danimalarkey wrote:I'm not sure that a soft grunt or anything is particularly useful to chefs working so much under the gun. But, since he is a judge, unlike Tim Gunn on Runway, I guess he can't say too much at all.

On the nosey. He's talked a number of times about how his instinct is to act as a mentor and teacher while touring the kitchen, but that he's under instruction not to do so since he's a judge. I have a friend who worked under him at Gramercy Tavern and she said he was an amazing teacher, so I've no doubt it's the case.

danimalarkey wrote:As far as contestant choices, let's remember that Alex's family, at least on his mother's side (according to the Bravo bio) is from Russia... probably during the Soviet era. And Magical Elves Productions (emphasis mine)? Between Santa's workshop and the the Keebler elves, it's clear that elves are little communists working day and night in factories. That they're even suggesting one chef could be a 'top chef', as opposed to everyone being equal*, is shocking given the obvious celebration of communism here.

And since this blatantly communist show takes place in D.C., where Obama is currently president, and the presence of black contestants is clearly a nod to Obama's presidency, then it becomes clear as day: Obama IS a communist!

How did I do? Can I take my tinfoil hat off now?


Edited to fix glaring typo that was irritating me

Khaopaat wrote:

danimalarkey wrote:As far as contestant choices, let's remember that Alex's family, at least on his mother's side (according to the Bravo bio) is from Russia... probably during the Soviet era. And Magical Elves Productions (emphasis mine)? Between Santa's workshop and the the Keebler elves, it's clear that elves are little communists working day and night in factories. That they're even suggesting one chef could be a 'top chef', as opposed to everyone being equal*, is shocking given the obvious celebration of communism here.

And since this blatantly communist show takes place in D.C., where Obama is currently president, and the presence of black contestants is clearly a nod to Obama's presidency, then it becomes clear as day: Obama IS a communist!

How did I do? Can I take my tinfoil had off now?

You guys need to bring in a chalkboard.

Khaopaat wrote:And since this blatantly communist show takes place in D.C., where Obama is currently president, and the presence of black contestants is clearly a nod to Obama's presidency, then it becomes clear as day: Obama IS a communist!

How did I do? Can I take my tinfoil hat off now?

Dude, I think you nailed it. Someone call Dan Brown so he can start the novelization of this conspiracy.

In Tom's most recent blog post, he admitted that he's aware that most fans think this season is lousy. He said that some of the best cooking of the season is yet to come, though. Too little, too late - I just don't care about any of the people cooking. Say what you will about Angelo, but I think he's the only one who has a clear point of view. The NYTimes review notwithstanding, I have no idea what Ed's restaurant would be like. Or Kelly's (other than that her husband would be there, too). Or Kevin's or Tiffany's. And I thought no one could be duller than Hosea...

So this seemed to be what we were asking for, everyone putting out what looked to be great food, at or near their personal bests, and just at the right time. And guess what? It was satisfying. I'm thinking calling this all 'too little, too late' but continuing to watch is a self-defeating prophecy. I enjoyed watching last night's episode as much as any other episode where the contestants are performing well.

Here's the mark of a good challenge: everyone cooks well enough that the theme ceases to matter. I'm not talking about the challenge rules like "you can only use ingredients from this air-lifted garden bed from Tuscany," as deviating from this would give one contestant a competitive advantage. I'm talking about the silly stuff like "your food will be freeze-dried and sent up with astronauts." Would any of those dishes translate well being freeze dried? Steak? Short ribs? Saucy fish dishes? Onion rings?!

But like I said, this was proof everyone cooked well. Because it didn't matter. The judging has proven time and again that if you cook food that tastes great, you will be fine, weekly theme be damned. Sure, it's more scrutiny on the episode before the finals, but if you cook terriffically, you're in the mix. And if someone outcooks you, then you can go home with your head held high. But I'm glad we didn't get someone griping about how others' dishes wouldn't travel well in a shuttle, cause sour graps wouldn't freeze dry well either.

I'm guessing they might have edited to make this seem a little closer than it was (even though Tom said it was a hair's width separating winners from losers), only because they mentioned fish sauce 2-3 times with Tiffany's dish. Sounds like there was a lot of fish sauce. That's all it took.

Also, anyone else amused by the chef's inability to talk about space? Kevin mentioned sending his dish "on space" and someone else cranked out another odd prepositional choice.

danimalarkey wrote:And I thought no one could be duller than Hosea...

I had conveniently forgotten about him.

Mike g, you admit that it is obvious the show manipulated this season's cast to fit a specific ethnic demographic they wanted to present for whatever reason.

Do you feel that other aspects of the show are honest and straightforward, including the judges' comments and the outcomes of the challenges?

I dunno, I don't see why it's so hard to accept that Top Chef is no more "real" than Survivor or The Real World. Especially with the editing that is so heavy I can barely tell what is happening in any given episode.

I've always felt this way, but the ratings tactics were especially outrageous this year and I assumed it was as obvious to everyone else that race has been one of the prominent factores in choosing winners and losers this season.

Dom, you can make the vague argument that all of the casts are relatively diverse, but come on, five people of one non-white race in a cast? I'd love it if all the seasons were that way, but they aren't, and they won't be again, which makes this scenario very fishy to me. And I'm not afraid to call it like I see it.

bnowell724 wrote:Dom, you can make the vague argument that all of the casts are relatively diverse, but come on, five people of one non-white race in a cast? I'd love it if all the seasons were that way, but they aren't, and they won't be again, which makes this scenario very fishy to me. And I'm not afraid to call it like I see it.

Look, we've been over this countless times before. You believe in the integrity of the judging or you don't. And for those who believe it's a sham, there is no information that could possibly convince them otherwise. When a result doesn't fit the supposed narrative, the narrative changes. So believe what you want. I just think it's incredibly sleazy -- not to mention completely unnecessary -- to come out and say that Tiffany was winning because she's black, because what's fact is that you have absolutely no idea whether or not that's the case and it's just insulting to take her success away from her like that. I'm not sure what else there is to say. For either of us. So we should probably just leave it at that.

As a change of pace (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but can we just talk about how smarmy Ed was in the semifinal?

Phew, now that's out of the way, maybe we can talk about actual food related subjects.

- Like how I love the 75 minute episode because you get nearly an entire hour about cooking, plating, and reactions rather than just 40 minutes.
- How these contestants have put out the collective best food in the season two weeks in a row
- How Ed is simultaneously being a prick and kicking ass and taking names (I suppose that's 3 things)
- How good Kevin's flavors must have been if both his dishes were devoid of texture and may not have been perfectly seasoned
- Whether it's a compliment to say that lamb tartare seemed just like tuna
- Wonder just what the dividing line is between soup and sauce
- Wish I could understand the enthusiasm shown to apple-guava salad

Last thought: Is food good enough to get stoners-lining-up-in-the-East-Village Tom's highest compliment? We've only seen it once in 7 seasons

gastro gnome wrote:As a change of pace (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but can we just talk about how smarmy Ed was in the semifinal?

The more I see of Ed, the more schadenfreude I get from the NY Times review of his restaurant someone linked earlier in this thread.

Can I just comment on Ed for a minute? Or "Dead" Ed, or "Deadpan" Ed, as I colloquially refer to him? Although he initially seemed one sandwich short of a picnic, he now seems more like someone ready to go postal. (Can I get include any more idioms in a sentence?) Interesting about the learning disability, but more interesting to me how he apparently feels the need for sharp revenge towards the people who -- many years ago -- thought he was an "f['in] idiot." I'm not sure I'd want this guy to cook my food, but more than that, I feel uncomfortable watching him, more so than watching Angelo, and that's saying something. The dead eyes, the deadpan delivery that switches to a huge smile in a flash. He seems like a sociopath.

Anyway, I wondered the same thing about Tom's stoner comment, and I don't know what to make of it. That Ed is, at this point, competing with Kevin, who seems like a nice guy but is over-performing, and Angelo, who is just a wacko with his mail-order bride(s), in a way, caps off for me what is surely about to be Top Chef's worst season.

gastro gnome wrote:As a change of pace (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but can we just talk about how smarmy Ed was in the semifinal?

Phew, now that's out of the way, maybe we can talk about actual food related subjects.

- Like how I love the 75 minute episode because you get nearly an entire hour about cooking, plating, and reactions rather than just 40 minutes.
- How these contestants have put out the collective best food in the season two weeks in a row
- How Ed is simultaneously being a prick and kicking ass and taking names (I suppose that's 3 things)
- How good Kevin's flavors must have been if both his dishes were devoid of texture and may not have been perfectly seasoned
- Whether it's a compliment to say that lamb tartare seemed just like tuna
- Wonder just what the dividing line is between soup and sauce
- Wish I could understand the enthusiasm shown to apple-guava salad

Last thought: Is food good enough to get stoners-lining-up-in-the-East-Village Tom's highest compliment? We've only seen it once in 7 seasons

Nice list.

To use your words-Is Ed being more of a prick because he is kicking ass and taking names? My initial take is yes.

Lamb tartare like tuna? That was a puzzler. On the one hand it was a compliment so nice job, on the other how could it be? I don't think I would have liked that if I were the chef, except for the fact that I was getting a compliment...but how could it be? See, a puzzler.

Jeff

I was also caught off guard by Ed's pure snottiness. I won't go so far as to suggest the producers told Ed to ham it up in order to drive a perceived conflict between Angelo and himself (and what exactly did Angelo do to him before? Try to win a competition? What nerve!*), I will allow that the whole package was edited to highlight Ed's douchiness. I'm guessing he's going to win? Since... sure? I don't know if I'll be more of less disappointed than I was with Hosea -- at least I was actively rooting against Hosea, whereas here... I just feel 'meh' about it.

Also, most everyone seemed to recover really well from Tom's directive to double up the number of dishes. I mean, really well, to the point where that seemed staged, too. The whole drama with the waitstaff also seemed entirely gratuitous in retrospect, as well -- there wasn't one comment about partial or incorrect orders, or cold food, etc. It reminds me of the whole pea puree nonsense where Bravo set up this mystery knowing that it wouldn't matter or even be solve-able.

* And after checking Wikipedia, Angelo won the first and 12th elimination challenge while Ed won the 9th and 10th. As far as Quickfires, Angelo won, or was on the winning team 4 times, while Ed won, or was on the winning team, 2 times. I mean... his admittedly odd behaviour and ego (which never seemed more obnoxious than Kenny's) notwithstanding, it's not like the results were showing Angelo to be a juggernaut, far from it. I'm at a loss as to what Ed was reacting against.

I think if you'll review the entire season, Angelo got Ed going early on. I'm not motivated enough by this season to watch the early episodes again to try to pinpoint the reason.

Ed was inconsistent in the beginning, but seems to have hit his stride in the last few weeks. Actually, I kind of like him. And he was the only one to sniff out the doubling of the menu items beforehand. Smarmy? Eh, that would be Marcel.

And I'm not all that sure that stoners populate Tom's world, or if they would crave banana fritters.

I like Ed and consider the stuff that we've seen happening between him and Angelo to be entirely mutual and mostly good-natured. That said, I don't think I could care less who wins this season. It just never gripped me the way previous seasons have.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:I like Ed and consider the stuff that we've seen happening between him and Angelo to be entirely mutual and mostly good-natured. That said, I don't think I could care less who wins this season. It just never gripped me the way previous seasons have.

Sounds like next season will cure that malaise right quick

Dmnkly wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I like Ed and consider the stuff that we've seen happening between him and Angelo to be entirely mutual and mostly good-natured. That said, I don't think I could care less who wins this season. It just never gripped me the way previous seasons have.

Sounds like next season will cure that malaise right quick

Who knows, maybe even 'Just Desserts' will float my Top Chef boat.

=R=

Speaking of Just Desserts...is it just me, or does it look like Gail has been scarfing down a lot of cupcakes in getting prepared for the hosting gig?

aschie30 wrote: Anyway, I wondered the same thing about Tom's stoner comment, and I don't know what to make of it. That Ed is, at this point, competing with Kevin, who seems like a nice guy but is over-performing, and Angelo, who is just a wacko with his mail-order bride(s), in a way, caps off for me what is surely about to be Top Chef's worst season.

Couldn't agree more about Angelo. He really has come off as a whack job, especially in the last few episodes. I caught myself laughing out loud when his lip started quivering and his eyes filled with tears at elimination. Kelly thought he was crying because she was leaving, but he was upset because he thought he was going home! I wanted Vito Corleone to come out and slap him.

Furthering the conspiracy theory arguments, since I know there's usually a delay of a month or two between the "final four" episode and the finale, I wonder how much the positive critiques were a result of the producers reflection on how poorly the season has been received.

I skipped this until now because I hadn't seen the episode, but to Bnowell's questions-- I think the judging is pretty on the level. Tom says the producers don't influence who they keep or send home... but that's not to say that the judges may not have internalized some notions about what will make good TV along the way, which can influence them. But I think the competition is pretty straight.

The editing, on the other hand, is frequently deceptive and manipulative. That's part of the fun-- who are they downplaying and hiding early on, only to have them come from behind? (I.e., Karla in Season 5.) Or to play up semi-invented rivalries (all those reaction shots at judging, say, designed to make them look catty toward each other? Obviously they don't have a zillion cameras, pointed at each contestant at every key moment; they shoot them one by one making faces of various types and edit them in.) That part, well, that's reality TV for ya.

For some reason, I really enjoyed the finale. The food seemed to redeem the failings of the season and Kevin seemed deserving of the title in the end. I could have done without Angelo's ridiculous medical drama, but I liked the concept of everyone utilizing the same Proteins. The last two episodes were pretty entertaining; the change of venue most definitely helped. Hung is entertaining enough to have his own show, and it was interesting to see that Kevin and Michael Voltaggio were friends previously. That relationshiop seemed to bolster Kevin in the kitchen, where Ilan seemed to irritate Ed.

The Top Chef Just Desserts premiere was so completely irritating that I know now I shan't be watching. I am looking forward to the new All-Stars show, that is apparently in production now in the NYC.

http://eater.com/archives/2010/09/01/mo ... vealed.php

Angelo and Kevin had signifcant advantages working with the talented Hung and Michael. Ed with Ilan . . . not so much. He was more like an anchor, IMO. Porsche, Mercedes, Volkswagen.

It seemed that Ed was the only finalist who put the conception of an entire course -- the dessert -- in the hands of his sous. Considering how that course was received, I think the decision really hurt him.

Glad to see Kevin win -- he seems like a nice enough guy -- but even happier that this lackluster season is now in the books.

=R=

Dmnkly wrote:

bnowell724 wrote:Dom, you can make the vague argument that all of the casts are relatively diverse, but come on, five people of one non-white race in a cast? I'd love it if all the seasons were that way, but they aren't, and they won't be again, which makes this scenario very fishy to me. And I'm not afraid to call it like I see it.

Look, we've been over this countless times before. You believe in the integrity of the judging or you don't. And for those who believe it's a sham, there is no information that could possibly convince them otherwise. When a result doesn't fit the supposed narrative, the narrative changes. So believe what you want. I just think it's incredibly sleazy -- not to mention completely unnecessary -- to come out and say that Tiffany was winning because she's black, because what's fact is that you have absolutely no idea whether or not that's the case and it's just insulting to take her success away from her like that. I'm not sure what else there is to say. For either of us. So we should probably just leave it at that.

leave it at you calling me sleazy? Uh, no.

You didn't respond to my quote, and you keep bringing up one part of my whole argument, out of context, to make me sound racist, I'm assuming to distract from the fact that you can't think of a reasonable explanation for the suspicious casting choices on this season of TC. I know Bravo has such an upstanding reputation and all- oh wait, this is the same channel that produces the Real Housewives series.

First off...

bnowell724 wrote:...and you keep bringing up one part of my whole argument, out of context, to make me sound racist...

...BS. I did no such thing. I said you suggested that Tiffany was winning because of her race, because that's exactly what you did. That doesn't make you racist. Paranoid, conspiracy-minded, cynical, unfairly dismissive of Tiffany and overly concerned with the racial composition of Top Chef's season seven cast... but not racist. I never said nor implied it. I'll stand by sleazy, though. Whether or not it's typical of your character, to suggest that somebody's achievement is because of their race when you have no evidence beyond speculation to back up the claim is a sleazy thing to do.

As to the topic at hand, in an effort to put this to bed...

bnowell724 wrote:You didn't respond to my quote, and you keep bringing up one part of my whole argument, out of context, to make me sound racist, I'm assuming to distract from the fact that you can't think of a reasonable explanation for the suspicious casting choices on this season of TC.

...Asked and answered:

Dmnkly wrote:Bottom line is maybe casting decided they wanted a couple more African Americans this season. I don't know. Neither do you. But that's a long, long way from suggesting that one of the contestants is being handed wins because of her race.

So can we move on or do you want to ask a few more times so I can answer a few more times?

ronnie_suburban wrote:... but even happier that this lackluster season is now in the books.

I heard the judges say they got the best food they've ever had on the show, several times.
What made this dull is that the caliber was high, the flameouts and shenanigans low. We got a good ten solid minutes of Angelo moaning in bed because that's all the drama they could drum up.

Maybe they need to select slightly less capable chefs? With more personality damage?

Tom said Kevin's food was the best they've had in any finale. Hopefully next season the editors will move in the direction of actually letting us know what's going on during the episode.

Darren72 wrote:Tom said Kevin's food was the best they've had in any finale. Hopefully next season the editors will move in the direction of actually letting us know what's going on during the episode.

No kidding. Usually I can "score" in my head as the finale dishes are served and tasted. This season it was incredibly difficult to tell who had the upper hand going into Judges Table.

Top Chef Season 7: Well, that happened.

The disconnect between editing and reality has always been there, but I'm trying to decide if that gap has been getting wider. This season wasn't encouraging.

I think the problem is that the show doesn't have a single, clear selling point. Is it the personal drama, cooking techniques, ingredients, or what? Instead, we get a little bit of everything and, as a result, not much of anything.

For example, although many dishes are made in any one episode, the viewer never actually learns how to cook any of them. I don't watch Iron Chef that much (maybe twice a year), but that show gives a much better sense of how the dishes are made. I might learn something or at least appreciate what the chef is doing. In last night's TC episode, Eric Ripert commented that he really liked what Kevin did with the kale? Huh? It would have been nice to see him doing this and maybe learn something. They couldn't show all of the dishes in any detail, especially in earlier episodes, but I (personally) would like them to show something.

Another example is the food commentary. I would love to watch a full hour of the judges eating and discussing the food. It would be interesting to see how they analyze the dish, how they weigh the pros and cons of one dish against another. Not only do we get a very small portion of this, but we don't even get complete sentences! We actually get fragments of sentences spliced together to give the appearance of a single conversation.

If we knew more about the judges real opinions, that might dampen the suspense for seeing who won. But eighty years of televised sports has shown that you can know the score mid-game and still be excited for the end.

So, I think the editors need to aim to do less. Make some touch choices about what you are going to focus on, don't cover everything at a shallow level.

Darren72 wrote:Tom said Kevin's food was the best they've had in any finale. Hopefully next season the editors will move in the direction of actually letting us know what's going on during the episode.

The other thing that was difficult for me this finale episode was actually parsing what some of the cheftestants and judges were saying. I had to replay Gail's "that takes some cojones" several times to figure out that's what she said, and most of the banter in the kitchen while the chefs were prepping and cooking flew by in a speedy mumble that I just could not catch. For me, it took away from any sense of the rapport that the cheftestants and their souses had.

I was also dumb enough to check my Twitter before watching the episode, so for the second year in a row Stephanie Izard spoiled the winner for me!!

The other thing that was difficult for me this finale episode was actually parsing what some of the cheftestants and judges were saying. I had to replay Gail's "that takes some cojones" several times to figure out that's what she said, and most of the banter in the kitchen while the chefs were prepping and cooking flew by in a speedy mumble that I just could not catch. For me, it took away from any sense of the rapport that the cheftestants and their souses had.

I always turn on the closed captioning for this type of show.