aschie30 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:In any case, you're right, they absolutely could serve that purpose. Bottom line is either you believe they're sincere or you don't. I see more potential detriment than benefit in that kind of manipulation, and call me naive, but I trust the integrity of an awful lot of people who have spent their online time "explaining". But hey, YMMV.

(As far as this episode though, Pepin chose to criticize Leah's dish, not Stefan's when given the opportunity. Are you questioning the integrity of Jacques Pepin?!?!?!)

Jacques Pepin that lyin' schemin' whore

I love Jacques too, he's a cuddly teddy bear . . . but anytime someone comes out later, like Pepin did, and says basically, "oh yeah, didn't mention this earlier but . . . ," my ears prick up. Sounds like a justification. Look, some people out there take these blogs like they're the word of God, and really, they have repeatedly served to justify, the day after, the decisions of the judges. In 9 cases out of 10, the blogs imply that the booted contestants' dish was way worse than it was shown on camera or that the booted contestant screwed up in some bigger way than you saw as a viewer (yeah, because the producers have every incentive to be polite and edit out the most frank comments). IMO you cannot take the blogs as frank comments -- who knows who actually writes them or edits them or how comments are elicited for them?

Does anyone really think that the producers would allow Collicchio to say whatever he wanted in a blog?

So what do you make of the weeks when certain blogs say they think the wrong person was eliminated? Lee Anne has said on a few occasions that she thought they made the wrong call and that somebody else should have gone home. Even this week, though he says he finally agreed, Toby said he was for eliminating Hosea and had to be convinced by Tom. Plus, they've made no secret in the past that it isn't always unanimous. They've talked about weeks where somebody was outvoted by the other three. If it's about justification and appearances, then why publicize internal dissent? How can it be an exercise in justifying the call when the blogs don't even agree on who should have been sent home?

Gypsy Boy wrote:The one comment I absolutely prize from the whole show is Tom Colicchio's "Don't embarrass me!" As if this show (or even this dinner) is all about him. Well, actually, it has been for the past couple years; the man's ego and general pissiness continue to amaze me. But this comment really takes the cake: demonstrating a complete and total lack of understanding of, much less compassion for, these contestants and what they are going through, his only comment is about himself. His final words are not encouragement, not inspiration, but a wish that HE not be embarrassed. Gee, Tom, do you think these people want to embarrass themselves in front of that panel of diners? What's wrong with you?

I thought the same thing -- what an asshole. Setting aside Colicchio's implication that the show is really about him, I thought the comment demeaned the chefs who otherwise seem hardworking and dedicated. Does he really need to imply that these chefs are a bunch of teenage slackers who are one step away from embarrassment? Even if they were employed as his personal chefs, he'd still be an asshole if he told them "not to embarrass him" before they cooked him dinner.

Dmnkly wrote:So what do you make of the weeks when certain blogs say they think the wrong person was eliminated? Lee Anne has said on a few occasions that she thought they made the wrong call and that somebody else should have gone home. Even this week, though he says he finally agreed, Toby said he was for eliminating Hosea and had to be convinced by Tom. Plus, they've made no secret in the past that it isn't always unanimous. They've talked about weeks where somebody was outvoted by the other three. If it's about justification and appearances, then why publicize internal dissent? How can it be an exercise in justifying the call when the blogs don't even agree on who should have been sent home?

It's not like they get together and have a meeting before they write anything . . . but all of these people are employed by or stand to benefit from the show so they will, without being asked to or told to, take a party line. It's not that hard to see which decisions on the show will be the most controversial. The bloggers know that they are a great way to keep the troops believing in the integrity of the show. The blogs might contain an interesting factoid here and there about the show, but total frankness, honesty and disclosure? No, that's not their purpose.

aschie30 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:So what do you make of the weeks when certain blogs say they think the wrong person was eliminated? Lee Anne has said on a few occasions that she thought they made the wrong call and that somebody else should have gone home. Even this week, though he says he finally agreed, Toby said he was for eliminating Hosea and had to be convinced by Tom. Plus, they've made no secret in the past that it isn't always unanimous. They've talked about weeks where somebody was outvoted by the other three. If it's about justification and appearances, then why publicize internal dissent? How can it be an exercise in justifying the call when the blogs don't even agree on who should have been sent home?

It's not like they get together and have a meeting before they write anything . . . but all of these people are employed by or stand to benefit from the show so they will, without being asked to or told to, take a party line. It's not that hard to see which decisions on the show will be the most controversial. The bloggers know that they are a great way to keep the troops believing in the integrity of the show. The blogs might contain and interesting factoid here and there about the show, but total frankness, honesty and disclosure? No, that's not their purpose.

Look, I'm not saying that Tom or somebody else doesn't say to himself, "Christ, people are going to be pissed that we got rid of so-and-so" and writes defensively as a result. I'm reminded of a recent report that at a benefit after Ariane's ouster, he got an earful from a lot of party guests. But I don't understand the logic of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the blogs exist purely as a way to make people feel that the calls were justified, but they don't even always agree themselves on whether the calls were justified. Unless I'm misunderstanding, they often contain the very frustration with the decisions that you're suggesting they're designed to quash.

aschie30 wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:In any case, you're right, they absolutely could serve that purpose. Bottom line is either you believe they're sincere or you don't. I see more potential detriment than benefit in that kind of manipulation, and call me naive, but I trust the integrity of an awful lot of people who have spent their online time "explaining". But hey, YMMV.

(As far as this episode though, Pepin chose to criticize Leah's dish, not Stefan's when given the opportunity. Are you questioning the integrity of Jacques Pepin?!?!?!)

In 9 cases out of 10, the blogs imply that the booted contestants' dish was way worse than it was shown on camera or that the booted contestant screwed up in some bigger way than you saw as a viewer (yeah, because the producers have every incentive to be polite and edit out the most frank comments).

Also, no, they want those frank comments, but only if it creates drama! Everybody on the show has basically stated outright that the editors often make a call look closer than it is to maintain some level of suspense, which certainly seems plausible to me. The editors don't want a JT where there's no suspense when Padma announces who's going home. So not only do the blogs call out each other, but they even call out their own editors. So I guess what I'm asking is, if the blogs exist to push the party line, on the weeks when the editors suggests one thing and one blog says another and another blog disagrees with the first blog, which party line are they pushing, exactly?

Dmnkly- You can analyze this to death from your own logical standpoint but the reality is that there is a whole lot about that show, including the judging process, that neither you nor I know about. Having said that, it seems that you can take one of two positions with respect to the blogs: Read the blogs, as you do, and believe that they shed truthful, disinterested insight into what happened on the show the night before; or read them, as I do, as being written by people who work for or are otherwise affiliated with the show, and although they may contain an interesting tidbit here or there, should be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially to the extent that they attempt to explain judging decisions. To each his own . . . tomayto, tomahto . . .

aschie30 wrote:Dmnkly- You can analyze this to death from your own logical standpoint but the reality is that there is a whole lot about that show, including the judging process, that neither you nor I know about. Having said that, it seems that you can take one of two positions with respect to the blogs: Read the blogs, as you do, and believe that they shed truthful, disinterested insight into what happened on the show the night before; or read them, as I do, as being written by people who work for or are otherwise affiliated with the show, and although they may contain an interesting tidbit here or there, should be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially to the extent that they attempt to explain judging decisions. To each his own . . . tomayto, tomahto . . .

Maybe we're miscommunicating here, then, because naturally I take them with a grain of salt. They're written by humans and they're prone to the defensiveness I imagine anybody in that position would feel. When people say you're full of s**t, I think the natural reaction is to try to defend yourself, and some people overextend themselves in that regard. It doesn't logically follow that that means the decisions they reach weren't reached legitimately. But again, as you say, that one is simply a matter of belief... you do or you don't... so I agree, there's not really much of an argument there.

The assertion I take issue with wasn't the idea that everything they say shouldn't be taken as gospel. I agree and I don't think I've suggested otherwise. What I don't understand is the idea you seemed to be arguing -- that the reason for the blogs' existence is as a tool to push the party line -- one you seem to suggest might even be cooked up artificailly by the producers -- and ensure that fans of the show don't think the judges are full of it. The latter defies logic to me beacuse they don't even have a shared party line to push!

You people need to watch more reality shows. It's all "contrived" to some extent. Every piece and every person has a purpose. Story lines and narrative arcs are created and played out. Hours, sometimes days, of activity need to be boiled down 43 minutes that are easily understood by your average mouth-breathing American TV viewer.

Don't try to read too much into any of this. In the words of The Simpsons...maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happened. Enjoy it for what it is.

jesteinf wrote:You people need to watch more reality shows. It's all "contrived" to some extent. Every piece and every person has a purpose. Story lines and narrative arcs are created and played out. Hours, sometimes days, of activity need to be boiled down 43 minutes that are easily understood by your average mouth-breathing American TV viewer.

Of course it is. When it comes to getting at what happened, I just think the blogs are more (on a relative scale, of course) illuminating and trustworthy than the editors, that's all.

Right - I just think that all of the Kremlin-watching that people apply to this stuff is hilarious.

Now, where's the "I Love Money 2" thread?

Kennyz wrote:apparently, Leah's eggs cook in an immersion circulator for 55 minutes (should it be 61?). I'll stick with a pot of hot water for my poached eggs, tyvm.

Don't knock it til you've... well, you know.

I had a slow-poached egg -- that is, an egg poached in an immersion circulator -- a few months ago. I don't remember the restaurant. I don't remember the dish that it was a component of. But, I sure remember that egg. It was impactful; wildly different in texture from any egg I had ever tasted.

As I recall, it was described on the menu as a 148° egg. Our server explained that it was slowly brought up to that temperature in an immersion circulator, and that the temperature, rather than the cooking time, was the key. (For the life of me, I can't remember ANYTHING else about the particular restaurant.)

Here's an article on the subject of slow-cooked eggs: linky

In any case, it seems that Leah's idea was a good one (with the possible exception of using challah), but her technique was teh suck.

Yeah, father of molecular gastronomy Herve This is very fond of his soixante-cinq (65 centigrade) egg. So is everyone I know who's tried it.. So, I guess, give it a shot.

Still, avant-garde eggs seem a bad choice for what's supposed to be a last meal. Only Carla and Fabio really got the comfort food side of that concept.

Mike G wrote:Still, avant-garde eggs seem a bad choice for what's supposed to be a last meal. Only Carla and Fabio really got the comfort food side of that concept.

Well, in Leah's defense, she wasn't out of line:

Wylie Dufresne wrote:Bravotv.com: The chefs seemed confused as to whether they should try to put their own spins on these classics or stick to literal recipes. What do you think the judges were expecting overall?

We were just looking for a solid dish; we didn’t have expectations of either a traditional or a more innovative dish.

The issue didn't seem to be that it wasn't traditional/comforting, the issue seemed to be that it wasn't good

I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me that the whole setup was first about delivering outstanding classic comfort food, with maybe just a little twist (which Hosea alone seemed to provide). I mean, Fabio had no trouble getting that it was supposed to be grandma's chicken, not deconstructed chicken in a test tube.

Incidentally, I was chatting with a chef this morning and his theory about Stefan's overcooked salmon is that it probably was some kind of wild salmon which doesn't really do that rare center thing; he says (and I believe I've observed this without realizing it fully) that you can't cook a lot of wild salmon to a rare center, because it's still mushy, you need it to set up cooked through and it's harder to judge between done and overdone than between rare center and overdone. I don't remember seeing Stefan's salmon well enough to have any idea what variety it was, but it certainly seems plausible that Whole Foods would have had something more wild than the usual farm salmon, and that if they did, Stefan would have picked it, greatly reducing his leeway and perhaps his ability to judge how done it was.

Mike G wrote:Incidentally, I was chatting with a chef this morning and his theory about Stefan's overcooked salmon is that it probably was some kind of wild salmon which doesn't really do that rare center thing; he says (and I believe I've observed this without realizing it fully) that you can't cook a lot of wild salmon to a rare center, because it's still mushy, you need it to set up cooked through and it's harder to judge between done and overdone than between rare center and overdone. I don't remember seeing Stefan's salmon well enough to have any idea what variety it was, but it certainly seems plausible that Whole Foods would have had something more wild than the usual farm salmon, and that if they did, Stefan would have picked it, greatly reducing his leeway and perhaps his ability to judge how done it was.

I definitely remember Stefan asking for the wild salmon at the Whole Foods fish counter.

viaChgo wrote:I definitely remember Stefan asking for the wild salmon at the Whole Foods fish counter.

And based on its color, it sure looked like wild salmon.

RAB wrote:

viaChgo wrote:I definitely remember Stefan asking for the wild salmon at the Whole Foods fish counter.

And based on its color, it sure looked like wild salmon.

But depending on the time of year, it might be previously frozen wild salmon, which Whole Foods was selling as recently as last week. It makes a big difference in the texture, so maybe trying to get a decent texture, he overcooked the dish...or maybe he just choked. I don't know.

Ok, finally watched the episode.

Gypsy Boy, you stole my thunder! I couldn't believe I had gotten to over a page of discussion and no one had mentioned Tom's *comment*.

Mr. Collichio, you may be a fine chef, but that was the jump the shark moment for me. More for Tom than the show itself. It's not like they haven't had esteemed panels of talented chefs and judges before, so it really seemed like so much drama for the point of drama. Because of this, it really didn't strike me as self-aggrandizing, but too self-serious. This chef and this show take themselves so seriously that this comment could almost be expected, when it really was laughable.

And I had to really chuckle when they then showed the tablescape. From a very somber pregame warning to possible the most sober and humorless Last Supper pastiche possible. I especially hated the hazy soft lighting that gave everyone a halo-glow. This show is must-watch for me and I very much enjoy it, but wow, that was a little much for me.

Some other thoughts from this week:

- This show really highlighted home how idiotic those 10 minute or 20 minute challenges can be. The Quick Fire dishes all seemed pretty creative. Some chefs who hadn't shown a lot of innovation this season showed that, if given time, they can plate something smartly as well. While sending 12 chefs screaming around the kitchen in a lickety-split challenge might make for some good tape, I think I'd rather see more "quick" challenges like this one that give them a chance to shine, rather than seeing who thinks fastest. Especially in the second half of the season.

- Leah's final epitaph? She had two chances and 4 hours to make good egg dishes and lost. All that other stuff happened, but this is what it boiled down to.

- I don't have poached eggs all too often, but I've had overcooked salmon enough to know its resemblance to cardboard. Stefan didn't argue, so he must have known what he did. But he and Hosea were bottom 3 two straight times going into the finals while Carla did her tortoise thing right by them. Interesting.

- Anyone who's played enough 12" softball knew Fabio's finger wasn't broken. It doesn't bend sideways or backwards with a break (I know this from very personal experience). But in either case, it's impressive that he fought through the impediment to nab his first win since WEEK 2. Welcome to the big kids table, Mr. Accent.

- So, Top Caterer returns next week in the Final Four. And this time, 50% of the semi-semi-finalists work as caterers. Dissect amongst yourselves.

RAB wrote:

Kennyz wrote:apparently, Leah's eggs cook in an immersion circulator for 55 minutes (should it be 61?). I'll stick with a pot of hot water for my poached eggs, tyvm.

Don't knock it til you've... well, you know.

I had a slow-poached egg -- that is, an egg poached in an immersion circulator -- a few months ago. I don't remember the restaurant. I don't remember the dish that it was a component of. But, I sure remember that egg. It was impactful; wildly different in texture from any egg I had ever tasted.

As I recall, it was described on the menu as a 148° egg. Our server explained that it was slowly brought up to that temperature in an immersion circulator, and that the temperature, rather than the cooking time, was the key. (For the life of me, I can't remember ANYTHING else about the particular restaurant.)

Here's an article on the subject of slow-cooked eggs: linky

I also hear that sex is best when you suspend yourself from a high-wire set exactly 45 feet off the ground, then hold your breath for 68 seconds while staring into a 1978-model, Brinston brand kaleidescope. No thanks, I'll stick with awesome poached eggs that normal people can actually make. As for the sex, well I'm still shopping for an antique shop and a better life insurance policy.

Kennyz wrote:I also hear that sex is best when you suspend yourself from a high-wire set exactly 45 feet off the ground, then hold your breath for 68 seconds while staring into a 1978-model, Brinston brand kaleidescope.

Trust me, it's overrated.

=R=

Kennyz wrote:No thanks, I'll stick with awesome poached eggs that normal people can actually make.

Tongue-in-cheek erotics aside, that's a surprisingly closed-minded attitude from you, KZ.

A few responses:
1) We were not, in the first instance, talking about "normal people." We were talking about Leah, a Top Chef contestant.
2) Many foods can be prepared using different methods to achieve different results. There is no reason to pick just one method.
3) I'm not suggesting that you run out and buy an immersion circulator (looking at you dansch), but you might enjoy this variation on the poached egg. Even if you ultimately prefer the "awesome poached egg" to which you refer.
4) TMI re your choice in kaleidescopes.

The thing that annoys me about the egg in the circulator thing is that it seems akin to cooking it in a microwave: if you know the right amount of time to do it at the right level, it'll turn out the same every time.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But, she took the one piece of her dish that required a bit of skill and technique and turned it over to a machine-method that she should have been able to time exactly (x degrees at y minutes will yield perfect egg). And she screwed that up.

She'd probably never used one. How many people have gone down for doing something the first time in their lives on national television?

Who was it that made the dinosaur egg quiche or whatever it was?

. . . and black noodles, too, with predictable results. Particularly at the early stages it seems to be the height of hubris or blockheadedness to try something new, unless forced to, when all you need to do to stick around is to avoid poisoning someone or cutting off a finger. Of course, what can we say about Leah. I was looking forward to having her around for another week to see what other techniques she lacked to add to her egg-poaching, fish boning, and roast-tieing lack-of-skill sets. I would have also given a lot to see her try to skin an eel.

RAB wrote:

Kennyz wrote:No thanks, I'll stick with awesome poached eggs that normal people can actually make.

Tongue-in-cheek erotics aside, that's a surprisingly closed-minded attitude from you, KZ.

"Tongue-in-cheek erotics" should make its way to the Moto menu. I picture a sous vide pig's tongue served whole in the center of a pot of braised beef cheeks, with whipped horseradish foam and a Kale-Yuzu gele.

I would have also given a lot to see her try to skin an eel.

she would've said "like, gross!" and then cried.

Although I haven't had much of an opportunity to follow this thread all season long, I specifically scrolled through the comments from last week's show to see if anyone made a certain observation or comment.

With all of the discussion on the editing, I can't believe someone didn't comment on the lack of editing regarding Padma's...how do I put this...um...her "wardrobe malfunction." All i can say is I truly appreciated it and will cherish it forever, and it must've really been cold in that room.

**edited to fix a spelling blunder **

David Chang's recipe for onsen tamago sounds very similar to Leah's egg. I've made these a number of times and they don't require more than a stockpot, thermometer, and something (e.g. bamboo steamer) to hold the eggs off the bottom of the pot. You really can do these in advance, which is a great shortcut for a dinner party.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

I am no fan of Leah's by any means, but I thought it was a reasonable approach to the challenge. As for whether she took the difficulty out of that element, I don't see it as much different than doing sous vide. Nor, if David Chang is to be believed, is it a particularly avant-garde technique. I do think that she was undone by the fact that the texture of the whites even when done properly using this technique is different from a poached egg (much softer, maybe even slimy). Although she may have undercooked them anyway. Hard to say without tasting it.

the sleeve wrote:Although I haven't had much of an opportunity to follow this thread all season long, I specifically scrolled through the comments from last week's show to see if anyone made a certain observation or comment.

With all of the discussion on the editing, I can't believe someone didn't comment on the lack of editing regarding Padma's...how do I put this...um...her "wardrobe malfunction." All i can say is I truly appreciated it and will cherrish it forever, and it must've really been cold in that room.

Believe me, it took every ounce of grown-up maturity and restraint I have (both can be measured with the smallest spoons in the drawer) to resist commenting about how Padma looked last week.