Chopped

A

aclark1994

New member
"ImStillMags" wrote in message
news:b20ab2ac-2008-4314-b0f1-cda592fceed7@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

I liked the one last night but I didn't want Anne Burrell to win. I like
Robert Ervine soooo much better! However the show the week before was
boring to me. They all seemed to do pretty much the same thing.
 
Julie Bove wrote:

I like that he commented that it was harder then Iron Chef. Knowing
that Anne Burrel got her TV start is one of Mario Batalli's sous chefs
on Iron Chef America.
 
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:49:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:


Oh, darn. I didn't set my DVR to record it and totally forgot about
watching that all star thing. I wonder when it will air again?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Mar 14, 5:49?pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:

When I first started watching ICA, Anne was a usual sous chef for
Batali.

Now, you can often see Richard Blaise (of Top Chef fame) being sous
chef for one of the Iron Chefs on ICA.

N.
 
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:18:30 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
wrote:


I just found this and the first On Demand. Thanks a million!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:43:57 -0700, sf wrote:


Okay, I just finished watching both episodes. What a difference in
competence between the participants in episodes 1 (amateur) and 2
(professional). How about that squeaker at the end! And to think the
person lost for the exact reason I thought made a winner.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
I have noticed that when the judges are tasting the different dishes, at
first there are usually two compliments and then the third judge finds fault
with the dish. That does seem a bit rehearsed. Then they all arrive at their
choice. I would love to see a behind the chopped show and see how much time
it takes to agreement between the judges.
 
On 15/03/2011 10:13 PM, Julie Bove wrote:



I had Iron Chef going in the background and wasn't paying much
attention, but it seems that one of the ingredients was chick peas.
They interviewed the judges and two of them were not chick pea fans.
Seems kind of silly to be judging meals with ingredients they aren't
likely to be impressed with.
 
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Yeah! That one judge, Scott Conan hates raw onions. So anyone who uses
them in a dish will be judged harshly by him. On one episode he ripped a
guy for using raw onions and the same guy used raw onions again in the next
round! That was just plain stupid but what he made was something that IMO
would require raw onions.
 
"Phyllis Stone" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I don't know how much is the judging and how much of that is the editing.
I guess it is to keep the audience guessing until the reveal. Often, one
judge with greatly dislike a flavor combination, another thinks is is the
main star of the dish. Of course, that does often happen at most dinner
tables.
 
"Julie Bove" wrote

If you are a food professional, you should be able to judge objectively even
if the meal contains ingredients you personally dislike. It would be smart
to avoid onions, but still, if they are a normal part of the dish, taste and
judge impartially. IMO, Conan comes across like a jackass when he does the
onion thing.
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:57:12 -0500, "Phyllis Stone"
wrote:


So far it has been easy to predict who the first two to go will be,
don't you think?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
Sitara wrote:


Which was unmitigated BULLSHIT: The contestants merely have to use the
ingredients. It is *not* necessary for any particular ingredients to be
highlighted. Did any of the judges say, "I can't really taste the Froot
Loops in your lamb dish"? NO, they didn't, because that is NOT supposed to
be in the judging criteria.

Burrell won simply because the judges liked her food better. That's all
there was to it. There was absolutely no requirement whatsoever for Irvine's
pot de creme to have any detectable fennel flavor at all; it just had to BE
THERE. (BTW, Irvine correctly called his dessert a pot de creme when he
presented it; he misspoke and called it a mousse early in the preparation
stage. It wasn't a mousse.)

If the judges really did use the lack of fennel flavor as a point against
Irvine, then he was grossly wronged...but I don't think that's the way it
really was; I think the judges really did simply like Burrell's food better.

It's that kind of arbitrary shit which keeps me from watching Chopped.

Bob
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:30:17 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
wrote:

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I couldn't make a judgment call
about which one was better over all, but I preferred Irvine's dessert
at that moment.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
"Bob Terwilliger" wrote

Yes, it does have to "be there" but If it is there, it should add something
to the dish, be it taste or texture or color.
Some people just don't like a particular taste. That has to affect the
outcome.

Anything with taste as a big factor is kind of arbitrary.
 
Back
Top