Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Top Chef: Masters


Chris Hennes

Recommended Posts

My son and I were watching this episode.  When the camera focused in on the "GE Monogram" logo just before John put his eggs in, we turned to each other and said "Uh oh, Besh is in trouble"...

That was my favorite bit of product placement in all of top chef. completely botched and completely honest.

Notes from the underbelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woody Allen once said that 80 percent of success is just showing up. Rick Moonen ought to have remembered that. He lost last night by a mere 2½ stars, but that included a zero on the quickfire. Had he managed to serve just about anything in the quickfire, he likely would have received the 3 stars he needed to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was the most entertaining episode so far, mostly because of the variety of dishes they cooked and lack of constraints. I think Moonen would have won even if he sent out an underdone QF dish.

Edited by rickster (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We watched two in a row, because we missed last week. In the first show, we were rooting for Besh. Always loved him and admired his cooking, attitude and his work in NOLA after Katrina. Plus he's a MARINE (daughter and I love uniforms)!! He screwed up the eggs, but I don't honestly think he'd have won even if they had worked - Lo's eggs were just MUCH more interesting.

I'm glad that Michael Chiarello won last night, but I just loved Moonen! His food looked fantastic and his spirit was wonderful. I agree that if he'd just thrown those delicious sounding shrimp corndogs on some plates (they looked done in the fry basket), he would have won. Jeez, folks, GET IT ON THE PLATE! Let the judges bitch and moan all they want about missing sides, messy edges, but let them taste your food. I have to admit that I always found Chiarello a little smarmy on his FoodTV show, but last night I thought he was genuine and charming.

I am still loving the camaraderie of this show as compared to Top Chef. Just so much more professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We watched two in a row, because we missed last week.  In the first show, we were rooting for Besh.  Always loved him and admired his cooking, attitude and his work in NOLA after Katrina.  Plus he's a MARINE (daughter and I love uniforms)!!  He screwed up the eggs, but I don't honestly think he'd have won even if they had worked - Lo's eggs were just MUCH more interesting.

I'm glad that Michael Chiarello won last night, but I just loved Moonen!  His food looked fantastic and his spirit was wonderful.  I agree that if he'd just thrown those delicious sounding shrimp corndogs on some plates (they looked done in the fry basket), he would have won.  Jeez, folks, GET IT ON THE PLATE!  Let the judges bitch and moan all they want about missing sides, messy edges, but let them taste your food.  I have to admit that I always found Chiarello a little smarmy on his FoodTV show, but last night I thought he was genuine and charming. 

I am still loving the camaraderie of this show as compared to Top Chef.  Just so much more professional.

I am really glad Michael won. He is the only one so far that is hungry for it, feeling he needs to prove himself since he's was away from the restaurant for a while. Rick's food looked good, and maybe he would have won, but he didn't get it on the plate - Michael did. I really like him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woody Allen once said that 80 percent of success is just showing up. Rick Moonen ought to have remembered that. He lost last night by a mere 2½ stars, but that included a zero on the quickfire. Had he managed to serve just about anything in the quickfire, he likely would have received the 3 stars he needed to win.

Yep... and that slip cost me yet another week 'cause he was my pick. I'm not doing well at all, I have a bad feeling I'm going to be buying dinner for 6. Maybe I can talk them into letting me cook dinner for 6 instead.

It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now that we're waxing on the finale, who's your pick to win this gig?

Theresa :biggrin:

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

- Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure of the layout for this series. Do they get the last preliminary out of the way next week then do a final episode with all 6 or will there be more narrowing of the field first? Seems like there should be at least one or two more elimination rounds before the end.

We're doing our little competition on a points system. You pick one person each week. If that person finishes first, you get 4 pts. Second, 3 pts. Third, 2 pts. Fourth, 1 pt.

It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure of the layout for this series. Do they get the last preliminary out of the way next week then do a final episode with all 6 or will there be more narrowing of the field first? Seems like there should be at least one or two more elimination rounds before the end.

We're doing our little competition on a points system. You pick one person each week. If that person finishes first, you get 4 pts. Second, 3 pts. Third, 2 pts. Fourth, 1 pt.

Last round of four next week. Then in the following four weeks those six heat winners get winnowed down to three for the finale from which emerges the winner.

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read all of the entries on this topic, so perhaps this has been touched upon already. I do not think that chefs should be penalized when the equipment that they are using is not "up to snuff". Especially when some of the appliances are made by the companies sponsering the show. If this was a reality situation, where we are watching a chef who has to prepare a meal and make due with what he or she is thrown, it would be one thing. Actually, that could be really interestiing. Here however, there should be a common playing field. If you know that you have certain appliances at your disposal, and create a meal accordingly, one person should not be penalized because what he or she needs to use doesn't work.

"My only regret in life is that I did not drink more Champagne."

John Maynard Keynes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the last show bordering on a "charm" situation?

Admittedly I was rooting for Moonen, he's a great chef ( not that the other's weren't) and I feel too if he just had put something up in the first comp., he would have won last week.

The whole thing started to get a bit "hey lady's" and honestly, Oseland and Greene started giving me the creeps.

Is there anyone else who feels that the TV factor in Bayless and Chiarello's case is a bit conflicted?

The first two episodes winners felt very satisfying to me, I felt a bit ashamed that I hadn't really heard of Suzanne Tracht, she just put it away so easily ( I was rooting for GEB)

Keller was great and Lo also.

Just a thought...

2317/5000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. Charm may have helped with the diner score but it wouldn't have helped in the quickfire and I very seriously doubt it would have helped with the judges if the food didn't back it up. There wasn't enough spread in the diner points to have made a difference in the outcome so I don't think it was a major factor.

It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. Charm may have helped with the diner score but it wouldn't have helped in the quickfire and I very seriously doubt it would have helped with the judges if the food didn't back it up. There wasn't enough spread in the diner points to have made a difference in the outcome so I don't think it was a major factor.

Maybe it was the edit?

2317/5000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Is there anyone else who feels  that the TV factor in Bayless and Chiarello's case is a bit conflicted?

Not to me. In fact I sort of see their wins as vindication for their being selected originally as chefs for other TV shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that if the appliances on the show don't work it's not fair that the chefs are penalized.

I love that Micheal won, I liked his show when it was on. I am at a loss as to who will win in the end, though. Judging how all the winners have done so far it is going to be close.

"I eat fat back, because bacon is too lean"

-overheard from a 105 year old man

"The only time to eat diet food is while waiting for the steak to cook" - Julia Child

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Michael won, too - just because he hasn't been cooking on a line in a while doesn't mean he can't cook, and cook to deadline, despite what some of his fellow competitors were suggesting.

I'm placing an early bet on Keller to win, but if Lo did, too, I'd be equally pleased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because he hasn't been cooking on a line in a while doesn't mean he can't cook,

Michael spent the first 4 months after opening Bottega in December cooking on the line every night! I was there and saw him several evenings thru March.

"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

- Dr. Hannibal Lecter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say he hadn't been cooking on a line for a while - I said HIS COMPETITORS were analyzing his chances (against them), and saying, "Well, Michael hasn't cooked on a line in a while . . ." They were obviously wrong on two levels about their challenge-winning handicapping. Michael HAS been cooking on a line in recent times, and even if he hadn't, that in no way was a disadvantage, since he quite obviously trounced the other three guys in both challenges. Way to go, Michael!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say he hadn't been cooking on a line for a while - I said HIS COMPETITORS were analyzing his chances (against them), and saying, "Well, Michael hasn't cooked on a line in a while . . ."  They were obviously wrong on two levels about their challenge-winning handicapping.  Michael HAS been cooking on a line in recent times, and even if he hadn't, that in no way was a disadvantage, since he quite obviously trounced the other three guys in both challenges.  Way to go, Michael!

He actually didn't trounce Moonen in anything but the first challenge, in which Moonen failed to plate a dish and scored no stars. But for that, Moonen would have been the victor.

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...