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?

Quite often......though less in recent seasons.
The two ladies in the most recent episode clearly took shots at each other's favorite places.

Binko wrote:

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.

Binko--

Two parts to the memorable episode you mention, the first being the Myron & Phil's guy response to the proponent of Karyn's Fresh Corner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf6l-ewSpa4

...THEN...turnabout is fair play...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2jlCD6ntc8


That was when caricatures were caricatures... It was wonderful.

jnm123 wrote:

Binko wrote:
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.

Binko--

Two parts to the memorable episode you mention, the first being the Myron & Phil's guy response to the proponent of Karyn's Fresh Corner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf6l-ewSpa4

...THEN...turnabout is fair play...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2jlCD6ntc8


That was when caricatures were caricatures... It was wonderful.

The full broadcast segments can be viewed at

http://checkplease.wttw.com/restaurants ... esh-corner

http://checkplease.wttw.com/restaurants/myron-phils

along with the clip on the third featured restaurant in that show, Haro's.

http://checkplease.wttw.com/restaurants ... xos-closed

If one is unable to view the video, Chuck Sudo's 2007 post at Chicagoist describes the episode.

Stars Are Born on "Check Please"
http://chicagoist.com/2007/01/29/stars_ ... please.php

--
edc

I'm with Ronnie on this. If the most erudite comment from a reviewer is "the food was really good," that doesn't tell me much. Certainly, everyone has the right to their own tastes and opinions, and I might disagree with Ronnie's characterization of some of the reviewers knowing "next to nothing," but some could do a much better job of describing their reaction to a given restaurant, and providing details explaining why they reacted as they did, than others. I think they could do a better job choosing their reviewers.

A few years ago, they interviewed me to be on the show. It was a two minute phone interview. They then called back a few weeks later, inviting me to be on the show. Unfortunately, they asked me to review Deta's Café ... but it was after Deta left, and I had to tell them that I thought the restaurant had gone downhill. So, needless to say, I didn't appear on the show.

jnm123 wrote: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...

It's by no means a great show, but it serves a purpose and has a place, but, it really needs to be re-vamped some. Mind you I say this a someone who only occasionally watches the show.

I agree the demographic is narrow, but also kind of the sweet spot for the general viewing public. The struggling student on a limited budget or the CEO who can eat at Alinea every week are the ends of the bell curve, the 30-50 professionals are the middle.

I am not going to say who is qualified to judge food and who is not. We all have our own opinions. Yes, there are plenty of "food ignorant" people out there who love a jimmy johns sub but would hate a Will special at Riveria, who will eat the latest franken-creation from Taco Bell, but would turn there nose up at a Cemita, but they have their opinions as well. I have plenty of friends with narrow palates and no desire to change.

As a review show, I think it would be better served to change the format to one where the producers pick the 3 restaurants and then send the reviewers to them. Then you are just getting 3 opinions as to the meal they experienced. No toes to step on or feelings to hurt, just an honest review.

As viewers it is our job to determine if we agree with the reviewers point of view or competence and go from there.

I think that having panelists suggest a restaurant is one of the key parts to the show. It does sometimes create tension like this week between the two women, the stay at home mom and the Russian lady. That's good TV I think. Sometimes its culture clash, city-suburb, old-young, etc. That's one of the fun things about the show.

But one change I feel is absolutely essential (besides a new more down to earth host) is that when the panelist names their restaurant, they must also name what their favorite dishes are or at least what the restaurant does best. Panelists need more guidance as to the menu.

I cant tell you how many times Ive watched the show and the other panelists have no idea what to order and often get the "wrong" thing. Like the lady this last week who went to JP Grazianos and got a turkey sandwich. Who gets a turkey sandwich when there are all those great Italian meats, cheeses etc on offer? The place is known for their Italian subs...you dont get a turkey sandwich there and it isnt going to be nearly as good as their Italian subs.

champs2005 wrote:I cant tell you how many times Ive watched the show and the other panelists have no idea what to order and often get the "wrong" thing. Like the lady this last week who went to JP Grazianos and got a turkey sandwich. Who gets a turkey sandwich when there are all those great Italian meats, cheeses etc on offer? The place is known for their Italian subs...you dont get a turkey sandwich there and it isnt going to be nearly as good as their Italian subs.

I think this is what irks me the most about Check, Please! I have no need for the opinions of people who don't understand -- or cannot discern -- even the very basics about a place. And one prime example is from this most recently aired episode. I'm not saying that Graziano's doesn't make a great turkey sandwich. They probably do (I've never had one). But if you walk in there on your very first visit, take a look around the place and then order that, your opinion of the place means less than nothing.

=R=

When I want erudite, knowledgeable discussions of a restaurant, I come here. When I want to be entertained by seeing how regular folks feel about a few restaurants, I watch Check Please.

The reason I found Ron's post reasonable is that I understood him to mean something like this: "Sure, people are perfectly competent to know what they like and what they don't like, and nobody has a monopoly on that ability; but not all people are capable of articulating what they like and don't like, beyond useless generalities."

Edited to add: I see you've spoken for yourself in the meantime, Ron. But maybe I wasn't far off as to one of your meanings.

I am an avid "Check, Please" viewer and consider myself a foodie. Just about every episode has at least one person who appears to be both fairly knowledgable and a regular restaurant-goer.

I see some participant's favorites slagged all the time - clips of such incidents are even in the opening credits montage (like the woman saying about Japonais "I want a plate of food, not art"). The charm of the show is based on panels which cross different Chicago demographics: The old "Chi-cah-go" guy with the "Superfans" accent who loves some red sauce Italian joint in the suburbs (which, in reality, is like just about every other southern Italian joint in the area), the tattooed hipster (mail or female) who likes some unusual or ethnic boite (e.g. Mana Food Bar, Demera Ethiopian), the African-American person who talks about a Southside restaurant that a lot of white folks wouldn't think about venturing to, the yuppie advocating for the latest River North hotspot. I agree that some of these panelists aren't sophisticated diners, but the fun is watching them try places that are out of their comfort zone (especially when they don't like them).

This is TV, so it's as much entertainment as consumer information. I must admit I get a kick of watching LTH favorites get dumped on (e.g. the future "Master Chef" contestant who hated Moon's Sandwich Shop years ago).

I have to admit that this week's episode (El Ideas, Shangri-La and Shokran) was a delight to watch. As annoying as last week's edition was, this week's was equally pleasurable. A great panel of informed, articulate, enthusiastic, adventurous folks who seemed receptive to just about everything -- and willing to assess each place on its own merits, rather than preconceived notions and entrenched personal preferences . . . and it reminded me that it's been way too long since I was last at El Ideas.

In response to my semi rhetorical question upthread about why I continue to watch this show, this week's installment was exactly why. Great stuff.

=R=