daysee8

Yup - that pretty much covers it! Thank goodness there's some "reality" programming connected with the restaurant biz that's getting a true and realistic picture out there. One of the things that I find the most disturbing about "The Restaurant" (aside from the fact that most of those people wouldn't last ten minutes anywhere I've ever worked) is that now this is how much of America believes high-volume "professional"-level restaurants are run. Although the exposure is great (or not) PR for the one enterprise depicted, I can't think of a more damaging bit of PR for the entire industry than what's being shown on NBC. If it makes you feel any better, as someone who has never worked a day in the restaurant industry, I can assure you that I don't watch The Restaurant saying "so that is what it's like". Rather, I watch saying "The place has a kitchen like a restaurant. It has a dining room like a restaurant. That appears to be about it".

I did, for 48 years, but never after 'plating' !! Exactly. That was pretty much my point ... it wasn't the touching food that alarmed me (I had no problem with Tony telling one of the cooks to put his finger on the food) it was the double-dipping of plated food. Does it happen? Sure. But this happens so naturally for Rocco that he didn't even think about the fact that it was being done on camera.

Wasn't he griping about not receiving a salary at some point? If so, I missed it. Anyone else? =R= In the first episode, after Chodorow and Rocco met without the cameras, Chodorow said that one of Rocco's complaints was that he wasn't getting paid.

I personally did not get the impression that Rocco was "sneaking in". I thought he was just walking in, and getting right to why he was there, since he wasn't going to be there for long. I also got the impression when he and Chodorow were talking that in Rocco's eyes, the time that he's spending there is sufficient, and that when Chodorow was asking him if he was in or out, he was saying he was in, as if he didn't have to change a thing to be in. So, if he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong to never be there, why would he sneak in? I've said before, I think that in Rocco's eyes, when he's on various talk shows, book signings, etc, he's working for the restaurant by promoting it. I also think that theory would work if he was actually at the restaurant more often. But when he's selling the place on his face and personality, and then the customers never actually see his face and personlity, that appoach doesn't work, IMO.

I wasnt' that he's too good to wear any sort of head covering ... it's just that he finds it silly to do so for the three minutes he's in the kitchen ... and it'd give him hat head that woudlnt' look good for his TV interviews.

Or how about Chef Tony directing his staff: "Is the food hot? Stick your fingers in it! Is it hot?" Makes me cringe... I can't be completely happy about the WAY Rocco did it (I don't have the tape queued up here, but he took it off of a plated order, didn't he? And they certainly cut away too quick to tell if he washed his hands beforehand or afterwards), but tasting and touching food are all pretty constant and essential steps in preparation. Presumably though, they have clean hands beforehand, are wearing gloves, and/or wash their hands again after touching the food. Rocco's hands went from plate to mouth, back to plate, and back to mouth. If I remember correctly, it was one shot, so it wasn't just crafty editing. I could agree that the first taste wasn't that bad ... but a return trip?

I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk here about the double dipping on plated food that Rocco did last night.

In normal life, that's what you'd say. But when you're recording voiceovers for a show to help it make sense, you'd say what is scripted. You have to watch the way Burnett edits carefully ... 99% of the time if the mouth isn't shown moving, he's dubbing in a voiceover that was either recorded, or said at a different time.

Well if the ratings mean anything, Rocco may not have a Reality show job OR a cooking job at that restaurant when this is all over. 2nd place for the timeslot may not seem that bad... until you look at the difference in actual viewers--an estimated 21 million for "CSI: Miami" vs. an estimated 6.5 million for Rocky The Chef and his band of merry men (and women). Even looking at the ratings in those terms, however, doesn't really say much. Reality shows, for the most part, build an audience as they run. If the show were to maintain those viewing levels throughout the run, it probalby woudln't be back. But it built an audience last time, and based on the track record for the genre, likely will again. Heck, even The Apprentice struggled to find an audience it's first couple of weeks out.

You forgot about the part where he got out of serving all his jail time by claiming his son had Tourettes and needed him at home.

There are conspiracy theories popping up on other discussion boards that The Restaurant is not actually a reality show, but is scripted, and based on a restaurant that was in NYC, Cafe Alyss. Since this is where the foodies come to discuss this show, I thought I'd ask if any of you have heard this or see any similarities?

Did anybody else notice that when Rocco and Chodorow went up to "mama's" apartment for the big off camera meeting, that the inside looked like it just had a pile of boxes and a mattress on the floor? Exactly what kind of housing is Chodorow providing? And, Rocco didn't just hit the scene last week, so sureley this isn't his first paycheque. Why would he have his own mother beholden to his investor for shelter? From what I understand (and I could be wrong here) having the apartment was part of the deal in getting the space for the restaurant. Since they had no other use for it, it became "mama's apartment" ... simply so she could have an easy place to get away. She still has a house on Long Island. So her "apartment" serves as a place for her to rest, as well as additional office space for the restaurant.

I'd say they are both at fault, in addition to several others ... Rocco made the mistake of thinking that his name was big enough that as long as it was on the product, people would buy it and nothing else mattered. Chodorow made the mistake of investing his dough in a guy who had a reputation for having little regard for cost in making decisions. Both of them believed that they could defy the odds and open a place on a timeline that wouldn't be attempted by anyone. Both of them also believed they could pretty much ignore things, and everyone else would carry the flack. And those who were entrusted to get things done (management at the restaurant, etc) just kept on going along for the ride, never asking who was really in charge, and when things would get fixed. Making a deal with the devil is never a good thing. Being the devil, and making a deal with the devil is bound to be a disaster.

Call me crazy ... I've never worked in the restaurant business. But it seems to me that the biggest mistake being made by BOTH Rocco and Chodorow is that each of them is trying to win this battle by winning the hearts of the employees and public, rather than by working to come up with the best solution to make the place profitable. "If they like ME better, we'll make money" ????? Yeah, that's a business plan to go to the bank with.

This just in ... I heard this morning that Rocco has signed with a syndicator to do a 5 day-a-week cooking/talk show. It's said to be picking up where Martha Stewart is leaving off.

If you are the producer who is responsible for "Survivor" which is essentially a success because it's about bitching, moaning and backstabbing, then naturally you assume that this is what "people" want to see in any reality show. The odd thing is, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" has been a monster hit since the first version of the "The Restaurant", and features none of this activity. You'd think it might teach network execs that there are ways to build a reality show with mass audience appeal which doesn't rely on the wacky antics and misbehavior of a bunch of folks who even Andy Warhol wouldn't have granted "15 minutes of fame" to. I don't think you can really put Queer Eye into the reality category though ... any more than Trading Spaces, Room by Room, or This Old House falls in the reality category. Yes, they are taping real people and not fictional characters, but I think that Queer Eye is more of a "how to" show than a reality show. I can't really think of any true reality shows that do not entail all sorts of whining and bitching.

Is this confirmed? The linked article upthread suggests otherwise. =R= Mark Burnett has to say that. He doesn't want Rocco to have him by the balls and demand more money than he wants to pay. So he's got to keep on saying that he can go with another chef if he chooses. I'd guess that's probably the same reason that Rocco went from saying he wants to do it again to not saying much of anything.

where did they say that? hmm. The original press about Burnett's idea for the show talked about how it'd be the first show where a person could watch one week, and be on the next. They were just going to have cameras in a restaurant to show the things that happened naturally with both the staff and the patrons. The idea was that there's a lot of drama there, just show it. As the idea got bigger and bigger, they threw in the whole "open a restaurant in six weeks" mess.

No... now we talk about how bad the show was instead of how bad it is. Also: - how The Restaurant 2 could be better... or worse. - how the cast members are trying to extend their "fifteen minutes" - Rocco sightings - how this has affected The Rock's show biz career... er... I mean his credibility as a Chef - how funny it is that the "Queer Eye" guys were invited to the VMAs and Rocco seemingly wasn't The Restaurant 2 could be better if they do the show as they originally said they would, and film people coming to a restaurant, and show what they do. They screwed it up, IMO, by trying to manipulate it too much. Oh, it'd also be better by having a production company pay for it rather than advertisers. Rocco was invited to the VMAs. He was the "green room caterer". MTV's site has pictures from it ... one referring to his girlfriend as "Yet another of Rocco DiSpirito's women". Most of the rest of the pictures are the empty room. Guess that word has even gotten out to the music world that the food is cold.

Stupid question girl here ... had Rocco actually "been there, done that" before? I have always been of the impression that at UP he was executive chef, and then was an "owner" in title only. What he seemed to suck at on this show was the HR responsibilites of a GM. From what current employees say, all of that is back in Laurent's hands now. So did he suck at it because he just sucks at it, or because he'd never done it before, doesn't do it well, and had producers saying "Don't let that person quit, we need her".

I've admitted here before that I am far from anyone who knows much of anything about the food world. I like to eat, and that's about it. But is it possible that we're somewhat missing the point regarding how this entire show progressed? Is it possible that Rocco looked like an idiot because the time frame for opening was so much shorter than normal, and because at his other restaurants, he's not been the general manager dealing with employee concerns, but for the show, he had to be? I mean, all you have to do is look at some of the TV based sites about the show to know that there is a brand new audience of people who are mesmerized by the guy who would have never heard of him before this. Can we really determine that he's lost his ability to figure out what to do with a scallop because he hits on too many women and gives away scooters that aren't his to give? Just a thought. I'll shut up now.

I disagree with the pre-editing starting out the same as reality. Editing in reality TV is done to achieve a desired outcome too. In an unscripted drama, the producers will manipulate things as they are going on. For example, they see Joe Millionaire going after one girl who they don't think viewers would like very much, so they throw in a twist that wasn't planned originally in order to get the participants to react the way they desire. The challenge of reality TV is editing what really happened to get it the way you want. That challenge doesn't exsist in an unscripted drama -- they manipulate the situation to get it they way they want and make the editing easier. Another dead giveaway often times is that the time that expires between taping and a show airing is usually shorter in an unscripted drama as opposed to reality TV, because the editing process is easier when you already have people adhering to the storylines you are after.

I wonder what the actual differences are among "documentary," "reality show" and "unscripted drama." I had a nice discussion with Tad Carducci and at one point I said 'But hey isn't this (The Restaurant) a reality show?' And he said, 'No it's an unscripted drama, something completely different.' Can anyone 'splain....? Here are the definitions as I (a TVaholic) see them. Documentary: An event or way of life is filmed by a crew, and a show or movie is put together reporting what the crew saw. It is simply observation and reporting of that observation. And, the event or way of life would have happened/does happen whether the documentary crew is there or not. Reality TV: People are put in a scenario that would not happen without the show, taped to see how they respond to the scenario, and then those events are edited to tell a story and make a TV show. The Real World, in its first few seasons, would be an example of this. Unscripted Drama: (what most shows known as reality shows are now, IMO) People are put in a scenario that would not have happened without the show, and rather than just observing what happens and making a story out of it, producers do things to manipulate the situation and get a result they are looking/hoping for. On The Restaurant, this manipulation happened in things like encouraging patrons to drink as much as they wanted, a staff retreat to the Hamptons, and keeping the restaurant management from firing some people they would have, or scheduling some they would have, in order to fit the storylines the producers were after.

I read the "behind the scenes" article about The Restaurant in Gourmet magazine tonight. There seemed to be a theme of "the producers didn't stick to the deal they made" from a lot of the Rocco's employees quoted in the article. It just left me wondering why on earth, if that is in fact true, they'd be willing to do it all over again since the producers would be the same.

Just basing this (admitted assumption) on the fact that people/tourists, even while on vacation in a great city like NYC, will go to TGIFridays and Bennigan's. Also, there are reports that Rocco's is still full on a constant basis. Just thinking too about the tv medium in general, and how many look at the very appearance or mention of a place on tv as an 'endorsement'. Of course, many are more discerning but IMO there are enough folks out there who are not, to keep the place full in perpetuity. I really hope that I'm wrong about this. =R= I've never lived in New York City. I've been a few times -- I guess you could consider me one of those annoying mid-west tourists. I can assure you that when I've eaten at a place like Bennigan's there, I'm not thinking I'm having a real New York experience. I'm thinking I'm starving to death, they've got tables available, and I need food while I continue doing the things I want to do. There are things, like going to FAO Schwartz, that I've done in NYC knowing full well they were the tourist things to do. There have also been things I've done in NYC, like going to places highly reccomended restaurants by lifelong New Yorkers as the non-touristy places that I've loved, and felt like I was having a New York experience. But I have to ask -- to some degree, don't you guys prefer it that way? I have family that live in a high-tourist area in Florida, and I know they have a few places they go where they love the fact that tourists don't know to go there. As soon as they see too many out of state license plates in the parking lot, they get a little dissapointed, knowing their anti-tourist sanctuary is going down hill. Do you really want all the tourists to have a REAL NYC experience?