Mike G wrote:Although when Ludo was complaining about serving food to bimbos who don't know food, I couldn't help but think, and who exactly is eating at a "guerilla" restaurant in LA called Ludo Bites with a cheesy-sultry French chef?

The salvation of this episode was Jonathan Waxman, who seemed so blissfully free of the nonsense and able to just find his way telepathically to great food. But on the whole, I agree, something's missing so far, even as individual chefs have been appealing (and I enjoyed the camaraderie of Bowles and Dufresne, and wish we could have had more of it instead of eight repeats of the "I AM TALKIN' HERE!" clip).

I thought the same thing. Does Ludo only serve those with amazing palates and paid food critics? The Housewives would not been my pick for judges, but those women do go out to eat a lot and drop the dough, so they just might be Ludo's customers at sometime or other.

I also adored Jonathan Waxman, Obi Wan Waxman. No rushing, no head trips, just simple, good food.

I was really pulling for Graham Elliot Bowles; nice to have another Chicago Chef mixing it up at the finals.

All in all, I think I enjoy Top Chef more than Masters.

I thought it was lame that they got to decide their pub food assignments. Allowing Moonen to pick fish (although I realize Waxman could have taken it out of the running) certainly gave him a competitive advantage. Seems fairer if that was bestowed by chance. I think no one was under any obligation to yield a dish to a chef who 'claimed' it first, but seeing them negotiate this out isn't why we watch the show. Draw knives and be done with it.

They kept referring to Waxman's stew under the velvety potatoes. All I saw was a seared loin chop. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, I obviously didn't taste it, but I thought Waxman's plate looked pretty unappetizing and uninspired. Sounds like it tasted really good, but I was sure surprised when I heard them gushing over it.

I didn't realize how little time they spent discussing and describing the food until you all pointed it out. More time was spent on retrieving stew and burning yucca than actually successful cooking and plating last week. This week, I have no idea what was in Waxman's dish from watching the show. You heard a little bit about GEB's dish and how he cooked the kidney's, a bit about tartar sauce, mixing of sausages. But it definitely seemed lite on food coverage and talk.

I tend to agree that I was enjoying last year's episodes more. I think it was because, even in the early rounds, people kept producing food I really wanted to eat. Or maybe they did a better job on focusing on the chef's thought process and execution of the dishes which made it easier to appreciate what they were doing. Less of both this year.

gastro gnome wrote:I thought it was lame that they got to decide their pub food assignments. Allowing Moonen to pick fish (although I realize Waxman could have taken it out of the running) certainly gave him a competitive advantage. Seems fairer if that was bestowed by chance. I think no one was under any obligation to yield a dish to a chef who 'claimed' it first, but seeing them negotiate this out isn't why we watch the show. Draw knives and be done with it.

I disagree. Isn't the consensus that what we like[d] so much about TCM is that you get to see great chefs just do their thing without BS? Drawing knives is a gotcha technique. See who gets stuck with what. Why not let them talk amongst themselves and decide who will use what? If you have pristine raw amberjack, foie gras and ancho chiles for ingredients, and your chefs specialize in Japanese, French and Mexican (an exaggerated example, of course), why leave who gets what to chance? This way, you're more likely to get them in their comfort zone, they're more likely to cook great food, we're more likely to see them at their best rather than watch them crippled by a surprise or a bad draw. It seems to me that this method of selection rather than the knife block actually supports what we've said we like about TCM.

Speaking of unfair advantages, it bothers me that Waxman was again representing a charity founded and chaired by one of the judges - Gael Greene really shouldn't have been judging this episode. It also bothers me that the same format isn't being used for every ep - why do teams in Ep 1, and individuals competing since? It's not like the chefs comprising the team were representing the same charities. One would thing more care would be given to at least the appearance of propriety here.

Start getting excited now...fruit plates!

gastro gnome wrote:This week, I have no idea what was in Waxman's dish from watching the show. You heard a little bit about GEB's dish and how he cooked the kidney's, a bit about tartar sauce, mixing of sausages. But it definitely seemed lite on food coverage and talk.

I agree -- I did just find this video of Kevin from the previous season of TC teaching us how to make Waxman's dish: http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef-masters ... pherds-pie -- a nice, 10-minute instructional.

I wonder if they do this for every episode?

aschie30 wrote:Anyone else getting a senility "vibe" from Gael Greene? She seems like she's not entirely there for most of the episode.

Oh god no, I don't think so. I think that's a personality cultivated by a lot of grande dames types, or would-bes. It's probably useful for covering up alcoholism and dementia and a lot of other things but it doesn't mean those things are there. Alex of Real Housewives of New York City acts that way a lot and she's probably 40.

Did anyone else notice tonight that Bravo showed a promo for next week's championship round BEFORE they went to the chopping block and showed one of the chefs from tonight's show, basically giving away who won before we saw the judging? Bravo, Bravo. Sheesh. I even just sent an angry email to them, which I don't usually do.

Did anyone else notice tonight that Bravo showed a promo for next week's championship round BEFORE they went to the chopping block and showed one of the chefs from tonight's show, basically giving away who won before we saw the judging?

Sure did, Sharona. Bravo has a history of doing dumb spoil-y things like this with 'Top Chef,' but usually not during the actual show! This was the most blatant error yet.

Sharona wrote:Did anyone else notice tonight that Bravo showed a promo for next week's championship round BEFORE they went to the chopping block and showed one of the chefs from tonight's show, basically giving away who won before we saw the judging? Bravo, Bravo. Sheesh. I even just sent an angry email to them, which I don't usually do.

Wow! Glad I managed to miss that.

=R=

Sharona wrote:Did anyone else notice tonight that Bravo showed a promo for next week's championship round BEFORE they went to the chopping block and showed one of the chefs from tonight's show, basically giving away who won before we saw the judging? Bravo, Bravo. Sheesh. I even just sent an angry email to them, which I don't usually do.

I saw that, but didn't care. I enjoy the little bits of culinary talk/ insight from the contestants, but I have a hard time summoning up any interest in who wins, or in the myriad of other stupid editorial side shows with which Bravo tries to entertain us.

The last episode with Rick Tramonto wasn't bad. I loved Susur Lee and his cursing and how angry he seemed to be when getting criticized on the Quick Fire challenge (which did seem a visual mess to me). And he got a hell of a score on the final meal, which they hid quite well just how highly everyone thought of that dish until the final tally came in.

Did anyone notice how they made Rick Tramonto look like a bit of a jerk with his comments to the other chefs during the final judging? I am not sure if it was editing, or if he really is a bit of a pompous ass, or a little bit of both.

borborigmy wrote:Did anyone notice how they made Rick Tramonto look like a bit of a jerk with his comments to the other chefs during the final judging? I am not sure if it was editing, or if he really is a bit of a pompous ass, or a little bit of both.

Yeah, I definitely caught this too but like you, I couldn't tell if it was editing, genuine pomposity or a blend of the 2.

=R=

Boy that was an ugly cake!

Boy that was an ugly cake!

Yeah, that's the problem with the team challenges. She was definitely the person who should have gone home, but she got bailed out by the rest of her team.

[ rant ] Just watched the most recent episode. Susur Lee and Rick Moonen are both starting to really get on my nerves, though Marcus Samuelsson's arrogance irks me more. But taking the cake this week was Jody Adams choice to do lamb. I know that she won but that strikes me as partly beside the point. They're there to cater a wedding and the show specifically sets time aside for them to talk with the bride and groom. And the bride makes a point of saying she doesn't like lamb. So what does Adams say? "I know she doesn't like lamb, but I'm going to make it anyway and show her how good it can be." Hello? I don't care if she made the best goddamn lamb that's been made since the dawn of creation. What happened to listening to what you're being told? Yes, I know that this is a food show and that they're being judged on their skills in that arena. But what kind of chef hears her client say "I don't like" lamb and then specifically and intentionally ignores what she's just been told.

Also thought that Carmen Gonzalez got screwed. Given the role she played in her team's functioning, doing the right thing--making sure the team functioned smoothly and got its plates out--was the wrong thing. The judges wanted to see more of her cooking: the judges' way of saying, we don't care about service or the success of the team as a whole, we're here only and solely to judge each chef's cooking. If that's what you want to do, fine. But then don't force the competition into teams. Forcing them into teams, forces the chefs into different roles. And don't even get me started on this insane idea of focring these chefs to make a wedding cake/desserts. This isn't Top Pastry Chef.[ /rant ]

Yeah, but... she pretty much didn't like anything but chicken. And there would be a bunch of other dishes and a lot of other people. I don't blame Jody for figuring she could get away with that.

Carmen, on the other hand, if she'd ever watched the show, she'd know that people go home for helping others and not showing off their own creativity. It's called Top Chef, not Top Helper. Help well enough and your team wins and then you don't face the risk of being sent home. But she's not the first who helped manage a team that didn't cut it, and was booted for that, not unjustly to me.

So Jonathan and Susur at the end, who will be #3?

watching this show provides an hour's worth of pleasant distraction, but I'm not enjoying it nearly as much as I enjoy the normal Top Chef.

I don't think they're doing nearly the amount of character development that they do on the normal show (except for the episode when the person gets sent home, of course--I knew Mantuano was gone about halfway though, considering how much screen time they were giving him).

The other thing that bugs me is the stupid challenges. these chefs spend 99% of their time cooking in restaurants for service, yet I don't think they've had even one challenge where the chefs actually get to make plates off a hot line. Yes, chefs need to be able to adapt and cook under challenging circumstances, but having them cook off a Weber grill for a tailgate seems stupid and simplistic. When you're having world-class chefs scooping and serving from chafing dishes more often than not, something's wrong.

As a result, we got decidely un-Top Chef grade stuff like carne asada tacos, and steak tacos with guacamole. Play to their strengths, people!

I don't know...I kinda feel like the chefs are the issue--not the challenges. The elimination challenges are all taken from previous top chef episodes and last night it seemed like the TCM's were just phoning it in. The food was BORING. The winning chef from the the Chicago season tailgate was Dale's Baby Back Ribs Marinated in Tandoori and Potato Salad with Raisins & Mango. From the masters, we got tacos, skewers, pizza, burgers and grilled chicken. Underwhelming to say the least. And I can't shake the feeling of being embarrassed for them because they all look soooo uncomfortable.

Mike G wrote:So Jonathan and Susur at the end, who will be #3?

I'm really thinking that Susan Feniger is going to be in the top three. She's been quietly moving up the ranks. I love it. She's not pretentious, she's nice to everyone, always smiling, doesn't run around like a crazy person; very zen.

Well, as noted elsewhere, this sort of stopped being interesting enough to keep a thread alive. But if you missed the final episode, too bad, because for me that's where it finally got interesting. (I just saw it tonight because I was out of town; I know the rest of you are already onto Season 7 of regular Top Chef.)

The problem I had with the season was that two of the main characters were simply not that compelling to me. Marcus Samuelsson is a kind of saintly post-racial character, an angelic black man who eats Nordic blond food, but like a lot of goody-goody characters in fiction, neither he nor his food ever seemed more than two-dimensionally pleasant before the last episode. While Rick Moonen was wound tight enough to be Sammy Glick, and thus was interesting, but not likable. The third finalist, Susur Lee, was more interesting, but still a ways shy of lovable (with a definite tinge of Bond villain, the 7-foot Chinese guy who bites through sheet metal).

Anyway, having the final episode to themselves, the three of them finally had the time to flesh out their characters. Marcus was adorable but finally, his food looked really interesting too, and even if I'm not convinced that African food is ever going to be the next Thai food, I liked that he stood up and got kind of prickly about his kitfo. Moonen got some heart into his food, making his drive sympathetic at last. And Susur-- who knew there was tragedy there? They drop "first wife" a couple of times, making you assume a divorce among high-pressure professionals, and then reveal that she went down in KAL 007, the airliner shot down by the Soviets during the Reagan years. Suddenly you saw his implacability in a whole new light.

It helped, too, that practically all of the food looked worth eating. The chef judges were all too diplomatic to be interesting, but at least you can believe their raves were sincere. So, a season which proved that the formula doesn't always work if the chemistry doesn't click in some mysterious way, managed to click at the very end even so.

Mike G wrote:And Susur-- who knew there was tragedy there? They drop "first wife" a couple of times, making you assume a divorce among high-pressure professionals, and then reveal that she went down in KAL 007, the airliner shot down by the Soviets during the Reagan years. Suddenly you saw his implacability in a whole new light.

When I saw this part of the episode, I felt bad for all times I thought to myself that he seemed like a real jerk.

So long, Kate Hudson. Sorry to see you go. Putting 2 pounds of sugar into the dessert was pretty much the antithesis of the 'healthy school lunch' challenge.

Sherry-braised chicken chef really should have been the one to go, though. First of all, why serve sherry to school kids? It's pointless. Secondly, why burn so much of the budget on the sherry/vinegar? Her choices were so self-absorbed and completely removed from reality, it was stunning. Hard to believe that she didn't get sent home, though it probably won't be long before that happens.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:So long, Kate Hudson. Sorry to see you go. Putting 2 pounds of sugar into the dessert was pretty much the antithesis of the 'healthy school lunch' challenge.

Sherry-braised chicken chef really should have been the one to go, though. First of all, why serve sherry to school kids? It's pointless. Secondly, why burn so much of the budget on the sherry/vinegar? Her choices were so self-absorbed and completely removed from reality, it was stunning. Hard to believe that she didn't get sent home, though it probably won't be long before that happens.

Wrong thread, Ronnie

Dmnkly wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:So long, Kate Hudson. Sorry to see you go. Putting 2 pounds of sugar into the dessert was pretty much the antithesis of the 'healthy school lunch' challenge.

Sherry-braised chicken chef really should have been the one to go, though. First of all, why serve sherry to school kids? It's pointless. Secondly, why burn so much of the budget on the sherry/vinegar? Her choices were so self-absorbed and completely removed from reality, it was stunning. Hard to believe that she didn't get sent home, though it probably won't be long before that happens.

Wrong thread, Ronnie

Thanks, Dom.

=R=

Just read over at RealityBlurred.com that there will be a Season 3 of Top Chef Masters and that it will be hosted by Curtis Stone (not Kelly Choi).

Andy Dehnart wrote:Top Chef Masters will return for a third season this year, and its worst part, host Kelly Choi, will be gone, replaced by Celebrity Apprentice star Curtis Stone, who will also be on NBC’s forthcoming America’s Next Great Restaurant.

=R=