable to the audience

No producer would ever say that, for those reasons. I don't see how that proves your point that they don't manipulate behind the scenes.

What is ridiculous to me are the circular, illogical and self-contradictory arguments presented as evidence that the judging is rigged when the simpler and more obvious explanation is that it's simply an honest competition that achieves its dramatic needs through casting and editing rather than actually fixing the judging.

Well, it's widely known that the ingredient isn't a total secret to the contestants, and the producers of the show have said so themselves outside of the context of the show, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion

I'm sorry, where was I contradictory, illogical, or circular? I very clearly stated that the show is in my opinion not a legitimate contest and why. Same goes for Iron Chef. You have agreed that the basic points I make are correct- that both Iron Chef and TC rig their shows before they even start. When both shows claim to present to us a contest of a certain criteria(for TC that the best chefs in the country are competing to become Top Chef; for Iron Chef that two chefs are going to be shown a surprise ingredient and come up with 5 dishes on the spot) that in actuality they do not contain, they become illegitimate to me. The fact that they start out misrepresenting themselves makes me question the shows' overall intergrity, so it is completely logical for me to assume that the coercion of results reaches all areas of production. The fact that it has been well documented as a regular practice in reality tv backs up my argument. I don't know how much clearer I can put it.

I think it is naive to assume that they would only go so far to try and manipulate the direction of the show.

and you suggest that all of these celebrities, politicians and professional food critics are all part of a huge deception that has to this day never been revealed? Please.

yeah- its called show business

You two are keeping me entertained while I'm stuck here at work on a Saturday night. I have to know, are either of you a Sagittarius or a Gemini?

I don't see how that proves your point that they don't manipulate behind the scenes.

This horse is long, long since dead, but let me try to be absolutely clear about this one more time.

I have NEVER tried to make the point that they don't manipulate behind the scenes. I have ONLY tried to make the point that to attempt to read this into the results thus far is to pursue an explanation that is overly complicated and defies logic while ignoring the simpler and more obvious answer.

Also, to be clear, bnowell724, when I'm talking about the illogical and circular arguments, for the most part I'm not talking about you. You're just skeptical far more than I think the show has merited thus far. However, I do, again, find it illogical to suggest that the producers are probably fixing the judging when they have nothing to gain from doing so! You say that because they manipulate in situation A, that means it's logical to assume that they also do so in situation B. Absolutely not! It's only logical to assume that they manipulate inasmuch as it serves their purposes. Their goal is not to manipulate, the manipulation is a tool to achieve their true goal which is to have a successful show. In this case, situation A, casting and editing, manipulation obviously serves their purposes. My point is that in the case of situation B, fixing the judging itself, tampering provides very little if any benefit while opening the door to complete disaster, so NO, it is NOT logical to assume they would act the same in two different situations when one works to their benefit and one to their detriment!

And my illustration above regarding a hypothetical revelation from one of the producers is ABSOLUTELY NOT an attempt to prove that the show is legit. I don't know if the show is legit, I couldn't possibly hope to prove that it was and I would never attempt to do so! It was simply meant as a hypothetical illustration of how the viewing public is entirely tolerant of if not fully expecting creative casting and creative editing, but at the same time, by and large, would NOT stand for judging that was not based on merit!

And when you say that any creative casting or, in the case of Iron Chef, misrepresentation of the secret ingredient makes the entire show a sham for you, then I could be wrong but might I suggest that you're in a small minority. I think most people are happy to accept that there's some fudging of the peripheral details, casting, situations, etc. provided that the competition itself is on the up-and-up. I'm certain the producers of Top Chef know this, and it's why I'd be surprised if they crossed that line. Creative casting and editing does not alienate viewership and hurt ratings. Falsified judging does. If you mean to suggest there's no distinction between the two, I think you're fooling yourself for the sake of making an argument.

Wow, tomorrow people are certainly going to be commenting on this long and circular debate, eh? Pats on the back to both of us for staying up til 3am on saturday night to talk about whether Top Chef is rigged.

While I think the wording you use to describe and dismantle my arguments is innacurate, I no longer care. Good night.

Hey, I have a sleeping infant in my lap and nothing better to do. Typical Saturday night in the post-kid era

heehee I'm doing the exact same thing, only my infant is 2.

So is anybody going to respond to my itty bitty post? Sag or Gem? Come on I have to know!

Sorry to disappoint, Matty... neither on my end

lol, thanks for responding!