171 replies to this topic

[Keith Orr]

Ciao Italia with Mary Ann Esposito, which claims to be America's longest running cooking show. I can't bear to watch it.

Cucina Amore wasn't my favorite show and Nick Stellino (born in Palermo Sicily) seemed more like an enthusiastic actor than a chef - some of the things he did skills wise were pretty amateurish. His bio says he apprenticed with the best chefs in America, but makes no claim of ever owning a restaurant. That being said he seems to support himself well with his cooking shows, books and motivational speaking if his wardrobe is any indication of his success.

[ruthcooks]

In Defense of Nathalie Dupree

Nathalie Dupree came to cooking in the era when it was fashionable to select recipes on one basis. Not “it’s a new cooking method ” or “it’s by a famous chef” or “it’s low fat” or “it’s low calorie” but “it tastes good”. Not that she didn’t lower some fat and calories along the way, but that she didn’t use that as sole criteria for worthiness. The food heros and heroines of that day were not restaurant chefs, but cooking school teachers, newspaper food editors, cookbook authors and the “best cook on the block.”

That’s the era I come from, too. And I treasure it. “Sounds good” is still my criteria for choosing a recipe. Possibly those of you who have panned Nathalie’s cooking show have not ever heard of her or seen her before. I have met her and attended a cooking class by her. She is a nice lady, no tantrums or swearing here. I own several of her books, and she is a terrific writer. In “Matters of Taste” she writes a recipe prelude about falling in love over cold tomato soup that is sheer poetry.

Please consider her achievements; this woman deserves your respect.

Like Julia Child, Nathalie attended the Cordon Bleu Cooking School (and earned an advanced degree) while in her 30s.

Like Julia Child, Nathalie filmed more than 100 cooking shows for PBS (eventually 300 in nine series shown on three networks).

Like Julia Child, Nathalie had a reputation for relaxed presentation and “klutziness” (although no one attacked St. Julia as many attack Nathalie here).

Like Alice Waters at Chez Panisse, Nathalie emphasized fresh regional ingredients and California-style grilling and baking (and she grew her own herbs) for her first restaurant.

Nathalie founded a cooking school at Rich’s Department Store in Atlanta. The school was active for 10 years and boasts Shirley Corrihor as one of its graduates.

Nathalie is given great credit by the state of Georgia for preserving and expanding their culinary history, and for Atlanta’s becoming a “food town”.

Nathalie is a past president of what is now known as the IACP, and in 2004 won the Jack Daniel's Lifetime Achievement Award from the Southern Foodways Alliance.

Nathalie has published about a dozen cookbooks, and is still going. Every recipe she prints is tested at least three times.

Oh, yes…for those of you who care about such things…she is in her 70s and still maintains a fitness program.

Reference: http://www.georgiaen...e.jsp?id=h-3203

[annabelle]

I loved Nathalie's shows, even if they were repetative. She's a messy cook and so am I. Doing a television show is a lot harder than it looks.

[lochaven]

Nathalie Dupree needs no defense.

I'm sure she can stand on her own two feet, however, I would still rate her cooking show as presented, no matter who the host was.

[teapot]

I just walked into the room and Sandra Lee was on the tube. Instead of turning off the tv immediately, I was transfixed by her black and white themed kitchen and outfit. EVERYTHING was black and white - white pots with black interior, b&w utensils, there was even a b&w cloth fetchingly draped over the white bread box. There were those old fashioned paper silhouettes pinned to the b&w curtains, and bouquets of white roses and black flowers. Her hair was piled up about 6" above her head - tied back with a black ribbon.

She was making some sort of glop involving canned cream of mushroom soup and cream cheese, dumped it into a bowl and described it as: "Elegant, sohisticated, fancy and super duper delicious."

That just says it all doesn't it?

I realize this is an old thread but I had to process this with people who would understand . . .

[Kim Shook]

I adore watching Sandy! She is just THAT side of crazy. It's one of those 'so bad it's good' things that I can't resist. I'm sad that she's only on Thursdays and Fridays now. I'm a complete freak about it - I look up what episode is going to be on and 'prep' by reading the thread at Television without Pity.

[annabelle]

I, too, love Sandra. Her crazy color-coordinated kitchen sets (how many Kitchen Aids does she have?) and the tablescapes are what I watch it for. Occasionally she will make something that looks edible, even tasty and she always makes super-strong drinks to go with whatever her theme is.

I'm with Kim, she's a hoot.

[David Ross]

I once said "Bitchin Kitchen" was the worst food program on TV. I was wrong..."The Culinary Adventures of Baron Ambrosia," on The Cooking Channel is more deplorable than even the nastiest critic could have ever imagined. Even if it is intended to be satire, (the batteries used as hair curlers notwithstanding), it's bad satire. The worst common denominator I am sure.

[gfweb]

Well said. CABA is juvenile, deeply stupid and embarassing. I stumbled into this great steaming turd of a show and watched about 10 minutes, waiting for it to get good. Any middle schooler with an iPhone would post better stuff on YouTube.

Advertisers pay for this? What's the demographic...morons?

Either Cooking Channel has absolutely no judgement (possible), or they have nothing original to show (probable), or they have complete contempt for their audience (likely).

[gfweb]

I, too, love Sandra. Her crazy color-coordinated kitchen sets (how many Kitchen Aids does she have?) and the tablescapes are what I watch it for. Occasionally she will make something that looks edible, even tasty and she always makes super-strong drinks to go with whatever her theme is.

I'm with Kim, she's a hoot.

She's absolutly nuts. Probably fun at a party, at least before she gets too ripped and starts pole dancing.

[annabelle]

Let's hope she saves that for when she and the Governor are alone.

Re: CABA. I've seen the commercials for this show and thought "Wtf is this guy trying to do here?" It looks even worse than the "Surreal Gourmet", I think it was about 10+ years ago. That guy traveled around in an Airstream trailor made to look like a giant toaster.

Dave, never say never about bad cooking shows. There is always another one in the works.

[rod rock]

I'm wondering why television stations are buying unprofessional cooking shows anyway. I mean, main point of the cooking show is to let people learn something about cooking but not in wrong way...

[ChrisTaylor]

No, the main point of the show is to attract viewers. The viewers are exposed to advertising. The television network makes money. That's the point. Bonus points if the show is cheap to make.

[JeanneCake]

Sigh. I miss the good old TV cooking shows - the ones on PBS - I mean, the ones that I could learn from; and while I know I can get them on DVD, there's something about watching it while it's being televised. We have all the Indiana Jones movies, yet when they are on TV, we watch them. I loved spending Saturday mornings with Julia, and Jacques, and Pierre Franey......

[laharre]

Any of the cooking game shows on food network right now.

[Heartsurgeon]

I must insist that "SPAIN, on the road again" with Mario Batali, Mark Bitmann,Gwyneth Paltrow and Claudia Bassols retains the title of the worse cooking show ever.

Not only is it a truly henious and hateful show, it manages to be horrible with a cast consisting of a highly accomplished chef, a highly accomplished food writer/critic/cook, a highly accomplished actress/cook. Indeed, the only non-highly accomplished cast member (Bassols) is the only one not subject to my opprobrium.

This show is an epic failure INSPITE of all that talent.

Had the cast actually taken their roles seriously, it could have been a classic!
Instead, a toxic brew of hubris, sloth, and gluttony produced a cowpie of a cooking show.

I defy anyone to show me a larger collection of food luminaries, that have managed to produce such an utter piece of crap, as this show.

[Shalmanese]

No, the main point of the show is to attract viewers. The viewers are exposed to advertising. The television network makes money. That's the point. Bonus points if the show is cheap to make.

Also, the more uneducated the viewer, the easier it is to convince them some $15 plastic doohickey and a $5000 gourmet stove is all that stands between them and gourmet chef status. Educated cooks are harder to sell to.

[Kerry Beal]

No, the main point of the show is to attract viewers. The viewers

are exposed to advertising. The television network makes money. That's the point. Bonus points if the show is cheap to make.

Also, the more uneducated the viewer, the easier it is to convince them some $15 plastic doohickey and a $5000 gourmet stove is all that stands between them and gourmet chef status. Educated cooks are harder to sell to.

Yup - we educated cooks buy the $15 plastic doohickey for 50¢ at a thrift store so we can entertain our eG friends - behold the Eggstractor.

[Zeemanb]

Nadia G and Baron Ambrosia are actually 2 shows that have made it into my DVR rotation. The thing I enjoy most about CABA is listening to my wife ask "Why in the HELL do you keep watching this???!!!???", and somehow I find the Baron to be less annoying than Guy Fieri and the restaurants he visits are far more worthy of a Diners, Drive-ins and Dives visit. I end up wishing I could visit at least half of the joints on the show. His use of restaurant staff in the horrific acting is reminiscent of a John Waters movie, which in my book is never a bad thing and may help to explain my tolerance for the unabashed, annoying freakishness.

Likewise, Nadia G cooks a lot of stuff that appeals to me...usually a little more involved or calorie-laden for day to day eating, but something I'd have fun making on the weekend. Her constant mixing of maple syrup and balsamic vinegar was a bit of a revelation. Again, needlessly overblown characters reminiscent of Pee Wee's Playhouse, but I personally find the contrived storylines that exist throughout 99% of Food Network programming to be mind numbingly stupid and a waste of time. Just me, but I'd rather hear the umpteenth "oh to have a jetpack" segment from Nadia than sit through even one more "and here's another make-believe Martha's Vineyard yuppie gathering" from Ina Garten. And now that I have a functioning brain in the kitchen, reruns of Good Eats represent an exercise in tedium to me. Lifesize talking squid somehow fly under the radar because Alton thought of nerdy first. I think the "unique personal perspective to draw in the viewer" angle that is at the core of what makes food programming dumber and dumber is a total waste, but it makes more money than the shows relegated to PBS, so if it HAS to exist then I'm all for the ridiculous. Bonus- it means I'm still a viable target demographic!

[Kim Shook]

Nadia G and Baron Ambrosia are actually 2 shows that have made it into my DVR rotation. The thing I enjoy most about CABA is listening to my wife ask "Why in the HELL do you keep watching this???!!!???", and somehow I find the Baron to be less annoying than Guy Fieri and the restaurants he visits are far more worthy of a Diners, Drive-ins and Dives visit. I end up wishing I could visit at least half of the joints on the show. His use of restaurant staff in the horrific acting is reminiscent of a John Waters movie, which in my book is never a bad thing and may help to explain my tolerance for the unabashed, annoying freakishness.

Likewise, Nadia G cooks a lot of stuff that appeals to me...usually a little more involved or calorie-laden for day to day eating, but something I'd have fun making on the weekend. Her constant mixing of maple syrup and balsamic vinegar was a bit of a revelation. Again, needlessly overblown characters reminiscent of Pee Wee's Playhouse, but I personally find the contrived storylines that exist throughout 99% of Food Network programming to be mind numbingly stupid and a waste of time. Just me, but I'd rather hear the umpteenth "oh to have a jetpack" segment from Nadia than sit through even one more "and here's another make-believe Martha's Vineyard yuppie gathering" from Ina Garten. And now that I have a functioning brain in the kitchen, reruns of Good Eats represent an exercise in tedium to me. Lifesize talking squid somehow fly under the radar because Alton thought of nerdy first. I think the "unique personal perspective to draw in the viewer" angle that is at the core of what makes food programming dumber and dumber is a total waste, but it makes more money than the shows relegated to PBS, so if it HAS to exist then I'm all for the ridiculous. Bonus- it means I'm still a viable target demographic!

You are so good at the ironic/sarcastic/cool vibe that Mr. Kim and I almost took you seriously here. We KNOW that no one that we love and respect could POSSIBLY watch more than eight seconds of these idiots . Mr. Kim wants to know why you can't find a meaningful and intelligent food show to watch....like "Man vs. Food" .

Seriously, respecting your smarts and taste as much as I do, I must disagree. If I ever saw Nadia on the street, I would have to be physically restrained from slapping her silly and I find the Baron cringingly embarrassing to watch.

Edited by Kim Shook, 17 July 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Zeemanb]

You are so good at the ironic/sarcastic/cool vibe that Mr. Kim and I almost took you seriously here. We KNOW that no one that we love and respect could POSSIBLY watch more than eight seconds of these idiots. Mr. Kim wants to know why you can't find a meaningful and intelligent food show to watch....like "Man vs. Food".

Seriously, respecting your smarts and taste as much as I do, I must disagree. If I ever saw Nadia on the street, I would have to be physically restrained from slapping her silly and I find the Baron cringingly embarrassing to watch.

LOL! You know, after re-reading my initial post I have to say....my actual enthusiasm for those two shows was very restrained. I don't know what it was that made me last more than ten seconds watching either of them the first time. Meredith still isn't sold on the Baron, but is in the Nadia G camp with me. I guess that my fascination with derangement factors in here....it's kind of like how "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" was the first TV show where I said "THIS is exactly the type of TV I could and would write"......same with these 2 shows, given the opportunity I'd give the world a "universal facepalm opportunity" food program similar to these.

Crazy off-topic thing- but food tv related- the huge chicken liver Battleship sandwich at our favorite Black Sheep won the regional sandwich bout on the latest incarnation of Man Vs. Food.

[annabelle]

My youngest brother and his boys love Man vs. Food. My SIL and I say "pass", but to each his own.

I miss the Great Chefs series that was on about 15 years ago on PBS. It was pretty awesome to see some of the European chefs turn out great meals in a kitchen the size of a closet.

[Porthos]

No, the main point of the show is to attract viewers. The viewers are exposed to advertising. The television network makes money. That's the point. Bonus points if the show is cheap to make.

Also, the more uneducated the viewer, the easier it is to convince them some $15 plastic doohickey and a $5000 gourmet stove is all that stands between them and gourmet chef status. Educated cooks are harder to sell to.

That's why you can find Racheal Ray's Garbage Bowl for about 20.00 USD. An old Tupperware bowl would do the same job.

[rod rock]

No, the main point of the show is to attract viewers. The viewers are exposed to advertising. The television network makes money. That's the point. Bonus points if the show is cheap to make.

I agree that is the main point of the show author and tv station, but point should be knowledge... Unfortunately, we are facing the times where money talks instead of people.

[Jaymes]

No, the main point of the show is to attract viewers. The viewers are exposed to advertising. The television network makes money. That's the point. Bonus points if the show is cheap to make.

I agree that is the main point of the show author and tv station, but point should be knowledge... Unfortunately, we are facing the times where money talks instead of people.

Sorry, but it's not that simple. The "people" do "talk" and what they are interested in enough to do that talking is what generates the money.

You can decry "money" all you want, but the fact is that when folks work, most of them want to be paid for their efforts. I suspect that includes you. So it takes money to produce and broadcast television shows. That money has to come from somewhere. If the show is popular enough (ie, enough "people" that "talk" about it), advertising dollars pay for it. If the show isn't popular enough, then what? I don't know anyone that would be capable of producing and broadcasting the so-called educational "quality shows" all by themselves just because they think those shows would be good for us and benefit an intelligent audience. So commercial TV has to appeal to enough viewers to facilitate whatever the viewing public is willing to support.

PBS tries to broadcast "quality shows," but they have to beg for the money to do it. The money has to be there. It has to come from somewhere.

You say "money talks instead of people." Nope. The people talk and the money follows.

We as a populace get what we deserve in most things, certainly including television cooking shows. If the "people" demanded better quality shows, the "money" would follow.

And, that said, has anyone here been tuning into the Cooking Channel? They're broadcasting reruns of many of those shows you all have been saying you miss. And, of course, since they're broadcasting "quality television," I read somewhere that they're struggling, while the mass-market appeal of the Food Network schlock seems to be doing just fine.

So, indeed, the "people" are talking. And what they say they want is Rachael Ray.


.

Edited by Jaymes, 18 July 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[annabelle]

PBS claims it is supported by viewer donations, which is true in a way since they receive our tax dollars. I'm not sure what the fund-raisers are for.

I watch the Cooking Channel occasionally. "Two Fat Ladies" is on in the evenings.

[Jaymes]

PBS claims it is supported by viewer donations, which is true in a way since they receive our tax dollars. I'm not sure what the fund-raisers are for.

I watch the Cooking Channel occasionally. "Two Fat Ladies" is on in the evenings.

They say that the tax dollars are not enough. I happily support them, though.

And I, too, watch the Two Fat Ladies. What a giggle they are!

And I've made many of their recipes. Their Peas with Lettuce recipe is a particular favorite.

[GlorifiedRice]

That's why you can find Racheal Ray's Garbage Bowl for about 20.00 USD. An old Tupperware bowl would do the same job.

Or buy the HEFTY Scrap Bags and holder for $5.00 on Amazon

[rod rock]

@Jaymes, tell me what's the point of cooking show?

[Jaymes]

@Jaymes, tell me what's the point of cooking show?

Commercial television, at least in the US, is an advertising medium. The "point" of a cooking show is the exact same thing as the point of a crime drama or sitcom or game show or made-for-television movie or anything else broadcast over commercial television. And that is to attract enough viewers so that advertisers, big and small, will pay to have their selling message reach their potential market. That's not a bad thing. That's the free enterprise market at work.

And as I pointed out, everybody (including you I feel quite certain) wants and needs to be paid for their efforts. So no matter what you're broadcasting, whether it's "good" television or complete trash, it's broadcast by human beings that require money to pay their own expenses - keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, etc. And that money has to come from somewhere. On commercial television in the US, that money comes from advertisers, so that the viewing public gets to watch mostly for free. It's a symbiotic relationship that works.

When you get into some cable television channels and religious channels and educational channels and PBS, etc., the money comes from other sources, sometimes in its entirety and sometimes in addition to support from commercial enterprises, but, like I keep saying, the money has to come from somewhere.

And I personally don't think you can blame advertisers if the shows are bad (in your opinion, and we all differ, you know) because they're not going to spend the kind of money that television advertising costs on shows that nobody is watching. They can't afford to do that. They're not charities; they're commercial enterprises and they have expenses as well - overhead to pay, payroll to meet, etc. They're not going to throw away money to get their selling message to nobody. They pay to advertise on the most popular shows, the ones that attract the largest (and most demographically beneficial) audience.

So the "people" that you say don't "talk" "these days" are the ones that ultimately decide what's going to be shown and what's going to be cancelled because it can't attract enough viewers, and enough advertising dollars to keep it on the air.

Honestly, if you can think of a better system, I'd love to hear it. This one may have its flaws but overall I think it works pretty well.

Rachael Ray and Sandra Lee (and an endless parade of CSI's) et al. notwithstanding.



.

Edited by Jaymes, 19 July 2012 - 09:28 AM.