|
I went back and watched the season 8 finale to see if Richard had an ice cream maker in his kitchen, and he did. Too bad he made crumbly foie ice cream 
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Yiggy posted:I would disagree. If the show is about the food, which the judges always want to insist it is, then I couldn't care less how any contestant acts. Marco Pierre White is a world class douche bag but his chief product, which is food in a fine dining setting, was always unimpeachable. Changing this into a personality competition, something even more subjective than something like food cookery, would skew the show more in the Reality TV direction and less in the Cooking Competition direction, a fast way to take us back to the dark days of Season 1 and 2. Also, judging based off of performance in past challenges sort of invalidates the point of having a final challenge, where consequences actually matter. In that talk show after the finale Tom called in and defended their decision saying they stick to the principle of judging the food they got that night, and frankly I feel like that fig leaf of integrity is one of the only things that keeps this show worth coming back to. I agree, I always hate it on Chopped when the final round goes to one person but the other ends up winning on the strength of their prior dishes. What's the point of even having the final round in that case? I hate that Nina couldn't pull it out but it is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
The final dish being judged based on the final dish alone is fine. The real kicker is that Nick sort of muddled along for most of the season, never got over a basic stumbling block that has sent home contestants before in the past (seasoning), and was able to fall backwards into the win. He's not untalented, so it isn't that he's undeserving. It just appears that there were more deserving contestants (Shirley  ) on the show.But that's the game. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Chopped is different, though. It's about having the 'complete meal', its even arranged appetizer-entree-dessert. The point of having a final round is that it makes up 1/3 of your 'score' and it has just as much importance as the other two courses. I think it would be weirder if a cooking competition was ultimately decided entirely on the strength of a dessert (often not a strong point of many of the chef contestants). It's kind of like a race where the last place person is eliminated once every lap but the winner is still decided on the shortest total time. Out of the last few I would have liked Shirley to win but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
My theory is that Tom just doesn't like black people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:That Nicholas thing about being the only person fired from that restaurant is a chicken/egg thing. It made him a dick, or it happened because he's a dick. You'd only think it happened because he's a dick if you knew nothing about the situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:My theory is that Tom just doesn't like black people. Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:My theory is that Tom just doesn't like black people. I wonder, he was on Bill Maher this week and he seems pretty liberal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
In all seriousness, I think that he went with Nick because he appreciates Nick's technical skill, and so he sees Nick as perhaps having more potential than Nina. Nick also grew more as a chef over the course of the season, though he still doesn't understand the importance of using salt. That being said, Nina made better food over the course of the season than did Nick. Therefore, Tom must be a racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
I think Tom's just one of those people who gets off on having an opinion different from the consensus as a way to make others question whether they're as smart as him. My boss does poo poo like that. If it's an obvious choice, he'll go with everyone else but in any situation where it might be a toss up, he goes the opposite direction of everyone else just to be smug about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Truth be told, when Tom and Padma disagree, I sort of assume that Tom is right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:Truth be told, when Tom and Padma disagree, I sort of assume that Tom is right. This. I know we all would have loved for Nina to win. She was more consistent throughout the season and, unlike Nick, never came across as a dick. But she also messed up two courses in the finale, and why the hell would they disregard that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
I can understand wanting them judged solely on the finale, but to me it just makes more sense to judge them based on the whole season while putting some extra weight onto the final dishes. Especially when Nick kept screwing up in the same way over and over and Nina was just better than him. They tied in wins, she had seven other top finishes to his two, and she was only in the bottom twice to his five. I'll happily admit that I'm biased and going to push it in her favor because on top of being the obviously better chef, she seemed nice and he seemed like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Jummy posted:I can understand wanting them judged solely on the finale, but to me it just makes more sense to judge them based on the whole season while putting some extra weight onto the final dishes. Especially when Nick kept screwing up in the same way over and over and Nina was just better than him. They tied in wins, she had seven other top finishes to his two, and she was only in the bottom twice to his five. What would be the point of having a finals if one of the chefs could just screw around because their previous wins had ensured they would win Top Chef? Nina is a great chef and was rewarded for her wins, but if the finale shows that Nick improved and Nina got worse, why should she named the winner of Top Chef?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Oasx posted:What would be the point of having a finals if one of the chefs could just screw around because their previous wins had ensured they would win Top Chef? Nina is a great chef and was rewarded for her wins, but if the finale shows that Nick improved and Nina got worse, why should she named the winner of Top Chef? Exactly. It'd be sort of like having an Olympics final and then averaging all the times with the athletes' qualifying scores.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
TedKoppel posted:Exactly. It'd be sort of like having an Olympics final and then averaging all the times with the athletes' qualifying scores. ChetReckless posted:Chopped is different, though. It's about having the 'complete meal', its even arranged appetizer-entree-dessert. The point of having a final round is that it makes up 1/3 of your 'score' and it has just as much importance as the other two courses. I think it would be weirder if a cooking competition was ultimately decided entirely on the strength of a dessert (often not a strong point of many of the chef contestants). ChetReckless posted:It's kind of like a race where the last place person is eliminated once every lap but the winner is still decided on the shortest total time. Top Chef's elimination method is good at drama. I'm not so sure about how good it is in really distinguishing who the top chef really is. (Heh.) It's a competition to see who isn't the worst every week until the finale, at which point it suddenly becomes who did the best that night -- even if the person who did best that night was second worst for the other 99% of the season. That's acceptable as a judging method because at least it's consistent and everyone knows what the game really is. But it isn't really a good standard to use to find out who the "best" chef is, unless if you define "best" as "not the worst chef for every other challenge and then the better chef in the last challenge." (Of course, LCK and double eliminations and immunity shake up the game, but the basic formula is what it is.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
It really is just Least Bottom Chef, but I'm fine with that. The rules are the rules and, for the most part, they've always been the rules. I think anyone could look at the whole season and say Nina was the best, because that was readily apparent, but Nicholas kicked everyone's rear end from the second they got to Hawaii. He was a dickhead, sometimes justified and other times not so much, but he made the best food when it mattered and quite frankly it seemed to me like they had to pull every string possible just to make it less obvious how much better he was in Hawaii.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
I bet in five years Nina is in a much better place career wise than Nick. The money/title is nice but she's going to do better long term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
I do think the break between the finals and the rest of the competition came at the precise right time for Nick. He seemed like he was having a hard time keeping it together by the end of the regular competition but the time off seemed to do a world of good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Didn't the first season of Top Chef take the entire season into consideration for the final?
coma fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Oasx posted:What would be the point of having a finals if one of the chefs could just screw around because their previous wins had ensured they would win Top Chef? Nina is a great chef and was rewarded for her wins, but if the finale shows that Nick improved and Nina got worse, why should she named the winner of Top Chef? Now this I can't understand. It seems like whenever anyone says that the finale shouldn't be a standalone event people somehow think it means the finale doesn't matter. I mean I even said up there that the finale matters and matters more. And what does it matter that he improved in the very last show and she didn't? To paraphrase one of our most beloved chefs, it's Top Chef, not Most Improved Chef. NASCAR does use a system like this though, unless they changed it again, and if you have so many points going into the final race you can just screw around. You don't have to worry that some inferior racer is going to put it all together for one day and beat you. Seems the system works fine for them. TedKoppel posted:Exactly. It'd be sort of like having an Olympics final and then averaging all the times with the athletes' qualifying scores. The dude was in the bottom of the competition a third of the time, he wouldn't have made it to the Olympic finals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
The Last Chance Kitchen winner would really screw up the finale if you were supposed to be judged including the entire season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Angelo is going to be on Iron Chef America this Sunday. http://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/iron-chef-america/12-series/vegas-high-rollers-flay-vs-sosa.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
News that is a couple of weeks old, but they've decided on the location of the next season: Boston. "Production for Season 12 kicks off this Spring and the show will premiere on Bravo this Fall."
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Another Top Chef spinoff announced. http://eater.com/archives/2014/06/04/top-chef-duels-to-premiere-aug-6-lineup-announced.php Duels!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Kind of surprising they managed to drag Kevin Gillespie into it when he seemed so thoroughly disinterested in All Stars. Still I gotta keep rooting for my boy Mike Isabella.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
HORATIO HORNBLOWER posted:Kind of surprising they managed to drag Kevin Gillespie into it when he seemed so thoroughly disinterested in All Stars. Still I gotta keep rooting for my boy Mike Isabella. He's also the only regular contestant to go up against someone from Masters. Hail the return of Pork Jesus!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
I started a new thread just for Duels here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3640661 There's only been one reply so far, which I'm going to take as an indication of lack of interest in the show rather than my OP. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:16
|
|