Top Chef: New Orleans

[huiray]

Season 11.

eater.com:archives:2013:05:10:bravo-confirms-new-orleans-is-in-for-top-chef-season-11

eater.com:archives:2013:05:14:top-chef-to-get-375000-from-louisiana-and-nola

eater.com:archives:2013:05:14:bourdain-8

www.bravotv.com:blogs:the-dish:top-chef-season-11-heads-to

www.nola.com:tv:index.ssf:2013:05:state_local_tourism_offices_pa.html?view=print

[gfweb]

Bourdain is way too full of himself.

eater.com:archives:2013:05:14:bourdain-8

I think it'd be nice if he agrees to support that training restaurant in NOLA out of his own substantial resources.

[annabelle]

New Orleans? Again? I knew it. It's as if there are no other major port cities with a rich food history in the South.

I feel cheated.

[annabelle]

Bourdain is way too full of himself.

Seriously. I used to think he was amusing, now I just think he's a tool.

[HungryC]

I'd have preferred to see the $$ go to business development with a longer term impact. But I'm just a Louisiana taxpayer living along the BP spill-impacted coast, why would anyone care what we want, LOL.

[gfweb]

$200K for a whole TV series promoting the city seems like a bargain to me. Return oughta be huge

Edited May 16, 2013 by gfweb (log)

[annabelle]

That's what I was thinking. $200K is not even going to cover production costs.

[Brown Hornet]

According to the article it's actually $375,000. $200k from the LA state tourism office and $175k from the similar NOLA tourism group. I still think that's a bargain, when you consider what it would cost to buy tourism ads. With Top Chef you're basically getting at least 12 one hour episodes highlighting LA/NOLA restaurants and attractions.

I'd have preferred to see the $$ go to business development with a longer term impact. But I'm just a Louisiana taxpayer living along the BP spill-impacted coast, why would anyone care what we want, LOL.

I'll certainly defer to your experience as a Louisiana resident, but tourism is surely one of the biggest revenue generators in Louisiana no? Bang for buck, I'd suggest that the $375k will create more revenue for your state than it would in traditional brick and mortar development. Seems perfectly reasonable to spend a relatively small amount of money on a tv show that will directly promote Louisiana's hospitality and dining industry.

[HungryC]

According to the article it's actually $375,000. $200k from the LA state tourism office and $175k from the similar NOLA tourism group. I still think that's a bargain, when you consider what it would cost to buy tourism ads. With Top Chef you're basically getting at least 12 one hour episodes highlighting LA/NOLA restaurants and attractions.

I'd have preferred to see the $$ go to business development with a longer term impact. But I'm just a Louisiana taxpayer living along the BP spill-impacted coast, why would anyone care what we want, LOL.

I'll certainly defer to your experience as a Louisiana resident, but tourism is surely one of the biggest revenue generators in Louisiana no? Bang for buck, I'd suggest that the $375k will create more revenue for your state than it would in traditional brick and mortar development. Seems perfectly reasonable to spend a relatively small amount of money on a tv show that will directly promote Louisiana's hospitality and dining industry.

Sigh. No, we're more than tourism. 10% of US oil & gas reserves are in LA/its coastal waters, we are the third largest refiner of gasoline in the nation; more than 100 large petrochemical plants refine oil into practically every plastics and oil-derived component used in modern life. Chances are, the gas in your car, paint additives on your wall, and plastic & adhesives in your Band-aid had their roots in LA.

16% of the total US supply of oil flows through the Louisiana Offshore Oil Pipeline, where supertankers unload out in the Gulf and it is piped onshore. We are home to a fair portion of the nation's strategic petroleum reserve, stored in underground cavities in salt domes. We produce salt and sulfur.

60% of the US grain supply is exported through LA via the MS River, not to mention all of the other things shipped through the lower MS.

Other stuff ranked above tourism in the state's economy: pulp & paper (from managed pine forests), agriculture (sugarcane, sweet potatoes, rice, soybeans, cotton, cattle, etc). 25% of US seafood is landed in LA.

Just ~350-400K ppl of LA's 4.6 million live in NOLA.

[Twyst]

New Orleans? Again? I knew it. It's as if there are no other major port cities with a rich food history in the South.

I feel cheated.

Its never been in New Orleans.

They shot the finale episode of top chef NY in New Orleans, but it's never had a season. Not sure why you feel cheated. If another city had offered more money it would have gone there. Its a travesty it took this long for NOLA to get a season IMO.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Twyst (log)

[Brown Hornet]

Sigh. No, we're more than tourism.

Of course, I didn't suggest otherwise. That doesn't mean tourism isn't also an important industry worth promoting. I have professional experience with business and industrial development on the government side -- it's still a question of bang for buck. At least in my experience, $350k gets you nothing in terms of large industrial/agricultural business development. The one area that that amount can be helpful is, in fact, tourism which is still a significant economic driver for most locales. At the end of the day, this money came from the tourism offices of LA/NOLA and was earmarked for promoting tourism. With all that in mind, I think this relatively small sum of money was well spent considering the expense of traditional advertising promotional campaigns.

I simply take issue with Bourdain's asinine suggestion that it was somehow wrong for TC to accept tourism dollars to defray its production costs. Please. That's exactly what the tourism board's budget is for.

[annabelle]

New Orleans? Again? I knew it. It's as if there are no other major port cities with a rich food history in the South.

I feel cheated.

Its never been in New Orleans.

They shot the finale episode of top chef NY in New Orleans, but it's never had a season. Not sure why you feel cheated. If another city had offered more money it would have gone there. Its a travesty it took this long for NOLA to get a season IMO.

Yes, I know there has never been a season of TC shot in NOLA. It's just that the choice of NOLA itself seems like a cheat to me. Every food show at some time or other does a show in NOLA. We'll have to watch the obligatory drunken revelers, watch the chef's make gumbo that the judges will all gripe about, shuck oysters and probably make King Cake, make a trip to Antoine's where they must act reverent, and of course, Emeril will be a judge. It's just cliché to me. So, yes I feel cheated when other cities like Charleston or Savannah get overlooked time and time again.

[huiray]

Oh, I don't know... I'm not sure that Bourdain's suggestion is that outrageous or that he is full of it or himself. He apparently didn't berate Andy Cohen. The reported tweets seem not to be bristly or condescending etc, at least those two reported in the article. I must say there is also something to be said about his suggestion of donating that 200K to that non-profit restaurant. Sure, Bravo can accept the "tourism promotion dollars" from the LA board without untoward opprobrium (nowadays, so it has turned out), as some here have pointed out; but so long as they fulfill what they contracted (or undertook) to do for those dollars they in turn can do whatever they want with those dollars, I would think, no? I think they would gain good karma and good publicity if they *did* donate that money to that restaurant - and gain bragging rights too. Or donate money to that place plus other food-associated charitable organizations in the state. A win-win, in a certain sense, and it would also shut down Bourdain.

As for possible scenarios in TC 11: Yes, it would be "gimmicky" (but TC has tended to be gimmicky in one way or another) but in the spirit of the use of those BP dollars for the recovery from that oil spill I would not object if the cheftestapants (as Max Silvestri once called them, I think) were presented with a challenge of doing what they could with oil-fouled something-or-other-protein (birds, waterfowl, fish, etc) as an exercise of their ingenuity as chefs in rescuing "damaged goods" and making them taste good or as good as they could manage under the circumstances. Perhaps they could be judged on how well they succeeded, rather than purely on how good their dishes tasted on an absolute scale... They could be apprised of the challenge in advance so they could think about it - maybe with the withholding of what exactly they would be required to use, or their being allowed to request one or two condiments or whatnot in advance after being told of the challenge, that sort of thing. Just a wild thought. :-) [...and yes, IMO TC ceased to be a wholly cooking show a long time ago, if it ever was; so one treats it as "food entertainment" and enjoys it on those general terms]

Edited May 17, 2013 by huiray (log)

[annabelle]

I disagree, huiray. Bravo tends to be preachy in a stupid and uninformative way that just gives way to exploitation without education and workable solutions. The BP oil spill effected the entire gulf coast and not just Louisiana. Really, touching on a situation that could have been avoided and cannot be explored in a full and fair way is beyond the scope of Top Chef which is a cooking contest not a documentary about the risks and benefits of oil exploration.

Edited May 17, 2013 by annabelle (log)

[sigma]

Food intellectuals are not an economically literate lot.

[annabelle]

Ain't that the truth?

[Cragganmore17]

Food intellectuals are not an economically literate lot.

Economic and financial literacy are poor substitutes for self-importance and smugness.

[annabelle]

So, being self-important and smug is better than being financially and economically literate?

Some certainly think so.

Edited May 17, 2013 by annabelle (log)

[IndyRob]

I'm a Bourdain fan and I accept the fact that his point of view sometimes differs from mine (as I try to do with most people). I'm given to believe that he's a charitable man (financially, at least) and seems to hold true to his own code of ethics. But I think once he starts telling others - very publicly - what they should do he crosses a line I can't support. He crosses over into a preachy realm that, upon reflection, I don't think even he'd feel good about.

It's nice that he wants to stick up for NOLA, but there are other people that have been officially appointed to those various roles. Some of those - specifically responsible for tourism - decided to give Bravo money to bring Top Chef to NOLA. Why would this be a problem for Bourdain?

Yes, it would be nice if Bravo gave the money back. Or, it would also be nice if AB quietly reimbursed them. Or how about AB licenses the Les Halles brand and banks a restaurant in NOLA. You know, create some jobs. All this stuff is easy for me to suggest. It's not my money, after all. But it would be nice.

Hell, Tony, while I'm at it, could you see your way clear to buy a skillet for those Namibian dudes to cook their ostrich eggs in? You know, rather than in the dirt? You could tie a picture of yourself to the handle and give it to the chief as a personal gift in return for their hospitality. Maybe along with a bottle of olive oil and a salt shaker? That would be nice.

Oh, and Mr. Simon? Thanks for Treme (exceptionally well done, if excruciatingly slow to develop) and your generosity to NOLA. But if I may channel the tourism bureaus for a moment..., "Thank you very much for broadening the reach of the deep New Orleans culture to a wider audience. But a little less suicide, rape, and face shooting next time, 'kay?"

Okay, now I'm going to enjoy the latest episode of Parts Unknown on the ol' DVR.

[huiray]

I disagree, huiray. Bravo tends to be preachy in a stupid and uninformative way that just gives way to exploitation without education and workable solutions. The BP oil spill effected the entire gulf coast and not just Louisiana. Really, touching on a situation that could have been avoided and cannot be explored in a full and fair way is beyond the scope of Top Chef which is a cooking contest not a documentary about the risks and benefits of oil exploration.

Even if so it doesn't negate the suggestion that if Bravo *did* donate that money they would score a point (and shut Bourdain down) and that place would get some money. ;-) BTW nobody is expecting TC NOLA to be an in-depth documentary of the BP oil spill. Whether it is a cooking contest or a TV reality game show with incidental cooking is another thing. (BTW2 Tom Colicchio has admitted publicly in one of his past blog posts that it is a game show)

It's interesting, the way the thread is devolving into a "Diss Anthony Bourdain" thread... :-)

[annabelle]

It's certainly up to Andy Cohen and Bravo to decide what to do with the $200K. Andy is running a business, not a charity. Perhaps he has privately given monies to a disaster relief fund and it's none of Bourdain's damned business if he has or he hasn't. While Andy is no shrinking violet, not everyone makes a photo opportunity out each good deed they do.

And since I feel like bashing Tony, I'm with IndyRob: send those poor people you exploit on your show some money and some cooking vessels.

[Jaymes]

I sorta feel sorry for poor ol' Bourdain.

I never really saw the appeal. As far as I was concerned, his main claim to fame was that he talked like a pubescent boy that just learned to swear out on a junior high playground and was trying to shock and impress everyone with his vast knowledge of dirty words.

"Oooh oooh oooh," we all said. "He's so brave. He's so daring. He's so cutting edge."

But unfortunately for Tony, now everybody talks like that. He shocks no one anymore. Not even the grannies.

He just sounds tired and passe and done and over.

He's trying hard to come up with a new schtick.

And hasn't yet.

[IndyRob]

It's certainly up to Andy Cohen and Bravo to decide what to do with the $200K.

True, but the more important point in my mind is that it wasn't their decision to begin with. The LA tourism folks had control of those very same dollars. They CHOSE to give them to Bravo.

[IndyRob]

"Oooh oooh oooh," we all said. "He's so brave. He's so daring. He's so cutting edge."

Since I've already self-identified as a Bourdain fan - and called him out in the same thread - I'd like to point out that what you imagine that 'we' said is in fact, incorrect and a naïve mischaracterization. You are not a part of 'we' who like him. That's okay. Just don't pretend that you have an insight into why I like him.

[annabelle]

It's certainly up to Andy Cohen and Bravo to decide what to do with the $200K.

True, but the more important point in my mind is that it wasn't their decision to begin with. The LA tourism folks had control of those very same dollars. They CHOSE to give them to Bravo.

Good money well spent, I'd say. National exposure for that kind of money is a gift.