Top Chef - Interest in judges discussion?

[CtznCane]

Here is the question I propose and would/will suggest to Bravo to read this thread if it materializes.

Here is the question. Gail Simmons in her blog says that typically the judges table goes on for up to 6 hours. How many of you would be willing to buy a lightly edited dvd of the judges table? If we could get Bravo to put out a set of DVd's of the judges table for say the last 4 episodes of each season who would be willing to purchase it? I know I for one would love to hear that true hard core discussion of the dishes and would gladly buy a set.

so mark me down for 1 would buy

[gfweb]

Oh that's just sick.

I'd buy it.

[TimmDavis]

Here is the question I propose and would/will suggest to Bravo to read this thread if it materializes.

Here is the question. Gail Simmons in her blog says that typically the judges table goes on for up to 6 hours. How many of you would be willing to buy a lightly edited dvd of the judges table? If we could get Bravo to put out a set of DVd's of the judges table for say the last 4 episodes of each season who would be willing to purchase it? I know I for one would love to hear that true hard core discussion of the dishes and would gladly buy a set.

so mark me down for 1 would buy

I personally would love it, and spend the money on it.

[Bricktop]

Absolutely.

[Tri2Cook]

No thanks. There is no way I could sit through 5 or 6 hours per episode of listening to them argue over the dishes. Despite what Gail claims, I'd be very surprised if they actually sit there and debate it for that long anyway. Although the quote was "up to 6 hours" so, if it happened to go that long once, it's an accurate statement. But my money would be on it not being anywhere close to that long most of the time. I think Colicchio would already have chopped one or two of them into little pieces if he had to sit there and listen to it for that long. If anything, cut back on the fluff and just include more of the food and judging in the hour we already see.

[GwennP]

Yes, I would absolutely love it

[Dignan]

I'd like to see a special production that takes us on a longer journey through a single episode. A single episode is an hour long, but generally takes two days to actually complete all the activity that goes into getting one hour of video. There would be "making off" elements, and the quickfire challenge wouldn't be over in 10 minutes, and we could actually see the reactions and facial expressions of the cheftestants that actually match up with what is actually happening, instead of edited in reaction shots. We'd get a lot more of the preparation and cooking for the emlination challenge, a lot more of the interrogation at judges table, and a lot more of the discussion at judges table.

How many hours would that be? A lot. We might need to raise Warhol.

[oakapple]

No thanks. There is no way I could sit through 5 or 6 hours per episode of listening to them argue over the dishes. Despite what Gail claims, I'd be very surprised if they actually sit there and debate it for that long anyway.

It isn't just Gail. Everyone who has ever spoken or written about it says that the judging sometimes goes on for hours. If they issued an extended version, it would only make sense for the latter part of the season. And no, I wouldn't sign up for 6 hours of it, but maybe for a well-edited 30 to 60 minutes. Combine that with other stuff that we don't normally see, and you've got a DVD-length show.

If anything, cut back on the fluff and just include more of the food and judging in the hour we already see.

What you call fluff is appealing to many viewers. The producers spend a lot of time with focus groups, and the like, figuring out what makes people watch. You'd expect that, given the expense of putting on a show like this.

Mind you, I am not disagreeing that there is plenty of fluff, by my standards. I just realize that my standards aren't the only ones they have to appeal to.

Edited December 4, 2009 by oakapple (log)

[Tri2Cook]

It isn't just Gail. Everyone who has ever spoken or written about it says that the judging sometimes goes on for hours.

I don't doubt that it's happened. The word I'm focusing on is "sometimes". I'm betting it's the exception, not the rule. I may be entirely incorrect and I'm ok with that. I'm also not opposed to them making the DVD's but, in answer to the original question, I would not buy them or even watch them if they were free. I just don't have the need to know every little detail of the decision making process. I have no problem with others wanting that information though.

What you call fluff is appealing to many viewers. The producers spend a lot of time with focus groups, and the like, figuring out what makes people watch. You'd expect that, given the expense of putting on a show like this.

Yep, I know. I was just stating my preference, I wasn't speaking for anybody else or expecting it to happen.

[pax]

I'd SO be hitting the "Buy" button on that sucker...

[Holly Moore]

I can see the judges taking fifteen minutes, maybe thirty. Anything more, with just three or four people, would be painfully repetitive. "I still think..." "Let me try to better explain ... (you uncomprehending idiot.) "Tom, stop texting and listen to my reasoning... (which I am going to repeat over and over until you agree with me.)"

Meanwhile, on the other side of the camera, the producers are miserably reworking their budgets adding overtime for the sound people, the camera people, lighting, and everyone else who is getting paid for hanging around until a decision is reached.

Does it have to be a consensus? That could be an insufferably long process.

If I am unfulfilled by the end of the program, Tom Colicchio's blog and eGullet discussion quickly sate me.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Holly Moore (log)

[Werdna]

Nope. As much as I love Top Chef and would totally watch an extended version, there's only so much I can apricate a dish without tasting it. When 2 people have an arguement about if it was too salty, or if the flavor combination was poor, there's only so far my imagination can take me, and I feel left out of the discussion. I have fun passing personal judgement on the dishs from watching them get cooked, final apearance, and listening to what the judges have to say in about equal measure, and I'd not want to change the balance.

Now, if they could ditch the waking-up-in-morning and driving-in-car and product-placement shots in favor of more content, that would be great! But that's not gonna happen, so I vote for directors-cut shows. 'Specially for early-season episodes, where in episode 3 you are thinking 'who's that? Did they cook something in episode 1 and 2?'

[et alors]

Maybe I'd watch a streaming version of it on the website, sponsored by glad...

which answers the question of how long it goes. in the reunion, we saw the contestants making glad beds to nap in, vollyball sets to play... suggests a LOT of time on their hands while they wait.

[jayrayner]

Lord God, I sat through the real thing often enough. A dvd of that would count as cruel and unusual punishment.

Count me out.

[oakapple]

For the just-completed season, Gail Simmons said that judges' table went on till 6:00 a.m.

[jesteinf]

There is no way I'd want to sit through 6 hours of a judges discussion. I like reading Tom's blog after each episode, and they could probably post a 5-10 minute clip of additional footage on Bravo's website that would provide as much information as Tom gives in his blog.

But 6 hours? Come on.

[mattsea]

I just wish that the finale episodes themselves went for 2 hours. Then we would get more of a sense of the creation, execution and judging of each dish.

[jsmeeker]

It might be nice if they included snippets of judges tables sessions in the extras. Snippets longer than the quick one liners we see on the broadcast, but HOURS? No. Even a 30 minute segment? I dunno. For me, I think the blogs (Tom's in particular) are good enough for getting the real scoop on the decision.