Dignan

There was a little out take of a couple of them discussing where "Florentine" might be. I was really boggled that chefs, at least, wouldn't know the names of basic Italian regions. Ok, so it's not Tuscany, but jeez louis! actually, it IS tuscany. (i agree about the geez louis(e)!) Awesome!

I guess what's coalescing in the foggy recesses of my brain (which actually includes most of the acreage available) is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of limitation on the ingrediants the have to use in a quickfire. Maybe to the point that it's the same range they would have for an elimation challenge? The theme, plus the prep time seems to be the limitation in both instances. But Jen in the potato quickfire cooked mussels or clams or some kind of shellfish if I recall, and garnished it with a potato broth? The edit is a mad scramble to cook, but it seems like maybe they they got more time to get their scheiss together than it might seem.

In Jamie Whatshername From Last Season's blog she says that Whole Foods always had good scallops and not a lot of other choices, therefore a lot of scallops got cooked. Which makes me curious about the behind the scenes in a quickfire. She wasn't talking specifically about quickfires, but it made me wonder about where the stuff comes from for that part. I wonder how much shopping they do for it. There does seem to be an abundance. Anyway, it also occured to me that it might seem like a good choice of protein in a "quickfire" where you don't have a lot of time to cook. A quick sear and you're good to go. Of course, as many times as we have see them done well we have see them done poorly.

Aren't they all a drama edit?

Robin called a rattlesnake skin a "pelt", and the snake rattle the "rattler." She said she was from Idaho, didn't she? I think Ron knows what paella is. At one point he mentioned his "saffron broth," and saffron is an element you'd likely miss if you just thought it was fish and rice. He clearly didn't understand "deconstruct." I was imagining the others trying to explain it to him, with him only understanding that he had to take it apart somehow. Pure speculation on my part based on watching him cook his rice, but I think he just thought it meant he had to cook the elements separately them pile them back together in paella form. In other words, the cooking process was deconstructed, not the dish. No matter, it was past time for him to go, though his paella was more paella than Ash's shepherds pie was shepherds pie, that's for frickin' sure. Ash is on his last legs, too. Two botched quickfire dishes, and I don't remember him ever being on top. Toby was brought on to out-Bourdain Bourdain and over did it. He seems more reserved now, but he's still a tool and I miss Gail for her insightful commentary. I think maybe Bravo and Bourdain split up over that Michelob thing anyway.

Aw geez.

As always with the show, there's lots we don't know cause we aren't shown, but Tom's blog seems to me to have a tone which indicates that he felt not worrying about how things would keep was a plain blunder, that they should have known better than risk some of the items. There are no details, but at least on that basis, if I'm not reading to much into it, it's possible they were better informed than it appears. I think the producers, let alone Tom and crew, know enough that they would not tolerate unsafe conditions and put the chefs in untenable positions, but would put the chefs in a situation that would require considerable judgement and vigilance to succeed. That having been said, Mattin did make something that made Tim Love's tummy hurt.

In the Bravo blogs, Gail says "Above all else, the fact that they had no access to ice, let alone proper refrigeration, became a serious problem." And Tom says that he saw the chefs worrying about cooking conditions, when they should have been worried about refrigeration. I suspect the food stuffs that needed it were refrigerated overnight, but brought out early in the day for prep. There was no further access to coolant, and the several hours in the 110 degree heat until service took its toll on some of the items.

Maybe once they are over the bus, they will land at the curb.

And I'm not sure that it meets the criteria for throwing someone under the bus anyway. Now, Ashley could have thrown Mattin under the bus by accurately relating the circumstances of the asparagus-less veloute when Tom suggested it, as it was Mattin who promptly axed the idea when she raised it and therefore brought about the outcome. But she didn't throw him under the bus, as Tom indeed sensed she could have. What Mattin did was take evasive measures when he saw the potential throwing under the bus he was getting lined up for. But trying to escape being thrown under the bus shouldn't be the equivalent of throwing somebody under the bus. Now, if he had tried to blame the failure of the sauce on Ashley in some way, that would have been throwing her under the bus. But it is time to move on. Perhaps to throwing people over the bus, like Joey suggested in the Miami season.

I don't think the cheftestant in question actually bled into the food. Things like this happen, she/he (Can't remember at the moment) took care of it and moved on. Just like you would if you were on the line (it's happened to me). Hell I did it with people watching (we have/had a 16 place table in the kitchen) me. I felt it as soon as I did it, removed myself from the line - bandaged it up, put a glove on and returned to what I was doing. And didn't so much as have a drop of blood anywhere on the line or in food for that matter. ← Great that you could work through the pain and adjust so quickly. However, in this case, I didn't see the cheftestant in question stop for a moment to do any bandaging, and I did see dripping blood. Rhonda ← As she continued to work, you can see that she's wearing a glove over it, so at some point they did stop and bandage it. I saw another glove on someone at some point, but I don't remeber whether it was the same segment.

I see the point, if this is what she's trying to say: why encourage people to plant gardens and obtain fine locally sourced products if they don't know how or won't take the time to prepare them? In that sense, it's a sort of "fly into flying" issue, if it's focus is Algebra II and it's aimed at a lot of people who don't have basic Math.

Eh...? Not sure if this applies to Waters so much. I mean, if she didn't want herself listed on the CP web site as "Executive Chef" then I think she has the ability to get that taken down. ← Agreed. I was focusing on her statements that were included where she denied the title, but you're right, the other hand takes it back up.

Sounds to me as if, out of all those people, you were the only person who has a problem with the word "chef." Yet you couldn't resist pointing out where everyone else was wrong, while you were right. In our society, the term chef can be applied in a decidedly colloquial fashion to mean anyone "who manages a kitchen." As far as I'm concerned, if the guy who runs the kitchen at Denny's wants to call himself a chef, what do I care? Do I get some benefit at of belittling the guy? Does it even make me right? The term’s usage is vague enough to include even him. Your argument makes me think of Bug Bunny. When he say’s “Whats up doc?” and the ludicrousy of Elmer Fudd correcting the rabbit with a terse “I’m not a doctor.” ← I kinda think the problem is that people who have a deep respect for food and the craft of the chef, including Steven and Alice, feel some compunction when being addressed with a title that they don't feel they deserve. In fact, they take pains to correct the error.

I guess I'm just not getting how the a scold who says, "You can choose to have your expensive shoes, your nightly DVD rental, your [insert other not-thought-through income-/environment-wasting expenses] and -- since corners must be cut in your home budget -- sacrifice food for that, or you can redirect some of that limited income to better sustenance," has an objectionable message.I think it's wonderful that someone's gone on record as calling out those non-judgmental types who speak no ill of others at whatever cost. ← This is a good example of the problem. "As my intention is virtuous in my opinion, how could you possibly disagree with it." It permeates current events. Or maybe not. I don't understand your last sentiment.

Sure they do "something," but seems like there's no way to gaurantee that in a roomfull of culinary students, like in the football challenge, an anonymous internet post about what happened won't occur. They ain't. You could have them all sign an encyclopedia's worth of papers. How would you determine which person in that roomfull, who otherwise have no stake in the show or competition, posted about it? Or in the restaurant challenge. Or at Blue Hill Farms. Or at Natasha Richard's shindig. The only way to ensure what you say they are trying to ensure is to have no outsiders at all. Of course, unless you meant a double secret stern lecture. ← I was sort of joking about the stern lecture. I really don't know what they do, but whatever it is, it works. There is obviously an element of risk, but they seem to control it by limiting the situations in which the cheftestants are seen in public during the season. The event at Blue Hill seems to have been witnessed only by staffers who work at the restaurant or on the farm, and there really weren't all that many culinary students present for the Super Bowl show. As I said, it's not as if they do something out on the city streets, where just anyone can walk by, hold up their cell phone and snap a photo. ← I understand what you are suggesting. But there were a crap load of people at the Blue hills thing, the natasha thing, and even the finale party. What about last year's (2 years ago ?) football party? There is no informational security in those events. None. And the attendees have all the info. The random street guy you're talking about would not know who any of the people were, would not know what the challenge was, and would have no idea who made what. He's the least of your worries in that regard. His info would be "Top Chef filming in Central Park. No faux hawks this year!" Obviously I grant they want to keep as tight a lid on things as possible, but I think a hugest factor in deciding where to stage events is about logistics and crowd control (and by that I mean control of selection and behaviour -- avoiding the buffoons you see at every live broadcast mugging in front of the camera).

People on the show have confirmed this: they are pretty much compelled to keep everything indoors or in obscure places, because otherwise it would be pretty clear who was eliminated. ← In nearly every judges table challenge, there are members of the public involved in the events they stage. I would think there would be more danger of leaks when the people involved know exactly what's going on, as opposed to random proles on NYC sidewalks who stop and take a gander. ← You will note that those challenges are always under "controlled conditions." I am sure that those who participate are asked to sign confidentiality agreements, or at the very least, are lectured sternly about the importance of preserving the show's element of surprise. I am not sure what they do, but I guarantee it's something, and it seems to work.Now contrast this with, say, holding an event in the middle of Central Park, where any random person can just walk by, snap a cell phone photo, tap something into twitter, and so forth. Under those conditions, it really would be impossible to prevent spoilers from being pretty widely disseminated. ← Sure they do "something," but seems like there's no way to gaurantee that in a roomfull of culinary students, like in the football challenge, an anonymous internet post about what happened won't occur. They ain't. You could have them all sign an encyclopedia's worth of papers. How would you determine which person in that roomfull, who otherwise have no stake in the show or competition, posted about it? Or in the restaurant challenge. Or at Blue Hill Farms. Or at Natasha Richard's shindig. The only way to ensure what you say they are trying to ensure is to have no outsiders at all. Of course, unless you meant a double secret stern lecture.

People on the show have confirmed this: they are pretty much compelled to keep everything indoors or in obscure places, because otherwise it would be pretty clear who was eliminated. ← In nearly every judges table challenge, there are members of the public involved in the events they stage. I would think there would be more danger of leaks when the people involved know exactly what's going on, as opposed to random proles on NYC sidewalks who stop and take a gander.

I wonder whether having it in a dense city like New York made it logistically difficult to "showcase" the city itself. I mean, they did get out, but the outside stuff was out of the City (except for Ep 1), and otherwise they just moved from one inside to another. And they were certainly not sheltered from members of the internet using public. What did people have in mind? A BBQ in Central Park? Quick eats at Grand Central Station? If the idea has any merit, at least Vegas is a lot more spread out, and it's a city created for entertainment, so maybe there will be more splashy site challenges.

Waters is a strident advocate of her philosophy. It's certainly not Stahl's responsibility to advance these causes by intercepting it, moderating it and creating a compromise position that's more acceptable to those folks not in a position to follow it the way Waters does.

Yeah, you're right, sorry. Stephan is my neighbor's dog. I mix them up.

You need to go back and read the piece. He is not advocating for that, but rather, explaining why that would not work. ← But is he not also arguing that he should have been able to take Stephan's past performance into account in the Finale judging? I'm saying that is path fraught with peril under the current system. edited to add: Sorry, I've read his Bravo blog where was making that point, but not yet his personal blog.

There are others you can use, like Toby's analogy, the motor racing season. I think his valid point was simply that if cumulative scoring were used, you could have a situation where the finale was either irrelevant or completely drained of suspense. Obviously Bravo doesn't make money (and hence, doesn't produce the show) unless it can attract viewers, which in turn requires an episode every week where the outcome is in doubt. ← But there's no scoring system to begin with. He's arguing that the subjective "score" he's assigned to Stephan's season performance should trump at the end. He wasn't even a judge the entire season. Stephan was the strongest performer overall this season, I agree. But people can have different opinions, and that's all it is at the moment. So under the current judging system in place for the entire season, you're back to sitting there the day of the Finale, comparing a cheftestants bad meal from episode two to another's bad meal from episode six where a whole different set of judges were involved and where reasonable persons opinions could vary, and we aren't left with any better a situation as far as I'm concerned. In fact it seems like a worse situation that would inject more uncertainty if the season's performances were close. Now if he wants to come up with a points based scoring system, and have them rank the entire field each episode and accumulate scoring like the actually do in some racing series, then I say more power. But he just wants to impose that element in what would be a subjective manner on the day of the Finale and that doesn't help. Or so I think.

I'm not disagreeing with the Top Chef format, but in baseball, they don't play the bottom of the ninth if the home team is even a single run ahead. ← Also, seems to me that the Finale episode would have to be compared to the entire 9th inning if we're going to make analogies to baseball games. So, Stephan would be the home team, and you'd have two visiting teams who would still get their at-bats to try to score more runs than he has going into it the episode. So you'd still have a final episode, it would just be harder if the 'Stephan' team had 38 runs and the other two had no pitching. You wouldn't cancel it, you'd just be presented with a couple of long shots. I don't like the baseball analogy.

I suspect you are right, though I think Fabio might give her a run.