Wednesday 10:00 PM on BravoBetween Seasons
"Has a use" and "useful" are not the same word. Baking soda has a use to neutralize odors, but it is not necessarily "useful" that way (honestly, I don't think it works too well.) It's "useful" when used on your teeth because it does help whiten them. Therein lies the difference.
Here's a thought: I criticized Michelle instead of Tony on this challenge, because, lo and behold, she was here this challenge. Again, would you care for my criticism of Anthony Bourdain? I'm a huge fan of his, but honestly, he's stuck up as hell. He'd probably agree with me, too.
It is not the color in which nutritionists advocate, but the nutrition gained from foods of that color. How often do we hear comments about dark green leafy vegetables? It's not that they are dark green, it's that they contain different nutritents then carrots or corn. And there really wasn't an aspect of "visual" in the challenge. It was to create an upscale taco. That's all. Serve it on a plate instead of in a wrapper, but no one did that.
I did restrict my comments to this episode in the beginning. She was pretentious here (exclusively to this episode), but not as much. You blasted, I returned and elaborated. That's all. Why, exactly, should I have to read something supplemental? If it's important, it belongs in the episode. And actually, it is what the diners think in the end, because it is the diners, not the judges, who would be paying for a meal.
I agree, people don't have to admit to playing it safe, but, just because they aren't like Carlos and say they're okay with middle doesn't mean they are. Being unimaginative is not inherently safe, as it could still address the challenge. It's just that imagination is riskier. Safe is when one aims for the middle and just wants to scoot by. Howie's dish, indeed, was not safe, but what's the point of bringing that up. He was on the bottom because he didn't address the challenge, as he should have.
I think you misunderstood about potassium. It's not that it is added to food, it's that it is present in food, and can contribute to a salty taste.
I understand your points about sous-vides, but we're not arguing whether or not Hung used the technique improperly, it's that he was repeating the technique rather then showcasing his skills. "Playing it safe."
Why are you still talking about kissing ass and arbitrary arguments? We're agreeing on that.
My criticism of Bayless didn't have to do with the proteins used. It did with things he didn't like that were irrelevant to the challenge.
It does benefit to not induce a gag reflex, but are you even sure Stephanie was aware Tom disliked such a dish? Jeff's dish was cooked with no knowledge of the judges, and faulting him would be incorrect. For Stephanie, it's the same.
Baking soda was just an example. The point of that was to provide an example of the difference between "has a use" and "useful." I've found something better to help cut down on food odors. Eating it before they spoil.
I said I liked Bourdain and that he was stuck-up, I didn't say I liked him because he was stuck-up. I like him because he's funny, but he's still a stuck-up jerk.
As for the upscale challenge, the upscale aspect was already there in the food, and the ingredients used. That's what fine dining is. Nothing else matters.
How did the winners play it safe? They addressed the challenge in perfect ways. It's not as if Radhika could buy patridge, and Jeff had to change his dish on the fly, while Hosea had to drastically change his dish. Only Stefan played it safe, and honestly, I wouldn't even say that was safe. I'd say it didn't really address the challenge.
Howie was kept on because Clay made something that was inedible. That's a serious issue. That doesn't mean Howie took a risk; he didn't plan on not serving his "turf."
I think you're missing the point about salt. The point that you're straying from is that Jeff's other options for adding to his dish that you provided would have made it saltier, because of the pickling or the meat. You're providing your personal opinion about eggs isn't going to change that.
As for Hung, you're just repeating yourself. I've already answered that point: He wasn't demonstrating his range of skills by constantly doing them. Stop saying that you think he used them properly on black chicken. You said it several times.
I think you've also missed the point about arbitrary arguments. We're actually agreeing on this topic. Why are you still bringing it up?
Rocco has already proven that judges can set arbitrary requirements unrelated to the challenge and judge on them. Why are you giving Bayless a by simply because he said so?
You can please a client without giving them the arbitrary requirements they ask for. There's no reason to follow them, especially when it's not going to showcase your skills to their best ability.
Some foods do, most foods don't. And we're discussing how to cut down on odors. Why do you just try to get a useless one-up?
Actually, my criticism wasn't that Spike didn't win (although he should have), it was that Bayless criticized aspects of the dish that had nothing to do with the challenge (there's a paper on the plate)
You expressly stated that no one aimed to win, and that's exactly what safe is. They aimed for the middle to scoot by, you said. That is safe. And they didn't even do that. As for "could it be the best thing ever" that's a little ridiculous to assume since they are constrained by the challenge requirements.
It is true that Jeff did have a wide variety of options to choose from, but, if Jeff didn't know "saute" meant in French, he wouldn't have done that. Also, your salmon idea is a little too forced, like Fabio's crab. And fish roe? That can be pretty pricey to make enough for 200 people.
You've been repeating yourself about black chicken constantly for no point at all. I heard you. What you have said is that he used a technique that helps it. My response was that he didn't need to use it as there are other techniques available. Who is to say sous-vide is the best technique? It's certainly possible that it's the first thing Hung thought of and just did it.
In a restaurant, I'll agree that making things the clients like is paramount. However, this isn't a restaurant, these are challenges. They're designed to throw curveballs and showcase different techniques. The arbitrary requirements of the judges shouldn't even be brought up, and not factored in if they are.
I agree that putting that on the paper was useless. It's just like when Betty/Mia served it on a puff pastry. But to put one in the bottom because of that with no discussion of taste? At least Betty and Mia had an overcooked issue.
When you constrain something by setting such weird challenge requirements, quality is always going to be sacrificed. It does help people focus, but it sacrifices on what they can do.
The definition of food terms such as saute would also be a little forced, don't you think? Less forced then the salmon, but not as natural as Radhika's partridge. I agree that quite a few of them were forced, but Hosea's wasn't and he won the challenge. Ariane's wasn't forced, it was just flat. Fabio's was really forced. And depending on how much roe you use, and the other ingridents, there's certainly is a price concern. I'm aware of what roe are, thank you.
Hung, being a chef, would know quite a number of techniques, that he didn't decide to use. Thus, I fault him for no imagination.
We already have curveballs from the judges: they come in the challenge requirements. Time gets cut down, the contestants aren't aware of what materials they'll be using to cook with, and et cetera. Why should they bring their personal issues into it?
I wasn't talking about Spike for the Quickfire, I was talking about the bottom. I thought Spike should have won, but the discussion of the bottom is a separate issue.
The judges do expect innovation from the judges (as well they should), and Ariane's was flat and uninspired, in addition to fove of them not being good. Fabio's interpretation was forced.
I am not a chef, and am not familiar with techniques. However, I can count, and there are plenty of techniques that a classically trained chef can do. You're just defending his uninnovative decisions. Yes, a chef can be innovative with ingriedents, but he can also be innovative with technique. Fabio proved this with his olives.
Who said anything about one curve ball per episode? No, there are plenty of examples of multiple curveballs. The argument is that the judges should not get personal. Judges can be difficult without bringing their personal opinion into it.