Reply With Quote
I was really hoping Bryan would win this.
I guess I'm happy for this brother.
Like I said, Michael has this in the bag.
I guess I'm happy for this brother.
from everything the judges were saying, I was pretty sure Brian had it. At least Michael was finally gracious at the end. I guess the lack of seasoning in the first two dishes did it. Kevin got hosed by a useless sous chef, which sucked.
The thing is, I don't think Kevin got hosed by a useless sous chef - because I think Ash made it up. Kevin's ideas with the final two dishes were the problem. He CAN do better pork. The flavors weren't there - that's on Kevin.
I was shocked Michael won. I mean, I'm totally ok with it (I don't think it was a bad choice and I think he did well and I think he's the one of the three who can most benefit from the win, since the other two have restaurants already). But again the editing was so freaking weird. I thought Bryan had it locked up.
And I thought he should have won. My reasoning is this.
1st course -
Winner: Kevin (per judges, best flavors and executions)
Middle: Bryan (a little underseasoned, but well cooked)
Bottom: Michael (the spotted prawns didn't work)
2nd course -
Winner: Michael (per judges, best coming together and flavors)
Middle: Bryan (described as well cooked, but bland/one-note)
Bottom: Kevin (good flavors, but technical issue with the mushrooms)
3rd course *-
Winner: Bryan (unanimous and his best dish)
Middle: Michael (great flavors, but execution issues - mushroom 'trick', texture of the cassoulet)
Bottom: Kevin (could have done a lot better - especially with pork!)
4th course -
Winner: Bryan (best execution, complex 'pastry chef's dessert')
Middle: Michael (best flavors, but technical issues which he knew 'not made properly)
Bottom: Kevin (just ew)
So, the way I saw it presented via editing, Bryan clearly wins 2 of 4 courses - more than anyone else - and never places lower than the middle with the other two courses. The worst flaw was underseasoning. So, I didn't walk away understanding why or how Michael won. I saw more criticism of him and it seemed like of the three, Bryan cooked the most well-rounded meal.
So confusing. What are they judging on? Overall performance? Technique? Performance that night? Future promise? Because if they were judging solely on that meal, I would have though Bryan had it in the bag. If they were judging on risk taking that may not have quite panned out to a perfect execution, but you can see it (a la the dessert), then I understand the choice of Michael, but I still object a bit.
But really, the compe ion for me was summed up by the third course, which is why it's starred. I thought that was the defining course, because it wasn't on the fly like the first course, it wasn't trying to pull something together and be unique with discrete ingredients chosen by someone else, and it wasn't something that ought to have been beyond their comfort zone or level of expertise. The third course was really the one where they had the opportunity to really pull it out and be themselves and plan it out and execute their food, their way.
And Bryan unanimously won that course - it was clearly his best dish and the best dish of the course.
So, based on that alone, I thought he ought to have won. It's hard to be unhappy or unsatisfied because they were all great, so my 'outrage' is limited. I'm more befuddled than anything.
Well we can continue to follow them here.
http://www.voltaggiobrothers.com/
And on Facebook.
I read the Bravo blogs.
Still confused as to how they chose Michael over Bryan.
Not disappointed, just . . . wish there was more there, you know? I don't think any of them would have been a bad choice (though Kevin's meal was underwhelming), but I wish I understood why they made the choice they did.
You think Michael's answer to Tom's question on why they should win, won them over?
man, i refuse to watch anything with that limey anymore.
him.
with a spatula made out of diseased dog bones.
if you ever catch the show on bbc america and see the brit version he is a completely different person. just an overall nice guy. he must have a real hate-america fetish, cause he just abuses the new worlders and practically gives backrubs on the brit version.
I don't think it's so much a hate for Americans as much as it is him really playing up his persona for ratings and "reality" TV. I don't think the same network that gave us "When Animals Attack" marketing a show about a well mannered British chef helping out people with struggling diners.
As for Top Chef I think their rationale was to look at not just what they did on the show but what lay ahead as well. I'd be more inclined to think that a chef with Michael's creativity could more readily refine his cooking techniques towards Bryan's levels than I would think that someone as technically proficient as Bryan could develop the creative end of things.
I like Ramsay tremendously on BBC America. He just cares so much. 's Kitchen is solely about ratings and is on Fox. I expect no less. It was interesting for a brief period of time, but then I got tired of it.
But considering the sophistication and flavor pairings Bryan does and the cutting edge techniques he uses, I think his creativity is pretty high. He just doesn't go balls out on a risk when a little more boring but well-executable will get him results. In terms of creativity - remember the like, second episode? The bachelor/bachelorette party where they had to do hors d'ouerves to pair with a tail? He had a tequila based shot, and created a corn macaroon that was crispy on the outside but contained a fancy avacado mousse (upscale guacamole) when you opened it up? Or the deconstruction meal where he made a deconstructed reuben with tuna steak?
I think his downfall in terms of the compe ion is that he tended to be more restrained than otherwise in order to aim for more technical perfection, which Michael occasionally sacrificed for risk.
That's fine (just as there is a place for Kevin's more rustic approach vs the more technically based refined dishes the Voltaggio brothers produce. Neither is wrong or bad, depending on cir stances), and I have no trouble with awarding Michael the victory for being more daring and not quite being as perfect as Bryan, but I'd like for them to then explain that, rather than tell us via editing that Bryan is better, but, uh, Michael's Top Chef!
Sometimes people are excellent cooks or even excellent chefs but aren't suited to compe ion - Jenn is actually a good example. Jenn could wipe the floor with previous winners (Ilan, Hosea and , possibly Stephanie), but the compe ion ended up being bad for her because she became friends with people. When she started, she was all about being bad ass and in charge, because she was very confident. When she got to be friends with people and came to respect their cooking as being on par with hers (if not above hers), she lost the ability to tell other people what to do and became scattered and indecisive and lost confidence in herself.
The risks Michael played could have gone either way and if he was rewarded for it, even though it meant a slightly lesser dish, fine. But ing show that, so I can understand the thought processes. The show is and always has been at a disadvantage from being viewable only. We don't smell or taste the food, we only see it and hear the comments. So I find the editing this season particularly frustrating because I have to rely on that to have any kind of true idea about what the dishes are truly like.
I know they edit for drama and to keep interest, and to some extent that is fine. I know I've been less interested when I could pick out the winner easily. And I'm sure it's hard to do this season when there were clearly front-runners and a bunch of us picked out the final four from the very beginning. I know they wanted to make it more interesting than 'Bryan, Michael V and Kevin (and often Jenn) are in the top group again. One of them wins . . . again.' but they sacrificed accuracy for suspense. I don't mind the people actually tasting the food picking differently than I would, but I would like to understand at home why this dish is better. And that was really missing this season and especially last night.
The blogs were interesting. Tom claimed fairly unanimous choice of Michael, Toby liked Bryan, Gail liked Bryan, and Padma pushed for Bryan too. Guess they got argued down.
I found that interesting. That Gail made such a case for Bryan, but I appreciated what she said about Michael. That Toby made a case for Bryan and then said both Gail and Padma were pushing for Bryan. And then that Tom said it was unanimously for Michael and not nearly as close as it was edited to be.
I have long loved Tom Colicchio and have never before thought that he was unfair or dishonest and have believed his blog in the past on controversial issues. But that just doesn't quite ring true to me. Two other blogs disagree with the way he presents it. . . what's that about? Which of them are shilling for the show versus telling the truth?
Didn't realize 's Kitchen was on tonight.
Didn't either. Was watching 2 and Half Men and then saw a commercial for Glee. Went looking for the remote and then I hear/see "Tonight on 's Kitchen" and I was like, "Cool. Didn't know it was back up again."
Good thing my DVR is programmed to record all first run 's Kitchen episodes.
Me either...a pleasant surprise.
Indeed. He's trying way too hard.
Apparently they didn't advertise for this season, cause I didn't realize it was on either. I saw it on while I was watching the premiere of Wipeout....but Wipeout won out.
God bless teh intarwebs.
Advertising wouldn't have worked with me anyway. I watch nothing but Netflix, Hulu and the internet. I only really own a TV to watch movies, some sports and play Modern Warfare 2.
So the Italian dude...he's just faking the accent..what a duesche bagg...
Yeah, I also watched some wipeout.
Ramsey calling the blue haired guy Smurf was great.
DVR ftw. I'll probably watch Wipeout tonight.
Top Chef iMasters is on tonight. I'm hoping Suser Lee takes it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
