1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Top Chef All-Stars

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by blacktitleist, Dec 2, 2010.

  1. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Spike got Angelo'd. Anyhoo, the losing team was willing to cut Jamie a break at the start because Fabio, not Blais, was put up. But the team should have insisted the second time she buggered out.
     
  2. blacktitleist

    blacktitleist Member

    I know they were trying to keep with the tennis them and all with the judging, but I thought it was pretty terrible that everyone's food wasn't even judged.

    With Tre one of the "losing" chefs, he was already safe anyway. That meant KC, Tiffany, or Spike was going home. With what, 7 or 8 folks on each side, I would think they would have figured out a way to eat every dish that was prepared so the judges could have made a more informed decision on what truly was the worst dish, not the worst dish of the losing dishes in the competition.

    That left a couple of chefs--Jamie included--without even getting their dish tasted.

    Not a great way to get eliminated.
     
  3. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    What would everybody think of immunity not being up for grabs as a reward?

    Because this was one instance in which it sounded as if Trey would definitely have gone home if not for the fact that he'd won immunity.

    In this competition, especially, that seems an really unfair advantage.

    Just as the chefs who have immunity often say that, "It doesn't matter; I'm still going to cook as if I don't have it," perhaps the judges should not be placed in a position where, if a contestant seems to have, frankly, earned elimination, they should have to keep him/her around anyway.

    This is a competition, after all. Why not just keep it straight up, at least in terms of the cooking/competing itself? A reward (like the twenty grand that Trey also got) can be earned, and perhaps even disadvantages could be added, but why does it have to be immunity?

    It only lends itself to situations like what occurred last night.
     
  4. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    It adds spice to the quickfire and gamesmanship to the main competition
     
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    If it were purely on cooking, they'd use the number system they had on Masters
     
  6. bumpy mcgee

    bumpy mcgee Well-Known Member

    I don't know why the chefs know who is making what dish. They should serve the judges blindly, I think knowledge of who cooks what is almost as big a determining factor as what the dish tastes like .
     
  7. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Bravo is selling the personalities at least as much as the cooking. The disclaimer at the end that the Andy Cohens of the operation consult with the judges. They'll do what's needed to create drama
     
  8. StaggerLee

    StaggerLee Well-Known Member

    I don't like immunity. I understand the concept and that it certainly does add to the competitiveness of the quickfire, but I think giving someone a free pass in a competition this stiff is too big of a prize. I wouldn't mind if the quickfire winner got an advantage (like when they get to pick their proteins first, or get a 5-minute head start in the Top Chef pantry).
     
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    And a lotta quickfires don't have immunity, and as the field gets smaller, it's offered less and less. A lot do have an advantage, not immunity, like the museum one this season, in which the winner got to pick the ingredients (unwisely, as it turned out). A huge benefit for cooking the best in a Bolt-ian sprint bothers me not in the least, particularly with the field this huge.
     
  10. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    A dumb concept for the episode -- it could have been that three chefs on the losing (and winning) team didn't get their dishes served.

    I also don't buy that Angelo was trying to sabatoge. Spike was no threat to win the title and Tre had immunity.

    They also shouldn't have brought Tre back for the final decision (as he was safe).
     
  11. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    I think Angelo is such a complete and total control freak that he can't help himself when someone else's food gets in front of him.
    He's poison in team competitions, but he can also really cook.
    Or at least the editing makes it seem that way.
    I suspect it was for time reasons, but I think the judges should have tasted each dish and then made each head-to-head decision giving each team a point.That the worst dish, clearly Jamie's, would have been tasted and then off to the elimination.
     
  12. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    As far as I'm concerned, the Jamie deal is part of the game. She's surviving week to week based on the way it's set up, and like it or not, it's better TV this way, whether the straight judging of the cooking is always completely fair or not.

    I would hate this show with blind tasting and the judges not knowing who cooked what. Much fairer. Again, terrible TV.

    Immunity? I like it in the early rounds. Part of the competition, and we've seen chefs use or not use it in many different ways: Tank, tank teammates, win the main challenge. Again, part of the competition.

    Tom, et al, often say it's all about the food, but it's all about the game, too, and that's what makes the show fun to me.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page