MasterChef: The Professionals

[ben mcmayon]

well i dont know why they chose 2 get rid of the chef in a pro tv program nothing again mr veg man!!!!

Edited January 14, 2008 by ben mcmayon (log)

[martinwa]

well i feel that torode even though i despise him is more suited as he knows more and has more experience with half decent food and knows cooking preperations making him more suited 2 a pro materchef program.

i think its only for the pro version

←

Ben mate, you can only hope he isn't there and hasn't read this thread. You won't last very long.

[ben mcmayon]

he wont be there def aint in the pro serie!!!

prob wont matter as they are dtill auditioning and wont know 4 a few weeks!!!!

[beepop]

greg: 'sweet peach acidity'

what the fuck!

[RedRum]

there is a show in the states called Top Chef in that format. Quite good viewing, I think it was on Bravo during winter. Pro masterchef sounds fun though. If only the bald veg guy stops making funny noises with his lips while he eats...

[tino27]

there is a show in the states called Top Chef in that format. Quite good viewing, I think it was on Bravo during winter.

←

Actually, season four of Top Chef just ended maybe about a month ago.

Here is a link if you want more info.

[PhilD]

By chance I caught the first episode in this new series. Gregg Wallace is joined by Michel Roux Jr as a judge.

First episode looks promising. One to watch?

[SaladFingers]

I inevitably end up watching these. I may have missed it, but did it mention the places where the contestants work at the moment? It would have been interesting to know what level they're at professionally already, because in general they didn't seem that good!

[trimble]

I inevitably end up watching these. I may have missed it, but did it mention the places where the contestants work at the moment? It would have been interesting to know what level they're at professionally already, because in general they didn't seem that good!

←

When is it on?

[CalumC]

Just caught it on iplayer, i really liked it actually. Would rather they kept Torrode than veg man, but nice to see Roux, i.e. someone who knows what theyre talking about, on there instead.

That mousse with the orange looked immense. Got to give that a go.

Edited August 25, 2008 by CalumC (log)

[Gary Marshall]

not seen this but it must be better than the hairy 'insert cunning pun' fools on motorbikes which really is the most infantile cookery programme i've ever had the misfortune to spend half and hour of my life on, which i'll never get back.

[Jon Tseng]

I thought the first eps was quite good. Its basically your common garden professional culinary competition, just filmed.

I haven't seen Michel Roux on telly before. He's quite good (weird mid-channel accent though) - very perceptive comments, clearly garners respect from his victims.

He also painfully exposes greg wallaces limitations when you put them side by side ("well conceived dish, marginally undercooked potato, slight too sweet sauce means the final dish is not balanced" vs. "CHOMP. Mmm. Good mousse. I LIKE IT.").

I still think the editor of the series should be shot. The whole things put together in a clod-handed lets-create-some-fake-dramatic-tension-with-some-pre-scripted-asides manner. It's like they've just got out of documentary school and been given their first camera. If Karen Ross is reading PLEASE sort this out - it's embarassing and makes Shine look like a bunch of pillocks.

J

[Gareth]

I enjoyed it too. Good early evening “popcorn” telly.

But I was disappointed to see that when it came to commenting on the dishes Michel Roux went first every time. Like what’s Veg Guy going to do after that, disagree with him ? “So, two Michelin star holding chef at Le Gavroche Michel reckons that dish is a bit of a dud; what do you think Greg…?”

Much more fun would be to let Greg go first and then have Michel comment. A chance to judge both wanna-be chefs and wanna-be critics !

G.

[RDB]

I enjoyed it too. Good early evening “popcorn” telly.

But I was disappointed to see that when it came to commenting on the dishes Michel Roux went first every time. Like what’s Veg Guy going to do after that, disagree with him ? “So, two Michelin star holding chef at Le Gavroche Michel reckons that dish is a bit of a dud; what do you think Greg…?”

Much more fun would be to let Greg go first and then have Michel comment. A chance to judge both wanna-be chefs and wanna-be critics !

G.

←

What do you mean 'wanna-be-critic', I hope you are not talking about Greg. He is a well respected critic in the food industry, infact he is known as a 'pro' in Olive magazine. If it wasn't for his superhuman knowledge on all things food related ( with extra special knowledge on veg and puds) we would not have Thomasina, and erm, the rest.

Greg has a far superior knowledege on food than that Roux fellow, anyone can tell that,. by the difference in their physique.

[fisherman]

As far as Mockney market traders go, Greg has to be right up there in the top 50. Roux makes the show more watchable than it has ever been, and it is amusing (as someone else alluded) to watch him sum up a dish and then listen to Greg verbally stumble around like a mechanical rodeo bull.

As far as the Hairy Bakers (or Bikers) go, infantile isn't the first word that springs to mind when I watch them, now I've got over the fact that only one of them can cook, while the other hangs on his mates (boyfriends?) coat tails, they're both able presenters who whilst, admittedly commiting the ultimate crime of actually appearing to enjoy being on television, cook food which people at home who don't even know egullet exists will happily try to recreate. I like the show and enjoy watching it far more than most other 'personality chef' led shows.

Edited August 26, 2008 by fisherman (log)

[Roger le goéland]

I thought it was great. No messing around - just do the same (classical French, technical) thing, see who does it best, gets judged quickly and efficiently by the judge and his assistant (as mentioned above)...

It does feel as if Michel Roux is only on TV to show the country how cooking should be done. His "duty". Unlike the chef he regularly beats at the London Marathon...

[Mrs Foodie]

Michel Roux junior looks pretty scary when he wanders round - I'd be terrified if I was cooking in front of him. The comment about him always giving his opinion first is very interesting - maybe Greg feels intimidated by him and he doesn't by John T?

From the two episodes we've had so far it has been pretty easily to determine who is going to win - hopefully that will change and add some excitement. I think Roux junior is good, he scoffs the food in a far more delicate way than Greg, who generally makes you feel quite ill with all his chop licking and lip smacking. I think the programme shows lots of potential and is far more classy than it was before - it is just a shame that they still use those dreadful cliches.

[Harters]

One to watch?

Only if being poked in the eye with a stick is your sort of fun, Phil.

Concept is fine. But, as others mention, the cliches just overwhelm it - the fake tension, the moody looks as the "judges" wander round the kitchen, blah, blah.

It'd have been more useful if the chefs' full names and restaurants had been mentioned but that might have compromised the Beeb's "no advertising" integrity. Yeah, right.

And, as for the Hairy Bakers - makes me ashamed to be northern!

[Gary Marshall]

As far as the Hairy Bakers (or Bikers) go, infantile isn't the first word that springs to mind when I watch them, now I've got over the fact that only one of them can cook, while the other hangs on his mates (boyfriends?) coat tails, they're both able presenters who whilst, admittedly commiting the ultimate crime of actually appearing to enjoy being on television, cook food which people at home who don't even know egullet exists will happily try to recreate. I like the show and enjoy watching it far more than most other 'personality chef' led shows.

←

don't get me wrong, i don't expect every cooking programme to be gagnaire in a cook off with roellinger and i'll generally watch any old sh*te if there's a modicum of foodie interest, but they really take the biscuit.

It's sub-standard daytime tv as far as i can see, never mind fairly peak time. Even mrs m who is no food snob wouldn't even let me watch 5 minutes of it this week just to see how bad it was !

[PhilD]

One to watch?

Only if being poked in the eye with a stick is your sort of fun, Phil.

←

Aye John, nowt much to do down here 'til whippett racing is back on't telly....

I wonder if not naming the chefs restaurants is more subtle than we give the programme credit for. After all these are all junior chefs who probably have little influence on what goes out of the kitchen. They may be very talented but if they work in a dodgy restaurant with a poor head chef their talent will be hidden.

Agree with the cliches and fake tension....but still the best of a bad lot.

[Mrs Foodie]

Forgive me, but I assumed that most of the competitors, while chefs, weren't necessarily cooking in restaurants. I thought that was the whole point of the programme? There are lots of other places which need to have catering but the guests/inmates/students/patients can vary, as does the quality of the food.

[Harters]

Mrs F

You're right - the programme doesnt indicate where the contestants are working only that they have a professional background. So, they may well be working in a variety of establishments.

John

[ravelda]

Why oh why can't we have something like Iron Chef or Top Chef in the UK, at least there is a modicum of telnt from the chefs and far less cliched!

[JeffR]

I can only echo the criticisms to the effect that it is a hackneyed, lazy piece of work. But I did have a beautiful schadenfreude moment with the naff macarons. Delightful.

[Jon Tseng]

OK having stewed over a few episodes I still think its a very good show.

I'm less down on the editing than I was at first. Its a bit heavy handed (erm, are they going to tell us EVERY DAY that michel roux has had two michelin stars since 1991??? Presumably they're not going to mention that was only because they knocked one off when Albert pere retired...) but not as disasterous as I've seen from Shine's previous efforts.

I'm even more down on Greg Wallace however. Having Michel Roux alongside just shows up how out of his depth the guy is. Its embarassing. Today there was some bizarre suggestion that a thinly sliced strip of courgette somehow contains a deluge of juice which rinses out the flavour of a dover sole. Embarassing, just embarassing.

What annoys me is that I need to be able to trust the judgement of the judges. Michel Roux is a case in point. The stuff he says is fascinating, precise and adds enormously to the show (love the boggle eyed look he uses to make a point too). Whenever Greg Wallace opens his mouth he is either a) stating the blindingly obvious (or repeating what Michel Roux has just pointed out) or b) saying something that's just wrong. What I want from an expert if for them to both inform (say something I didn't know) and provide insight (point out something I wouldn't have realised otherwised). Sure I've probably got higher expectatations than the target audience, but I simply make the observation that Roux provides both, Wallace provides neither.

Other than that I think the format is excellent. Simple no frills - and definitely a challenge. Two dishes in fifty minutes sounds a tough ask; I assume they get prep time before that. I like the classics dish too (good way to seperate men from the boys - one thing you notice is that a lot of the high profile competitions like Roux Scholar and Ramsay Scholar have a strong classical dish component. Gives the contestants nowhere to hide).

As to contestants it is a shame they don't say where they've cooked - I think there'll be a big variation. It looks like the net is spread fairly wide from central london commis to people from random provincial restaurants (not necessarily fine dining - think slightly above the level of restos which feature on Ramsays Kitchen Nightmares?). I suspect the level of competition once we get to the final will be similar to student chef of the year at the Cateys?

One misconception I have spotted is that most of the contestants seem to conflate getting a Michelin star with being a good chef. For most of them having a michelin star seems to be an end in itself (I suspect the editor is stressing this bit it their usual heavy-handed way to add to the macho "I want to be the best of the best" glamour). The aim should be to cook delicious food to the best of their ability. In theory the stars will follow. Every young chef should remember Pierre Koffmanns dictum "having three stars doesn't make me a three star chef. It simply gives me the right to be a three star chef" (or words to that effect).

I actually think there's a wealth of learning aspiring chefs could learn from the show. Follow it with a keen eye and you see a lot of basic mistakes (unbalanced proportions, not playing to the strengths of the ingredients, excessive garnishes, mixing and matching ingredients from different cuisines) which scream out at you from the sofa, but you probably miss in the heat of competition. Actually its similar to the faults which a lot of the victims on Kitchen Nightmares exhibit (I'm thinking especially of Loic Lefebre the gazillion thinks on a plate wannabe haute pourcel alumnus from a couple of series back). Just Michel Roux points out the faults with surgical precision and a damn sight less unecessary personal abuse.

Despite my misgivings a net positive though. Fascinating viewing. More please, especially from Mr Roux.

J

PS One other observation - its interesting the reverance the contestants have for Mr Roux who is obviously far far less well known outside the trade than Mr Ramsay. When Gordon Ramsay slams someone on Kitchen Nightmares the overall emotion you get from the victims is fear and anger (admittedly the format doesn't help). When Michel Roux puts his hatchet in the response of appreciation, respect and a willingness to learn. A chef's chef, non?

Edited August 27, 2008 by Jon Tseng (log)