My wife can't stand her. I like her better, but she's no Alpana...maybe she's on par with Amanda Puck.

She's no Cleetus!

I bet Cleetus has better control of his shoulders.

I hope people give her a chance to grow into the role. I seem to recall criticism of Alpana when she first started.

The GP wrote:I hope people give her a chance to grow into the role. I seem to recall criticism of Alpana when she first started.

I haven't weighed in to defend Cat because I know her, and I'm definitely biased, but it's true that Alpana and Amanda before her both took some kind of heat. Not everyone is going to be happy with everyone, I guess.

Oh, I do figure that her shoulder mannerism (which bugs me more than it probably does others) is a nervous tic that will disappear as she becomes more comfortable in the role. At least I hope so. That's actually why I pointed it out--because if no one does, it's likely not to stop.

I don't think anybody was going to come out a winner in the general public in this competition. Check Please! didn't hire a professional tv personality so yes, there was going to be an adjustment period, and everyone had someone he/she preferred. And yes, it took time for Alpana to grow comfortable sitting in the same role. Of course, had they hired a professional tv personality, then there would have been complaints that the person is too polished or fake.

For me, the show has always been largely about the food and the guests and I think Catherine has held up that end of the bargain, interjecting her own thoughts only when very relevant to the discussion and where they add to the content.

BR wrote:For me, the show has always been largely about the food and the guests and I think Catherine has held up that end of the bargain, interjecting her own thoughts only when very relevant to the discussion and where they add to the content.

My wife and I were watching tonight's episode when she remarked that she appreciated Alpana Singh's interjections (usually recounting her own experience with a restaurant and her conversations with the owners) and didn't like Catherine's apparent reticence.

I do remember complaints about Alpana's style when she became he host. Some thought her voice was too "sing-songy".

ld111134 wrote:

BR wrote:For me, the show has always been largely about the food and the guests and I think Catherine has held up that end of the bargain, interjecting her own thoughts only when very relevant to the discussion and where they add to the content.

My wife and I were watching tonight's episode when she remarked that she appreciated Alpana Singh's interjections (usually recounting her own experience with a restaurant and her conversations with the owners) and didn't like Catherine's apparent reticence.

I do remember complaints about Alpana's style when she became he host. Some thought her voice was too "sing-songy".

I thought I remember people saying Alpana chimed in too much?

My memory is not good enough to have any opinion on how much or little Ms. Singh expressed her own views about the restuarants highlighted, but I did appreciate her well-informed insights (including but not limited to comments about wine pairings). That said, I think the idea of the show is that the three guests exchange opinions, and I am among those that think that the host's job is to facilitate that exchange without interjecting his or her own opinions. As a viewer, I feel freer to form my own opinion by comparing what the three "amateurs" have to say; I think that to some extent, the "professional" at the table expressing an opinion inhibits that freedom and to some extent may also inhibit the "amateurs" from expressing their views.

Katie wrote:That said, I think the idea of the show is that the three guests exchange opinions, and I am among those that think that the host's job is to facilitate that exchange without interjecting his or her own opinions. As a viewer, I feel freer to form my own opinion by comparing what the three "amateurs" have to say; I think that to some extent, the "professional" at the table expressing an opinion inhibits that freedom and to some extent may also inhibit the "amateurs" from expressing their views.

I agree in theory, but on the times I've watched, I don't think there has been one instance where I would trust any of the amateurs' opinions as far as I could throw it.

Which makes me realize the show I actually would watch. I would watch a show that had three knowledgable food critics--maybe the same three every week!--guided by a host/moderator as they discussed and debated their reactions to three restaurants. I realize that's not the concept of Check Please, but the whole idea that I should be persuaded by three "ordinary folks" precisely because they're ordinary makes no sense to me. Obviously the show as it exists has an audience, and I am not that audience, and more power to the show for finding that audience. I just don't get it.

This is probably why I would at least like an assertive and knowledgable host. At least that way there'd be one person who knew what she was talking about.

riddlemay wrote:Which makes me realize the show I actually would watch. I would watch a show that had three knowledgable food critics--maybe the same three every week!--guided by a host/moderator as they discussed and debated their reactions to three restaurants.

Good lord, that sounds tiresome.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

riddlemay wrote:Which makes me realize the show I actually would watch. I would watch a show that had three knowledgable food critics--maybe the same three every week!--guided by a host/moderator as they discussed and debated their reactions to three restaurants.

Good lord, that sounds tiresome.

=R=

It's kind of the idea behind LTH, no? A community of experienced diners, quite a number of whom one learns over time to trust? The amateurs on Check Please are like first-time posters here. The opinion of the first-time poster may be worth something, but except in unusual cases I have no way of knowing that because one post doesn't tell me enough about him to draw that conclusion.

I bet you could cast three personalities from the ranks of LTH who would be practically not tiresome at all!

Perhaps my use of "food critic" was misleading. I didn't mean "published in traditional media." I meant, "credentialed by virtue of his or her broad dining experience and ability to articulate his or her experience in meaningful terms." I don't see how this could fail to be interesting to anyone who is interested in LTH.

Hmmm ... I haven't watched with the new host and missed last season but I think the actual show as done now is more like LTH. If you watch, you can amazingly quickly pick out which of the three "regular folks" has sense and a decent palate, which not ... sometimes all, sometimes none, usually 1 or 2. So much comes through as they describe why they select their choice. And it's that variety that makes for a fun view - the contrast between the hipster foodie and the guy who just wants a good steak etc and how it plays out as they try each others' options.

First time posters - sorta but given all the info provided (profile, body language, film from actual restaurant, three diff views of that restaurant experience) the overall effect is much more like reading a multi-response thread.

It's a fun approach and for me comes closer to the democratic breadth of LTH than a more "knowledgeable" panel. I'd watch both actually if the pro's were well chosen.

So when will LTH start producing its own restaurant review show?

nr706 wrote:So when will LTH start producing its own restaurant review show?

If I were an owner, I'd be thinking about it!

There are so many people here who would make great panelists. I would not be among them--I have said more than once on these boards that I consider myself pretty pathetic when it comes to being able to describe a dining experience. In fact, I would be no better than the average mope on Check Please; I'd just be going "it was amazing" all the time. Which is why the average mopes on Check Please are worthless to me. I can do that at home.

But I could throw some virtual (suction cup) darts at the general LTH membership and hit three people I'd stay home to watch.

riddlemay wrote:

nr706 wrote:So when will LTH start producing its own restaurant review show?

If I were an owner, I'd be thinking about it!

There are so many people here who would make great panelists. I would not be among them--I have said more than once on these boards that I consider myself pretty pathetic when it comes to being able to describe a dining experience. In fact, I would be no better than the average mope on Check Please; I'd just be going "it was amazing" all the time. Which is why the average mopes on Check Please are worthless to me. I can do that at home.

But I could throw some virtual (suction cup) darts at the general LTH membership and hit three people I'd stay home to watch.

You could describe an establishment with the exclamation "amazeballs", as one panelist did when recounting her experience at New England Seafood Company.

You could describe an establishment with the exclamation "amazeballs", as one panelist did when recounting her experience at New England Seafood Company.

Did anyone see Rachel Madddow on Jimmy Fallon the other night? She used amazeballs while describing something.
I was stunned. Is it possible the Check Please reviewer was ahead of the times?

the check please gal didn't come up with that delightful adjective as you can see here.

Any idea what's going on???? New host.
All they have been showing is reruns. same 3-5 shows.
Thanks,

Wally Wade

Hi- I believe they only tape something like 12 shows a year, and so they get shown over and over again. Hope this helps, Nancy

Catherine D'Orio seems much more subdued in her second season debut. My wife even said that she might watch the show again.

Ugh. Why do I continue to watch this horrible show? It's absolutely brutal listening to people who know next to nothing (yes, I'm being nice here ) talk about their eating experiences. Oh well. I guess the roll-ins are nice.

=R=

I have had a problem with the concept from the git-go, mostly from the standpoint of one panelist not wanting to piss off another panelist's recommendation, which waters down the show by not having real uncensored opinion-age. 'Course, with 90% of the panelists not knowledgeable about food and also gleaned from the same demographic (30-50 years old, urban, professional) that doesn't help either.

Yes, a show with LTH-like people, who are interested and savvy about all foods but maybe specializing in certain cuisines, and would swear to unabashedly state their views solely based on the fare, would be fun to watch. And...panelists would have to sign a waiver to 'leave their egos at the door' and to promise not to stab a fellow panelist in the neck with a fork. Sadly, this would disqualify the vast majority of LTH-ers...

jnm123 wrote:
Yes, a show with LTH-like people, who are interested and savvy about all foods but maybe specializing in certain cuisines, and would swear to unabashedly state their views solely based on the fare, would be fun to watch. And...panelists would have to sign a waiver to 'leave their egos at the door' and to promise not to stab a fellow panelist in the neck with a fork. Sadly, this would disqualify the vast majority of LTH-ers...

That reminds me of this:

I actually kind of hated when somebody's treasured place got slagged off. Here you are recommending a restaurant you really like, good food you think, friendly atmosphere you think, you tell people about it because you like the place and think those people will have a great time there, and when you ask how they liked it they tell you the food sucks and the servers' attitude stinks. With maybe a million people watching while they tell you. No, I didn't enjoy watching that.

I actually kind of hated when somebody's treasured place got slagged off. . .when you ask how they liked it they tell you the food sucks and the servers' attitude stinks.

And just when has that ever occurred on "Check, Please"? Ever?

sundevilpeg wrote:

I actually kind of hated when somebody's treasured place got slagged off. . .when you ask how they liked it they tell you the food sucks and the servers' attitude stinks.

And just when has that ever occurred on "Check, Please"? Ever?

I remember a good number of combative episodes years back. The most memorable one was the "raw food" one. Hell, even the episode I was on, the two other panelists were having goes at each other's places. I was the boring diplomatic guy who liked them all.

A friend trashed the Brothers Lachowicz "two fat guys" place on Check Please years ago...

stevez wrote:

jnm123 wrote:
Yes, a show with LTH-like people, who are interested and savvy about all foods but maybe specializing in certain cuisines, and would swear to unabashedly state their views solely based on the fare, would be fun to watch. And...panelists would have to sign a waiver to 'leave their egos at the door' and to promise not to stab a fellow panelist in the neck with a fork. Sadly, this would disqualify the vast majority of LTH-ers...

That reminds me of this:

I miss Curtain, Akroyd, Chase, Newman, Morris, Murray,Radner. & Belushi.

Thanks

ronnie_suburban wrote:Ugh. Why do I continue to watch this horrible show? It's absolutely brutal listening to people who know next to nothing (yes, I'm being nice here ) talk about their eating experiences. Oh well. I guess the roll-ins are nice.

=R=

I'm gonna try and be nice...

but...

THIS POST is what has been wrong with this site for a long time now.
How can somebody who consumes things they like/dislike "know next to nothing" about what they actually like themselves??

We all eat, like almost every single day!
And we all go out to eat also!! (GASP)
How can somebody else seriously judge others like this?? And think they have some kind of superior knowledge of the concept of "eating experiences"?

I try to come here for the honest reviews of food and restaurants, I really do....and thankfully there are many posters who actually give reviews of the food and the service, etc.....but maybe that's not what this place wants to be. Clearly, some of the "powers that be" want something other than just food reviews. Except when they don't.

Ronnie - your post is not at all an honest assessment of the restaurants that "Check, Please" features. It's not even an opinion on the show's format.
You simply made a post to insult other people as somehow having inferior knowledge of their own dining preferences.....really?
The "mods" delete crap like that around here all the time.

Goose? Gander? What's good?


=S=