iggysaurus

I love Fiona Apple, period. Is there a longer version of the song? I just realized I've never bothered to look for it on iTunes or anything.

Not to mention, "Desserts" was a whole different theme in episode 4! So if they have both "pudding week" and "dessert week" then they must not be interchangeable terms. Maybe they're used interchangeably in popular/casual usage, but technically puddings are a specific type of sweet item under the broader category of desserts??? I liked Brendan a lot at first, but started to get this vibe from him after a few episodes as well. He seems ultra-competitive, and not as good-natured about it as the rest of them when he doesn't do well. But I still don't dislike him or anything - he's just not quite as fun as the others.

I was amused but not upset about Paul's generalizations -- I agree that he/the show is over-generalizing, but I don't take it personally, maybe because I don't really feel a strong identification as "American" (I am American, but to me it just happens to be where I'm from - not my identity). I love the cultural culinary differences and didn't feel a need to bash British recipes in return for them saying American pies are too sweet/disgusting. I also couldn't care less about Paul's personal life. I just watch him on the show and don't pay any attention to that. He can be arrogant, but he doesn't particularly bother me. *shrug* Anyway, maybe when they said "American pies" they meant pies that originated in America and are not generally made elsewhere? For example, of course we make fruit pies in America but they are not uniquely American, as Britain also makes them, so that's why they are not under the definition of "American pies" as defined by this episode. I don't know, just speculating. I love the little historical segments. It didn't seem weird to me that it was stuck in the middle - isn't that how they air it in the UK? It's not supposed to be about the specific thing they're making in that episode, necessarily - just an interesting historical tidbit that relates to the general topic of that episode (pies, in this case). Eel pie sounds disgusting but it's fascinating to learn about the historical aspect of it and how they just used what they had access to. I was watching a British show set in World War II and they kept talking about going out to get eels for dinner. I wondered at the time if that was common and now I know that it was!

Well, now that I've finished it, I can finally read this thread. I guess I liked it more than a lot of you did. I was REALLY squicked out by the amputation scenes and H.R. Pufnstuf. What was happening in the one scene (flashback) where Tom found his mom and his sister dead? Did he kill them? I found some of those aspects confusing, as well as VERY disturbing. Also disturbing: Gabriel's obsession with Marisol, and him saying he was in bed with her when she got her first period, even though he considered himself her "brother." Also: Billy's co-hostage having to stab that guy in the groin in order for them to get away, and Billy throwing the hot water in that other girl's face. And what Marisol had done to Elena. Just all so violent and awful! But at the same time, the bleakness and "Oh my god did that really happen" aspect is something I'm drawn to in TV shows so I can't really complain. The ending did feel a little incomplete. I was hoping to see more consequences for Marisol. At least Brittany didn't become a victim of Tom.

My hair stylist told me a long time ago that any sulfates in shampoos are bad for your hair. Of course she recommended one that they sell at her salon, but it's expensive and not something I'd buy all the time. When trying to find a shampoo without sulfates in the regular store, it's pretty difficult. All the major brands have it. There's one by L'Oreal, called Ever Pure (I think) which is sulfate-free but that's the only one I can think of. Once in a while I splurge on a more expensive shampoo but I figure that using one with sulfates won't hurt my hair that much the rest of the time.

My only problem with it is that they didn't acknowledge it on the show. If they'd said "William works at Walmart and is also a struggling actor, who needs help updating his look as well as proposing to his girlfriend," that would've been fine but the way they did it, it made it seem a bit fake when I found out he's an actor. In William's case it seems like acting is definitely a big part of his life and his main goal. Here's a shot from his Instagram from August 2017: Not majorly bothered by it; just something that stuck out to me when I saw him pop up in social media and I looked at his older posts.

I want to read/discuss, but I'm only on episode 4 and I don't want spoilers! I wish we had separate episode threads for this show.

Maybe he also arranges to have their fridge filled with healthy options that fit their lifestyle, and talks to them about how to incorporate healthier eating habits into their routines, and it doesn't make it into the final cut of the show? Not sure why they wouldn't show it, if he does do that, but it's possible that they just don't have time to show everything that each of the guys does! I often feel like it's too short as it is -- they don't show much of what Bobby does as far as the process of remodeling their living spaces, which would be a huge undertaking. It's just suddenly done, and there's a big reveal, but obviously a lot happens behind the scenes.

That's funny, Jonathan and Antoni are my favorites, followed closely by Tan. I also like Bobby and Karamo, but as you said, they just seem a little more distant or something. When I see JVN, Antoni and Tan on Instagram they seem like they are always hanging out, even when it's not for the show. I don't see any of them with Bobby or Karamo as much outside of promo stuff. Atoni seems extremely smart and I know from JVN's podcast that he speaks multiple languages and grew up with exposure to different cultures. I know he gets flak for seeming to not make very complicated dishes on the show but from what I've seen on Instagram when he's even just hanging out with friends, he really does cook and know a lot about it. I don't think he's just eye candy, I think he's got a lot more to him. Oh and when he comments on the other guys' instagrams, his comments are very well written and witty. Love him.

I just saw on Twitter (and then Instagram) that William from episode 2 is actually an actor - he was on the Walking Dead and Stranger Things 2, probably bit parts, but they sure didn't mention that in the episode - it was "he works at Walmart." He seems to be really self-promoting online now that his episode has aired. When I looked back thru his Instagram, far enough back to where it had to be before the filming of QE, there were pics of him looking not that different than he did after his makeover. I don't think he's any stranger to hair & makeup transformations, considering his background in acting. I dunno, it just seems disingenuous now that I've found that out. Plus, I have to confess, the whole "I Shannan You" thing in the episode made me cringe a bit (even though I usually tear up at all of these reveals/transformations - I'm a total sap!). Aww, I still love Jonathan. I've only listened to a few of his podcasts but I know what you mean. I had to turn off the episode on bees because it was embarrassing how little he knew about basic stuff. Then again, I thought his episode on Brexit was pretty decent and he actually seems to know a bit about that, more than a lot of Americans anyway. I just take him with a grain of salt - he's not an expert in any of these things, but he IS curious as the title of the podcast says. And I feel like he'd be super fun to be around.

I'm so confused by some of the subplots. What did the two ladies who were trying to have a baby have to do with anything? The blond one was shown working at the Kids Call place and she seemed suspicious but I guess she wasn't involved in anything? Was Maya, the rich charity lady, guilty of anything in relation to the missing kids? And finally, what was the deal with Becky/Rebecca, Jason's new girlfriend? She worked at the same clinic where Gail worked, and I'm sure they showed her being involved in getting Gail out of the picture when she was starting to find out about Joel. Right? And there was also the info about her possibly being involved in a child prostitution ring in Europe, or something. But the show never seemed to resolve any of those issues or say whether she was guilty of anything or not. Were all of those things just red herrings? The "hypnosis" was not believable at all. There was no real technique so how was that woman a "specialist" in it? She just says "focus on a memory, I'll count to 5 and you'll be transported to that time and able to unlock lost memories." Would that actually work on anyone, especially as reliably and instantly as it did on Marcella? The ending was weird. I guess they're seeing up season 3, which I'm sure I'll watch regardless of my nitpicks of this season!

I'm not sure exactly what Ethan's mom should've been doing to stop him from acting the way he was - yell at him? Obviously she'd tried that with no success. Hit him? Well, maybe some think that would be appropriate, but I doubt it would've been effective either, especially in the long term. Some people have this mentality of "In my day these kids would've just gotten a good smack and that would've straightened them out!" but it's really not that simple. As for Nancy Lanza, I'm not saying she was a good mother, and her allowing her mentally ill son to have access to firearms is certainly appalling. But as far as her not getting him help, this film clearly demonstrates that even when the parents try desperately to get help for their kids, there often is just no help available. All the bureaucratic roadblocks, lack of beds available, etc. It's easy to say what she "should have done," probably not so easy to have actually done it. Even if she'd gotten Adam into a facility like Ethan was in, they'd have just let him out after 6 months and he might've still gone on to shoot up the school, because 6 months isn't necessarily enough to solve deep mental issues, IMO.

Because it's an English show set in England ....? I mean, I get that it's kinda weird when you're familiar with him as an American, but actors do this all the time. Why did Hugh Laurie have to be American in House? Because it was an American show and the creators wrote him as American. I agree with most of the comments here - this was a fun show to binge, for the most part, but some of the characters' motivations really stretched believability. Jenny says at the end that she was never trying to get Sophie or any of the others punished for the fire ... so what was she trying to do, exactly? What did she expect to accomplish by tracking down Bobby at that club and confronting him? She begged Chris not to confront Sophie, but then went off on her own to do the same thing to Bobby ... a person who had no relevance in her life. Why would she be more concerned about his role in it than Sophie's, the person who was dating her dad and a close friend of her late mom? And Sophie ending up being the one who killed Chris in the swimming pool was a whole other level of disbelief. She had been shown to be basically reasonable, and was saying to Tom that she was going to come clean about the fire (before we, the audience, knew she killed Chris). But then we are shown that she was so desperate NOT to come clean that she would drown a kid in a pool during a party. It doesn't make sense. Seemed more like it was done just for the sake of having a last-minute shocking reveal.

This season was filmed in 2016, right? That kind of explains the Candy Crush tie-in, which as others have said, seems a bit passe by now. I admit, though, that I recently started playing Candy Crush Jelly Saga again after a long break from it. It's just a silly, addictive game.... and has absolutely nothing to do with fashion. The "lands" that you go through as you play the game are not actually part of the game-play and I didn't think anyone paid attention to them. It's just the screen they show when you complete one level and move to the next. The actual game is just about matching candies & other sugar-themed items to clear the board before you run out of moves. Glad Edmond was the one sent home, and I knew he would be, just from the editing. I don't dislike him, but his design was the worst, and I like the other 4 guys a bit better, personality-wise. I'm rooting for Stanley, I think, but any of them would be fine.

I knew as soon as I saw Jonathan that there'd be comments about his hair being outdated, gross, etc. So much hate for long hair on men these days! It used to be popular/normal. Long hair on men doesn't mean the person is "dirty" or "smelly" any more than long hair on a woman would mean that. I was a little annoyed at Jonathan at first but it wasn't because of his hair. I thought his personality was just so OTT, but now he's grown on me and I love him. BTW, I think he looks more like Anthony Kiedis from Red Hot Chili Peppers than Dave Grohl or Neil from Young Ones. Anthony in the 90s: Jonathan (& Karamo) from Jonathan's instagram:

I think rock barely exists anymore, male or female. Sure we can probably all name some male and female rock musicians who are still around, but rock seriously lacks the "superstars" these days compared to other genres of music. I'm talking current, active rock stars who are household names and not for primarily nostalgia reasons. Most of those who have been listed in this thread are either not all that well known, or are mostly known for their earlier work. Rock needs to make a serious comeback! They should've probably had hip hop be the 3rd genre (instead of rock) if they wanted to mirror 3 things that are hot in the music industry right now. BTW, Rebecca Minkoff should permanently replace what's her name as the mentor. She is 100% more knowledgeable, thoughtful and articulate in her critiques.

If race/gender/diversity did play a part in the judging at all, they arguably would've had more reason to select Adrienne than Joe. What I mean is, if Top Chef wanted to generate good PR for themselves, they could've hyped up a whole narrative about picking the "first black female Top Chef." In the current social/political climate, for a show that presumably skews somewhat young and "hip" in terms of viewers (or at least aspires to), they would've absolutely looked better if they did choose a minority so they'd look more progressive. If anything, they have more to lose in reputation by crowning Joe F, due to social media backlash about "straight white males" just like we're seeing here. Don't you think that they (the producers, judges, etc) consider that aspect and are aware of how strongly the current tide is leaning toward increased diversity and minority representation? I don't believe producers of a show like Top Chef would do any of this for altruistic reasons but on a cynical level I think they might do it for image reasons. Think about Project Runway, where Tim Gunn outright admitted that the winner a few seasons ago (Ashley) was chosen as the first 'plus size' designer for what some would call "PC" reasons and not because her designs were the best. Top Chef could've done that here, and more credibly because Adrienne actually IS good ... but they didn't. So in a weird way, that makes me feel Joe must've won fairly, even though I preferred Adrienne, because they chose him despite Adrienne providing a better 'story arc' overall. Just my opinion.

I agree with you, but didn't they want to have a club for "Northern Europeans" or something? It wasn't just "white." I don't know if Northern European is really a culture either, but it's slightly more specific than white. (Though, arguably, just a euphemism for white in which case it's a moot point.)

It's probably true to life for some people, but I'm with you - I can't really relate to how graphic and open they all are about intimate things, when speaking with family members. My family isn't like that at all. We aren't super extreme in the other direction either - I mean I can talk about relationships with my family, but just not graphically about sex. Re: Ramon. God yes. I had never seen the actor before and I was just like, "WHO is this??" To me he looks like a young Johnny Depp in whatever era it was that he had longer hair. And he (the Ramon actor) reminds me of someone else too from the 90s that I can't place. I thought right away that there would probably be a lot of people online saying "Ew, he looks greasy" because that seems to be the default reaction to anyone who has longer hair or a scruffy look these days ... compared to the aforementioned 90s when that was very much considered "hot" for guys. As a Gen Xer, I still find that look hot. :)

I'm not really a huge Padma fan or anything, but this sentence just jumps out at me as being odd ... I mean why do we (as a culture) classify breasts as being something vulgar and something that should not be "at the dinner table with grandparents present"? It's just anatomy. All the comments about it being inappropriate for Padma to show cleavage have the underlying sentiment of breasts being inherently dirty, bad, something not meant to be viewed by certain people. It calls to mind the way that we (Americans) are so uptight about nudity in general and think it's the end of the world if a woman's breast were to be exposed on live TV (like the Janet Jackson superbowl controversy years ago). It's silly. Just my opinion.

From the article linked above, I learned that the dog was named "Prints" not Prince. Reading that about Madson's devotion to the dog makes me even more sad about the whole thing!

Thank you for that! Really interesting. Harrison Weir is now one of my heroes. :)

But WHY is Carrie "shovelface"? I don't get it. I don't think Carrie made up the term "fancy toast" - didn't she say it's on a lot of menus in the area? Besides, it must have tasted good if it won the quickfire, and that's what matters. We don't get to taste it, so we have to assume the judges had reasons to deem it the winner. I'm not rooting for anyone in particular, but I don't see why Carrie in particular would inspire such hatred. *shrug*

On the Wikipedia page about all of Victoria/Albert's pets, there are many dogs, ponies, a couple birds and even a donkey ... but no cats! As a cat lover, I find this unacceptable! ;-) Did Victorian era people not like cats? (I know cats have been kept as pets in some cultures back to ancient times, but maybe not English high society?)

And didn't Tanya complain about it being "old school" to know how to do the specific knife skills in the Olympics episode? I don't have any sympathy for either Claudette or Tanya being eliminated after these kind of comments. Having knife skills, technical knowledge and a sense of responsibility/pride in one's work should never be dismissed as "old school." Having improvisational skill is also great, but should be in addition to the foundations, not a replacement, IMO.