lampwick

Do people really think that allowing Gabe to win Top Chef because he cooked the best food = Bravo endorses sexual harassment? How does one make this quantum leap? I understand this is bad pr, but are people really incapable of understanding that this is a cooking competition and not a competition to see who has the best character? Assuming the most cynical view of reality tv - that this is all for entertainment and promotion - well, even that then requires us to throw out any integrity of the winner of who cooked the best food in the first place. Top chef is about cooking, not character. What am I missing here? He got fired for what he did at his last job. Assuming the rumors are true, the woman can pursue legal action against him. Why is it up to Bravo to inflict further disciplinary action against Gabe for something he did somewhere else that he didn’t do on Top Chef? How does any of that have to do with whether or not his food warrants winning Top Chef? If I learned that he violated the rules of Top Chef or that he was poisoning his food at his restaurant and that’s why he got fired, then we have something because that is relevant to competing to make good food, and arguably winning Top Chef will make people want to eat his food - but sexual harassment? Say what now? So Gabe can’t work anywhere else? When is he allowed to perform his craft for money again? No second chances? His food is no good now? Can someone explain this to me? I’m seriously confused.

Olivia’s resemblance to Anna Nicole Smith is uncanny. Not just her facial features, but also her expressions. She’s got that mischievous giant smile like she has a secret. After her lip synch, her hair was so disheveled, and I was waiting for her to slur, “Do you like my body?”

There is no way he would’ve gone to the reunion. That didn’t jive with the trauma he still felt. Going to the reunion and having people other than his inner circle give him side looks because the last thing they remember about him was the scandal? No way. I can see going back to your home town to meet with your old friends privately knowing they are in town for the reunion, but not actually attending the reunion. If someone is still traumatized why would they subject themselves to the painful reminder? Was it a test to see if no one actually remembered then maybe it would help him get past what happened? Like some confirmation that there exists no lingering stigma, that the scandal doesn’t define him? Why take the risk?

Anyone giggle when Spin Doctors start playing and Judy said that Tess probably never heard that song before? I think I’ve heard that song in every bar I’ve been to at some point - not really a dance song, but still. Funny how sheltered they think these girls are.

Just to add in case it wasn’t already mentioned - I think that Ken was recording the conversation with Logan because the camera zoomed in on Ken’s sunglasses - the metal arms- when he was on the treadmill and then zoomed in on his hands holding the glasses when Logan said that Ken would admit that he knew about the cover up. Of course that conversation includes the boy’s death, but maybe Ken is ready to come to terms with that...

Triumph, indeed! This was the first time I had ever seen the show, and I decided to start with this season, so I had no idea what to expect. I settled in and watched the entire season in one sitting - and I couldn’t stop smiling the whole time. This show lives up to the hype and I am now watching the previous season. I enjoyed all of the contestants because of their sheer passion for their craft - this show is really unique in that these people aren’t competing “to eat” if you will; they have real jobs outside of baking and competing is truly for the love of the game. The first extraordinary thing of note (because I didn’t notice until ep. 2) was the show’s failure to mention anything about Briony’s hand. This is truly revolutionary - at least in the realm of American tv. American producers would find it akin to blasphemy to not even mention it, let alone exploit it. The fact that it wasn’t mentioned the entire season makes me stand up and applaud. Briony brought it, and the show focused on her skill. No sob stories influencing judging/audience. Sure, there was some sad exposition, but not until after they were eliminated. I cried several times watching - sometimes from sadness, sometimes from joy. Everything was sincere and heartfelt. This was the escape I was looking for - I was totally immersed and cared about these bakers! I immediately adored Kim-Joy’s designs and creativity, but found good reasons to have any of these bakers as someone to root for - even Rahul. Although he Eeyore’d his way through the competition (my favorite line was when he said he was “dooming” - I assume he meant cultivating and manifesting doom and gloom into a reality - e.g., “something bad always happens after something good”), I can’t recall him actively burdening the other bakers with his negativity. He was always responding to questions from Noel, or provocation from others. The bakers and judges would tell him to be happy, smile, accept compliments, etc., and when he didn’t give people what they asked, the viewers seem to be bothered by this. If others are bothered by his “dooming” they shouldn’t engage. It is difficult when you’re in a pressure cooker like that, but Rahul’s demeanor absolutely seemed sincere the whole time. I didn’t see him break character - and in all of his past pictures, he didn’t smile - not once. It’s definitely frustrating to see someone not only excelling, but being the best, and acting like someone ran over their dog - but the reality was that whether he made it happen or he always knew he was one step away from losing because of his life experiences - disaster did befall him in the later episodes. He totally lost the plot and was pretty fortunate to get to the finale. I suppose this is a fancy way of saying that I don’t think he was acting that way to get sympathy - not even subconsciously. It did bother me when I read here that he continued fussing after the time limit, but I read in these posts that there is no “hands up utensils down” enforcement going on, so maybe it wasn’t so egregious? I didn’t see that moment while watching the show, but if it had, it may have changed my opinion of him, or the judges, because I then would have watched more closely to see how the other bakers were responding to him - if they thought he was breaking the rules, etc. He definitely handled the breaking glass like a pro and didn’t seem to freak out like most people would be expected to. Probably because he only stresses about things that are under this control - and that didn’t seem to be. Most impressive was his call to safety by saying get rid of everything, even though that was the worst possible scenario for his success. No hand wringing or bemoaning how it’s not fair. In fact, his attitude was consistent with someone that is used to bad things always happening to them, so just business as usual. (I can relate to this as Murphy hates me and is never satisfied.) Love the show, can’t wait to see all the seasons, and I love learning new things and watching people excel at their craft. I know absolutely nothing about baking and cook food using only a microwave, but it has no affect on my enjoyment of this show. As everyone here already knows, there is a shortage of feel good tv, and after hours of watching true crime reenactments, true crime documentaries, then simply true crime on the news, shows like this are necessary and I hope that it will stay true to its roots and be around for many years to come!

Yeah, I think it’s more of a fatherly thing. He’s always saying awkward things to contestants - if it’s true that she had such anxiety leading to a paralysis of sorts, he was probably overcompensating for her. Did I hear that correctly at the very end of his comments to her “I’ll be a part of your life” or did he say “it’ll (the show) be a part of your life”? That was like woah. Maybe he will, who knows.

All I kept thinking about after Adam said that about his daughters was Serena Williams at the US Open using the I have a daughter line while arguing with the ref. The tennis message boards were filled for days about that - anything that anyone said, the response would be, “but do you have a daughter?” Funny stuff.

The question itself was extremely odd - “are you familiar with the me too movement?” it actually presumes that there is a chance she might not be. It makes more sense for the question to be “what are your thoughts on the me too movement.” I don’t know the context though...She might have shown her ignorance earlier in the conversation, which prompted the “familiar with” question. Cringeworthy nonetheless

Great, thorough recap. Sadly, it seems that no one is here to read it? I appreciate your efforts!

It looks like their eyes are heavy...like the false eyelashes are weighing their eyes down, which would explain why some girls have that wide eyed look - to overcompensate for the heavy eyelashes. That’s what it looks like to me - it also may explain why some of them have one wonky eye.

That was so unfortunate that she didn’t say that it takes her a minute to get the routines, rather than she has memory issues - memory issues so severe that she was the only girl benched in the Flight Crew’s history, and no follow up to say how she has developed techniques to resolve that issue. By admitting to severe memory issues, K & J are left with the thought that even if she does get the routines, there is an ongoing risk that she will forget them. Oh Malena. That’s rough. I just don’t see how they can take that risk unless she absolutely kills it from here on out without a single misstep. I don’t think Morgan should have ever made the team for the same reasons. It was a nailbitter watching Morgan on the show knowing she was going to screw up, you just didn’t know when... although I can’t remember exactly if Morgan never made a mistake on the field while on the team, so maybe there’s hope.

The funny part was that Anton was the contradiction - saying he understood what they wanted and then gave it to them.... but isn’t he seeking authenticity? I thought he didn’t want to be around fake people and didn’t want to have to champion a cause (Malcolm X napkins). When is he going to start being authentic himself? Sad, that he is so programmed to give people what they want.... he’s cognizant of it now and does it intentionally, but you do that long enough, and you lose your identity all together to the point where you don’t even know who you are. Strange that Noah allowed the Prof to think he was a total psychopath about casually checking out the university when his wife just died. In fact, he seemed taken aback at her question why he was there. Cold. He didn’t even bother to explain that they were separated.... or were they divorced? I can’t remember.... but he didn’t feel the need to explain why he was so nonchalant about the whole thing - which made Anton’s sociopath description so perfect. One more thing - how do we know for sure that she was murdered again? Is it because the previously part for episode 10 only referenced that version? So that’s the correct version - all of it? If so, forget the murder, the most disturbing revelation for me is Alison admitting in that point of view that she didn’t take Gabriel to the hospital because she was mad at Cole - even though he was vomiting and had diarrhea. (Before that episode, didn’t we think Gabriel seemed okay and that when they woke up he had died with no warning? Am I misremembering here?!L) No wonder she never forgave herself. Apparently she needed to defy Cole and that was more important than Gabriel’s well being. Both of them know that Cole thought Gabriel should go to the hospital and she shut him down. Of course Cole could have taken him to the hospital when he asked her to and she said no, but Cole was relying on her nursing expertise. She said herself she thought she knew better because she was a nurse. Her guilt explains why she always thought she bore the brunt of the grief. The drowning happened on his watch, but arguably the death happened on hers. What a horrific situation to live with in addition to losing your child. I shudder.

I’ll take a shot at this - let’s say you write a paper and the teacher says “you didn’t explain x” and you say, “yes I did- look at this paragragh, it’s right there” and the teacher says “that’s not what this says; this says y”. Your intent was different from what the reader understood. Sure, you can say the teacher is wrong, but the intent of the writer can be unsuccessful. When that happens, it’s the reader’s perception that becomes the reality of the writing. Another example is when you have muddy dialog or actors who fail to emote properly. When that happens, the screenwriter’s or director’s “right answer” doesn’t hold water because that is not what was conveyed. More specifically, let’s say an actor in a movie is slightly smirking while crying? If most of the viewers believe the grief is disingenuous, does that mean true grief was still the “right answer” because the director says so? Quite often the intent of the writers and/or directors fails because the acting and/or the dialog is unclear - which is why it’s instructive what the writers and directors intended when trying to figure something out, but it might be in conflict with what was actually shown to the viewers- in which case, their intent is irrelevant. Show me, don’t tell me ;)

Haven’t read through the thread yet...so it’s probably already answered but I’m pretty sure the right answer to this question is that personal agendas have no place when you’re in uniform and on the clock - and even if you’re not in uniform, depending on the contract language you may still be on the clock figuratively on your own time because you still represent the Cowboys, and so doing anything that could potentially hurt the organization would be a no no. Pro athletes have it pretty rough in that regard.