"Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares"

[PS]

Thanks for that Gary. It did seem to be where the programme was heading...

The Glasshouse again, eh? Should be interesting.

[camp_dick]

I really enjoyed it too, especially when our star chaser did not recognise Derek Brown when he stood in front of him!

←

I suppose it's the effect of a professional life spent as a secret agent on a mission for Michelin, but I thought DB the personification of 'nondescript'. Like a chameleon, only more drab, he swiftly blended into his surroundings so that the camera man was obliged to refocus several times to keep him in the picture. When Gordon introduced the aspiring French chef to the high priest of Michelin (retired), he appeared so underwhelmed that I half expected him to exclaim the Gallic equivalent of, "You're having a giraffe!"

FYI: Derek Brown is a pseudonym. His real name is Brian Taupe.

[Gareth]

I agree. I thought Derek's 'unassumedness' made him the perfect inspector - the George Smiley of food critics.

Also, for those of us who remember 1970's Children's TV, I think Mr Benn also had a clause in his contract requiring him to change on camera at least once an episode.

[Chef Shogun]

Anybody happen to know what the ~£70 item on The Walnut Tree's menu was? That seems like a lot for any one item on a menu, for any restaurant! They didn't say anything about it being a prix fixe tasting menu option.

[kutsu]

Last nights episode was a bit disapointing, a great episode from the past, but the "recap" was 50 minutes long!

I wanted to see more of the revisited stuff, I can appreciate that the original episode was a while ago, but it didn't need to kind of in-depth recapping that it recieved.

A great show the first time around, but I wanted new material!

[BertieWooster]

It's the standard C4 'revisited' technique, though, as seen in 'Grand Designs', 'Property Ladder' and so on.

What was incredibly annoying was to have yet another recap in the 'revisited' bit of things we'd seen only five mintes before. It's not like anyone's tuning in for the last five minutes. And, yes, even in the 'revistied' he has the contractual clause about showing us his chest. I'm getting nightmares about it now.

INteresting to see his changes in style--in the last series he was 'uuhming' a lot more than he is in this, far less smooth. He also seems to have upped the casual swearing in the second series (I guess it saves having to come up with a catchphrase--'where's me hotplate mother?')

I don't think it can stand a third series unless they change the formulae--now we ALL know the way to save a failing restaurant is to, a) clean the kitchen, b) simplify the menu, c) re-decorate the restaurant area, d) get out on to the streets and talk to people with a camera crew in tow, and e) swear a lot while stroking scar on chin.

[Gary Marshall]

It's the standard C4 'revisited' technique, though, as seen in 'Grand Designs', 'Property Ladder' and so on.

What was incredibly annoying was to have yet another recap in the 'revisited' bit of things we'd seen only five mintes before. It's not like anyone's tuning in for the last five minutes. And, yes, even in the 'revistied' he has the contractual clause about showing us his chest. I'm getting nightmares about it now.

INteresting to see his changes in style--in the last series he was 'uuhming' a lot more than he is in this, far less smooth. He also seems to have upped the casual swearing in the second series (I guess it saves having to come up with a catchphrase--'where's me hotplate mother?')

I don't think it can stand a third series unless they change the formulae--now we ALL know the way to save a failing restaurant is to, a) clean the kitchen, b) simplify the menu, c) re-decorate the restaurant area, d) get out on to the streets and talk to people with a camera crew in tow, and e) swear a lot while stroking scar on chin.

←

agreed.

the mid re-cap re-cap was particularly irritating, looks like more of the same next week....

[maggie]

Do you mean to tell me that you all in the UK are watching this at the same time as we are in the US? And that there was more to last night's show than the recap? I turned it off after the chef took "option 3." Pomegranate seeds...did he even try it himself? Would that explain the gaps in his teeth? So, anyway, what happened in the last 5 minutes? Did the chef get fired? Did the owner make it? Did GR bare his chest one more time?

[BertieWooster]

You might be watching it first time round --we're watching for the second time with a whole added five minutes of new stuff.

To re-cap the re-cap of the re-cap. Chef stayed, a year later the place was doing much better. Gordon nicked Claire and Ian from the kitchen to work at GR's places in London, leaving the very strange chef with another couple of people straight out of college. GR did strip off AGAIN. GR plainly hated the chef still, but liked the owner (who I still think was the chef's partner, thus why he couldn't be fired). The closing credits had interviews with the owner and the chef about the experience. The pomegranate risotto had been on as a special as so many people had asked for it.

[Gary Marshall]

yes, the comments at the end were the most interesting part.

funny gord didn't mention how they got on in his restaurants did he

[BertieWooster]

yes, the comments at the end were the most interesting part.

funny gord didn't mention how they got on in his restaurants did he 

←

DO we know?

C4 are advertising for places wanting to be on the third series.

[Corinna Dunne]

So now I understand! Last night's show was so 'deja vu', I was convinced that it was a repeat with a new graphic added to the title which said 'Revisited' as a euphemism for 'Repeat'.

Cheap, lazy programming. It didn't engage me at all, and I started reading. Looks like I didn't miss anything. Well, it is the summer season. So what's next? Big Cheffer? (I suppose we kind of had that one already). Or lazier still, you could just stash a few cameras in some dreadful restaurant and leave them rolling and transmitting 24 hours a day. We might literally get to watch paint dry if they do a GR redecorating job.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Corinna Dunne (log)

[Gary Marshall]

yes, the comments at the end were the most interesting part.

funny gord didn't mention how they got on in his restaurants did he 

←

DO we know?

C4 are advertising for places wanting to be on the third series.

←

from memory they didn't last very long and i don't think either of them are cooking professionally any more.

[Almass]

Big SIGHhhhhhh.

We had to endure little jamie oliver and now vulgar ramsay agaiN.

I wonder why I bothered try his food and restaurants? Rehearsed dishes ad nauseam and where is the genius culinary sparkle? What did he add to the culinary world besides being rude and oh so vulgar!!!

And why OH WHY do we have to puke over his ridiculous torso?

I suppose a perfume for men (allegedly) is in the works with ramsy laying on the back naked with the caption: A passion for ego!

Michel come back, everything is forgiven. Pleassssssse.

[PoppySeedBagel]

My advice is not to watch more than the odd one - I almost never watch cookery programmes on the TV - they are usually playing to entertain, not inform - Mr Stein's programme's are about all I can take.

[silverbrow]

Not sure if anyone else watched last night's programme but the thing that really struck me was why on earth do the owners allow GR into the restaurant if they're not prepared to take his advice. At least if they listen to him and things go wrong they can blame him. Whereas if they don't and things continue to go belly-up then they have no-one to blame but themselves.

Whatever we on here may think of the series there's no doubt that lots of people watch it and I would guess that last night lots of people in Abergavenny were watching. They're going to be influenced by these programmes. In the case of the Walnut Tree last night, I would have thought the programme sounded the death knell for the restaurant. Locals and others will be loathe to go there knowing that it's over priced and knowing that the great GR is so dismissive of it.

[Gary Marshall]

Not sure if anyone else watched last night's programme but the thing that really struck me was why on earth do the owners allow GR into the restaurant if they're not prepared to take his advice.  At least if they listen to him and things go wrong they can blame him.  Whereas if they don't and things continue to go belly-up then they have no-one to blame but themselves. 

Whatever we on here may think of the series there's no doubt that lots of people watch it and I would guess that last night lots of people in Abergavenny were watching.  They're going to be influenced by these programmes.  In the case of the Walnut Tree last night, I would have thought the programme sounded the death knell for the restaurant.  Locals and others will be loathe to go there knowing that it's over priced and knowing that the great GR is so dismissive of it.

←

yes, i still got the impression that they were clinging on financially and just couldn't/wouldn't take the gamble that more punters eating lower priced food might equal more profit than fewer eating expensive.

also that dining room looked shocking, no character/atmosphere.

no-one seemed to be controlling the chefs ingredient costs, why use 3 large, no doubt diver caught, scallops - because the chef likes to cook with fine ingredients!

no doubt it will be for sale soon.

[BertieWooster]

Again, though, you got the feeling that GR genuinely liked the owner, and was just so frustrated at the end that he wouldn't move.

Was Gary-the-weasel there on the visit back? I really wanted to know what happened to Stefano--hopefully he visited a hypnotherapist and was able to talk!

[Gary Marshall]

i don't think either of them were mentioned

[Matthew Grant]

I think a lot of it was a matter of pride for the owner. He clearly wanted to own a higher class establishment and didn't want to lower himself to compete with the cheaper local alternatives. Like previous posters I am flummoxed as to why you wouldn't listen once Ramsay was ther, the only thing I can think of is that the restaurant thinks that they will get free advertising from it - not much good if Ramsay is slating it.

Why can I never get Scallops like that The biggest scallops I have seen have always been in restaurants

[Almass]

Hey, wait a second.

What did Ramsay contribute to the restaurant?

The summary of the whole episode is the closing minutes of the program with Ramsay and the owner discussion.

Ramsay advises to cut on expensive raw material cost and gives as an example the Scallops!

The scallops are not the issue and the example chosen by ramsay is daft. The owner explained that the scallops are the wrong example as they dont have problem selling this item and he needs more concrete example than cutting down on scallops quantity and primeurs quality.

It seems that this restaurant has a good cellar. Why Ramsay did not take advantage of this plus point. Why not offer cellar tasting like zillion of other restaurants and why not offer wine/food pairing at special prices?

So what did ramsay achieve. The owner lost a star and instead of Ramsay putting in place a financial/commercial model to keep or regain the lost star, he advises to cut cost!!!! and turn the restaurant into a "me too" restaurant.

And he bans the owner from the kitchen?? No human psychology whatsoever. You seriously beleive that banning the owner in public view is a constructive move. You want to ban him, which I might understand, but you can do it in a tete a tete or is it nicer to do it in front of the kitchen staff and cameras rolling!

The challenge is not to lower the restaurant level but to sustain and increase the existing level.

Was this achieved by Diva Ramsay: NO

The objective is this type of restaurant with a 40 years legacy. Hell, I suppose if they knock down the place and have appartments for rent/sale, they will be swimming in money. Ramsay does not seem to understand the restaurant legacy and objective because he simply is not capable of doing it and the reason is Ramsay does not have the professional background to do so.

He might be a "lucky" TV chef but he is no restaurant entrepreneur wizard.

Typical scenario: Ramsay goes in and admonishes everybody. Do we see him offering practical advise. Hell no. All matters are dealt with in a superficial manner. Oh you pay too much for the Chef: P45'em. Next move, shout at the young kitchen staff, next move go to the town centre and blabber around. Next step: Oh you did not follow my advice and therefore you die!

Wait a cotton pickin minute. Where is the peering on the financial reports of the restaurant. Many mistakes start in the financial domain and can be rectified with proper planning. Where is the culinary advice and training for the kitchen staff. Where is the dining room set up. where is, where is, where is???

To my knowledge, each restaurant must have a Matrix which deals with finance, dining room, kitchen, supplies, personnel...etc

Where is Mr Ramsay Matrix?

I am yet to see a program where he does not advise downgrading!

At least this time round we were spared the sight of his pectorals!

[Plutocrat]

Thats not really what I got from it.

Surely the point is that these restaurants are in trouble in the first place so apply to be on the programme? If thats the case - why not take any advice on board and carry on doing what got you into trouble in the first place.

GR did advise that money would be made on the wine even if he cut food prices. Tastings and things may get people in once but the point was they surveyed the locals and most who had been said they wouldn't go back - reason - cost.

Since this used to be a destination restaurant hes trying to maintain it as such - the legacy you mention - but without a Star and with a falling reputation how is he going to make money as a destination. You need some local support to keep you ticking over I would have thought. What use is 40 years legacy if you have to close?

I think a lot of GRs advice on downgrading comes because of the restaurant he had which failed in Glasgow, Amaryllis?, or something. It seemed to fail because of over fussy food and high prices, and although he is no management guru, a lot of advice does make sense, to me anyway.

I agree with the pectorals bit though

P

Edited June 29, 2005 by Plutocrat (log)

[PoppySeedBagel]

From what I saw of it (sound off as I was on the phone) we got to see some other bloke's bottom instead. Does the production team have no ideas?

I haven't seen many of these, but those I have seen involve a proprietor who knows little or nothing about the restaurant business failing to reign in his staff - is this a representative sample?

[PoppySeedBagel]

From what I saw of it (sound off as I was on the phone) we got to see some other bloke's bottom instead. Does the production team have no fresh ideas?

I haven't seen many of these, but those I have seen involve a proprietor who knows little or nothing about the restaurant business failing to reign in his staff - is this a representative sample?

[Gary Marshall]

He might be a "lucky" TV chef but he is no restaurant entrepreneur wizard.

←

what is it now? eight UK restaurants? 6 -odd michelin stars? dubai, Japan, and a few million a year profit for ramsay holdings?

that would suggest he's not a bad restaurant entrepreneur .

he wasn't suggesting it become 'me too' he was suggesting that they needed to cut prices to get people through the door, see how great it was again and regain the regular clientele to spread the word, once you've got the regulars incremental price rises are easy to adopt, which is exactly what he said they should do.

he wanted to keep the owner out of the kitchen (where he was cheffing and doing FOH) and concentrate on, yes selling the wine.

if you have a struggling restaurant, regardless of legacy you need customers.