hkalex

Well here we go again... Observations: The sad farewell (or whatever it was) will probably just be to one of the dishes on the menu or something. Jen is as annoying now as she was the first time around and because of that she'll last much longer than she deserves. I like Ariel, Kevin and T (I rooted for T in her first season so I'm hoping she's as competent here). I dislike Bret (iirc he was someone who took everything a wee bit too seriously the first time around), Jen, Neutral on everyone else (I don't know if my concentration was down or something but I'm struggling to tell the new chefs apart yet, maybe because we haven't actually seen them in dinner service yet?) So far I'm Kevin to win this series to put an end to the female winning streak(?) Trev, Roe (I didn't watch either of their seasons but I don't presume they'll be outstanding) and most of the Rookies I don't expect to last long and will probably be gone in the first few weeks.

"I can do this" is Hell's Kitchen code for "let's see how quickly I can fuck this up". I'm going an edgic chart for this season (research it if you don't know what this is) and I think Heather could go far. Even though the women had a strong opening night, I think a man will win this season. The men haven't been successful since season 12. Last season, I initially pegged Hassan, Dannie and Jared to do well...look how well that worked out. I'm pegging Heather, Ryan and Johnny. Executive chefs, emotional backstories and quietly competent chefs are usually the best ones I think. I've split them into three categories: The ones who could go far (Johnny, Ryan, Heather) The ones who won't (Jessica, Matt, Kimberly) And the ones who could go either way (pretty much up the rest of them)

Most chefs probably wouldn't appear on HK - S4's Christina's parents advised her against it before she appeared on the show. It doesn't really hold a good reputation. I imagine arguments between the contestants can sometimes be as a result of one of them being an experienced chef and the other being a plant. Interestingly, Bonnie the plant seems to have distanced herself from the show as much as possible. If you check her Twitter, she seems pretty sour about it. I read somewhere that they have to be seen by a psychiatrist or something, but I've also read that "on most occasion", GR sits down with them to offer words of encouragement. It's also somewhat concerning to hear that three contestants have died after appearing on the show - Rachel, Keith and Aaron. From what I've seen about the show, it's like putting rats in a cage purely to see which one survives above the rest.

Thanks for replies. Bonnie, in that sense, was definitely a plant in that she only really had about one good service and it was obvious she was being pegged as "just the nanny" weeks before she reached the final. I get the feeling that Vanessa and Kevin from the latest season were plants too, and that some actual chefs got knocked out early because they weren't interesting enough. Paula from S5 was probably planned to be axed early, but she never really messed up. Something else I've noticed is that a lot of contestants have bashed the show after appearing on it. Jen from S3 (one of my favourite contestants) said that Ramsay wore an earpiece from which he was fed one-liners, and believe it or not, that she was "locked" in a hotel room for a few days. She claimed that someone else actually said in a VT that the show was rigged before he was axed. She also claimed - and if this was true, I really do feel sorry for her - that the stress of the show stopped her from getting her period for six weeks after the show was filmed, and that she had received so little support from the show that she became depressed. I've read somewhere that Ji openly stated the show was designed to make chefs look bad; the sous chefs turning down oven temperatures and such. Tek from S6 similarly claimed things - salt was replaced with sugar, etc. She also alleged that there were so few toilets and showers among them that it was designed to brew tension. Hell's Kitchen isn't really a food program. It's a drama disguised as a food program. Plants like Bonnie and Jackie are always going to crop up.

On an unrelated note, which contestants do you think were "plants"? I've heard a lot of talk about Bonnie being a "plant" but I'm not too sure. Also can someone explain what is exactly meant by a "plant"? I thought it was someone handpicked by the producers specifically for the show but if someone can define it better, that's be helpful.

Thanks for letting me know:) I think a man will win this season. Not because I believe men are better or any of that crap, just by the laws of probability, and because the network won't want to handle claims of sexism for women winning four seasons in a row. The female team will unravel because of personality clashes whilst the men will fall apart over a power struggle - happens every time. Could be a man vs. woman final, though.

I remember you said this a while ago, I have a few questions: Have they changed the signature dish format? It seems to change every five seasons - Season 1-5 judged on no scale, season 6-10 get one point for a good dish, season 11-15 in front of live studio audience and scale of 1-5. Are teams still men vs women? How many chefs?

Here's the perfect strategy: Say you have limited experience (even if you don't) or that you're relatively new to cooking so you'll get sympathy and you're more likely to go far. People with "limited experience" have done well - Christina S4, Julia S3, Michelle S14. Smoke. Smoke when you win service. Smoke when you lose service. Smoke in the middle of service. Smoke when Ramsay spends fifteen minutes sending someone home. Smoke when giving VT's to the camera. The moment you stop smoking, you lose. Don't be a bitch. Even if you're a good cook, bitches never win. Don't be too nice either, though. You have to strike the balance. Always take responsibility for your mistakes. If you pass the buck, Ramsay passes you on. Always say your challenge dish was inspired by your great-grandmother's death or some bullcrap. When in the semi-final acting as a "leader", assume everything is a mistake. It usually is. Win over your team. Or at least most of them. They're the ones who'll be deciding your fate, ultimately, so they'll be more likely to vouch for you. Or: Be the biggest bitch possible for a number of weeks (to get views) before suddenly turning into a sweetheart with the best cooking skills in the country.

They just have too many, presumably to extend the runtime. I miss back in season two, when they only had twelve contestants, and neglected all those stupid intro sequences. Oh yeah, and sometimes there's a "pumped-up" black guy (Sterling, Bobby, etc.)

I forgot to mention there's always a hot girl, there's usually an Asian, someone from an ethnic minority, and the rest are usually just plants/fodder. I would've thought it's because it sort of fits the "perfect" balance for viewers. It's PC enough because it has diversity, it's easy to remember the individual characters based on looks (because if they all looked as average as Meese, you'd never remember them all) and it provides enough drama. But as you said; it's a TV show for entertainment, not for actual chefs. At the end of the day, you'll support the "chef" you like the most, regardless of whether their dish was crap.

It seems to me that the producers keep recycling the same format of contestants, presumably for the drama. For example, they always have: A heavyset and/or obnoxious black woman (sometimes, two) An overweight man A young mother doing stuff "for her children" A contestant with presumably very little experience who ends up outshining most other people (usually female) The tough-as-nails lesbian who doesn't take "no" for an answer One contestant drastically older than everyone else The "everyone-loves-to-hate" sexist Can anyone think of anymore, or at least why they keep recycling these kinds of contestants?

But it would justify why she returned when Ariel was announced winner. If she'd walked out mid-service, I would've thought she'd have just gone and refused to come back, but she didn't.

Heather will always be my winner. She was better in the first two episodes than most winners were in the entire course of the season. She very rarely made mistakes and when she did, she always bounced back from them. Became the red team sous chef in season six and was really nice to contestants too. I liked Julia also, though. I feel like the "waffle house cook" was being set up to win throughout the season, and when she messed up, it was something very minor (e.g - bringing up the wrong garnish when she had cooked the right one, she just got confused). More deserving of being in the final than Bonnie, no idea how she got there when she was about as consistent as Ramsay's hair.

I've been binge watching the old seasons, and I've come up with ten of my favourite chefs of all time. I'd like to know yours. Heather, Season Two (Winner) Julia, Season Three (4th place) Paula, Season Five (Runner-Up - should've won, though) Dave, Season Six (Winner) T, Season Fourteen (Runner-Up) Jen, Season Three (3rd place) Kristen, Season Fifteen (Runner-Up - as with Paula, should've won though. Had a crap final brigade.) Corey, Season Four (3rd place - I know she wasn't exactly liked by everyone, but you can't say she was a bad chef. Just a bitch at times.) Ji, Season Five (Withdrew - before claiming the show was fixed) Tennille, Season Six (4th place - some with Corey I guess) Wow, Dave's the only guy. It's probably worth noting I've only seen clips of seasons 7-13, and episode 1 of season 1, so while chefs like Sterling could've ended up on the list, I haven't seen much.

I know it probably doesn't matter anymore, but remember Dannie's walkout? She took to Twitter to claim this happened after service was already over, when they were cleaning up or whatever. I thought she was bullshitting, but Ariel backed her up on this. Make of that what you will.

Does it seem to be to anyone else that Ramsay usually picks a chef who excels in challenges and one who excels in service? Examples (challenge vs service): Virginia vs Heather Christina vs Petrozza Kristin vs Ariel Maybe season 14 was something of an exception, because neither Meghan nor T really did very well in challenges - Meghan almost won a few of them and T was either really good or really bad.

I have to agree to this. The contestants are just copy and paste versions. After rewatching season 4, I've noticed thatJennifer season 13 was Corey season 4. Sterling season 13 was Bobby season 4. Sherkenna season 15 was Jen season 4. The menu has changed, albeit very little. The season 4 risotto looks way different to the season 15 risotto. In the older seasons, they also seemed to focus on desserts a bit more, and though I believe they still do them, I don't think they make good TV anymore. They should, in some ways, keep it to the old format. Don't dramatise the signature dishes, don't have too many contestants, etc. But they need to revamp it. Cut the red team, women, blue team, men format - it was only inclued for some contestants to be labelled as sexist. Have NEW challenges - don't just cycle around the old ones . There's a setlist, I believe - the mass-produce vote challenge (school, i.e) the "judge" challenge (Andi's wedding, i.e) the "one person in the kitchen at any one time" challenge the collect ingredients and cook with them challenge the "taste it now make it" challenge the "blind taste test" challenge the "here's a protein, cook with it" challenge the "make a specific dish in pairs we're never going to cook with" challenge the "grocery store" challenge. I can safely say that if you watch any season of the show, you will see at least six of these challenges.

The only reason I like to watch Hell's Kitchen is because I take a shot every time I heart Ramsay say "It's fucking RAW" or something to that effect.

I think you've made a few fair points, actually. I think I was defaulting to the "old seasons are better" tactic that I tend to do with most shows. I'll hold my hands up and admit I've only seen parts of season ten, so I think Christina was a good winner, but I think that she (and probably Meghan and T) are the only really talented chefs we've had for a long time You said season ten is hardly "early days" and then described it as "not THAT new". I think that after season 7 or 8 the show enters it's "new" period and starts to go downhill for me. They've got too many contestants now so it's hard to actually get to know some of them (like Sherkenna and Meese). I presume it depends on how many episodes they want to make. I think some of the drama did start in the early seasons with Ramsay. Hell, Virginia was kept in so long she almost won. I think the problem I'm having is that the first few seasons actually seemed new and interesting to watch, and I didn't give up halfway through, whereas now, they drag it out for so long they have to keep thing interesting.

It has. Next season, it'll get to the point where they play Russian Roulette for the ingredients or something stupid like that.

That would be me...:D

I think Dannie walked out not because she wanted to sabotage Ariel, but because she was annoyed that she had to come back and work and she felt like she was getting yelled at for helping - even if it was completely the wrong thing to do. Lots of contestants this year actually reminded me of past contestants, like Sherkenna and Eddie remind me of Jen and Ben from season four respectively.

Second year in a row in which my favourite has come runner up… I really wanted Kristin to win from fairly early on, and I still think she deserved to, but I will admit that Ariel had much better control at the pass. She was loud and dominant, and even when Dannie walked out, she used that to her advantage. But did anyone else think that Kristin seemed on the verge of tears at one point? She looked as if she was about to just break down, and maybe that’s why she didn’t win. She wasn’t ready to take control, even if she was the better chef. Plus, her team screwed her on pretty much every given occasion. At least Jackie actually wanted to work with Ariel, it didn’t seem like Ashley or Frank did. I think it was in two halves - Kristin was the better individual cook. She excelled in challenges and was good when running the pass. But Ariel was the better line cook. She was stronger in service, overall, and even though she was overbearing, I think Ramsay liked that about her. Overall, Kristin's the kind of chef who would run service herself, and would take over from her team if they messed up, though Ariel's the kind of chef who can make her team better if they mess up. They're on par with cooking ability, though Ariel's a natural leader, and that's what Ramsay saw in her. I predicted team choices last week and they were surprisingly accurate. I got three out of four right on each team and predicted Dannie would walk out. Strange, huh? Did anyone else find the team choices a little strange, though? Like how Ariel picked Jackie first? I mean, I know Jared and Dannie were going downhill towards the end, but Jackie was in reverse from the beginning. Maybe it's because she was being smart, and she knew Jackie was going to be picked last otherwise and would probably be mopey if she was, so she at least made sure to get her early to get her on her side. And Ashley obviously held a grudge against Kristin, which felt a little immature. This season was more interesting than the last one, mostly because we didn’t all know who the winner was from episode one. Kristin had more of a “slowly progressing” edit, which made me erroneously believe she’d win, though Ariel was consistent, even if I don’t really like her personality. Oh, and I know this is unrelated, but I have a strong suspicion that Frank is voting Trump. Apologies for the long post, guys. I'm just a little heartbroken that Kristin lost :(

After rewatching old seasons, I've noticed it to be very different to the current ones. Here's a few reasons why: Actually talented chefs. Heather was amazing, Michael was amazing, etc. It seems the talent pool is running dry because most the only people who can apply anymore are a) people who just met the age limit, b) people who just moved to America, or c) people who "finally" feel ready to take part or d) people who have failed to get onto the show before. Ramsay's softened up. He gives a lot more praise in the signature dish challenges than he used to. He never used to let chefs keep their jackets in earlier seasons (with the exception of Ji, though she really did deserve it) and even his ending monologues about contestants have been much nicer. It's too overdramatic now. From the signature dishes, there's a large crowd and press opening. The "next time" sequences often refer to something very unrelated to the episode's actual goings-on. Too many contestants, designed for more episodes and more "shock" eliminations. Ramsay makes up his mind early on who's in the final and eliminates everyone else before, spicing it up by eliminating some good people before obviously bad ones. Anyone else have any thoughts on this or any other reasons? I'd love to know what other people think.

Thank God, someone agrees. I've been rewatching old series recently and noticed that SC Scott acted a similar way. He said things like "She really needs to watch her **** or else I'm gonna smack the **** out of her" - to Christina M, who ended up winning, and "go **** yourself you stupid ****" - to Andrea, third place. On Hell's Kitchen, it seems a sous chef's job in this isn't necessarily to be a good chef. It's to be harsh for no reason make everyone else feel like shit. Chrisitna seems to be really abusing her position of authority (remember when she sent Ariel and Kristin into the storeroom? Andi never would have done that. She would have berated them and have them continue). I don't think either Kristin or Ariel are the strongest finalists we've ever seen. I really like Kristin, but she's a much weaker chef than, say, Meghan from last season. It's a shame T wasn't on this season because she would've won by a mile. She just happened to go up against the strongest competitor for a good few seasons.