S14.E07: Booty

[Nordly Beaumont]

1 hour ago, awaken said:

Have we ever seen Emily smile?

Yep, several times this episode alone. I mean, she's unpleasant for sure. But I'm just not seeing this horrible monster she's supposed to be.

I liked that the yellow team served dishes with pirate names and tied them to the pirate theme (Treasure Egg, Crewman Stew, Captain's Filet). They were really into it and I'm glad they won.

I love how Katsuji never just says "Thank you" - it's always "Thank you. Thank you thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you."

Casey talked about how she smelled the scallops over and over - why didn't she taste one? Did she only have exactly enough? 

[GreyBunny]

It was really stupid for Jamie to give up immunity, he had every right to use it no matter how crappy his dish was.  It's up to the other contestants to make the not-worst dish among those without immunity. Even in a team challenge he's not responsible for their individual performances or how the judges will judge them.  If one of his teammates wins the whole thing, they're not going to remember what a noble little martyr Jamie was and share any of the prizes with him so there's no point in giving it up.  What a dumbass.

Edited January 15, 2017 by GreyBunny

[Spunkygal]

4 minutes ago, GreyBunny said:

It was really stupid for Jamie to give up immunity, he had every right to use it no matter how crappy his dish was.  It's up to the other contestants to make the not-worst dish among those without immunity. Even in a team challenge he's not responsible for their individual performances or how the judges will judge them.  If one of his teammates wins the whole thing, they're not going to remember what a noble little martyr Jamie was and share any of the prizes with him so there's no point in giving it up.  What a dumbass.

I so agree. Jamie is not going down in the Top Chef history book as noble for realizing his dish sucked donkey balls and giving up immunity. If you have immunity and want to be nice and use the crappy ingredients (or not execute properly), fine. But that's no reason to fall on your sword. Very often the chef who has immunity has stunk it up in the elimination challenge. That's ok.

[GreyBunny]

On 1/13/2017 at 8:57 AM, HunterHunted said:

This goes to one of the perennial questions on Ink Master and Cutthroat Kitchen. Do you want to win by beating all of the strongest contestants or do want to set it up to make it easier on you?

I'd set it up to be easier on me because if I win, I still beat out the strongest contestants.  It's like the mistake Colby made in the 2nd season of Survivor - near the end of the season with only three left, he voted out the unlikable guy and kept Tina, the better liked contestant, because he wanted to beat the "best of the best" in the final tribal council.  Well, Tina won and Colby lost.  Had he sent her home in 3rd place, he still would have beaten the "best of the best" and won the game entirely.   

So when someone says "do you want to win by beating the strongest contestants or by making it easy on yourself," I see it as a pointless question and a head game move by the asker.  Fuck them.  Winning is winning.

[Court]

Casey had immunity a couple weeks ago and made the worst dish. During the judging, they said she would have gone home had it not been for immunity. 

She didn't consider giving it up and no one suggested it. Because that is exactly what immunity is for to save you even when you screw up.

[HunterHunted]

On 1/14/2017 at 7:58 AM, DHDancer said:

Jaime was totally responsible for screwing up what should have been a simple dish: prepared well, chicken satay is delicious.  He could have fixed the grill problem if he tried but I also remember the judges commenting on the flavor (marinade/satay sauce) being strange and I think that was really the issue.   And frankly he didn't have to make chicken satay.  Heaven forbid chicken is a blank canvas, ripe for innovation (they had plenty of truffles, remember).  Yes the peanut butter was potentially a challenge, but it wasn't an impossibility to produce a decent sauce or coating.

I am truly sorry to see Jim gone: he was such a highlight being a good cook and a nice guy.  He reminded me of Gary who won the Masterchef UK professionals this season (sorry, spoiler if you intend to watch it).

Jaime could have made a modified mole. Mole often has almonds in it. Also some African sauces use peanuts too. It also goes pretty well with sweet potatoes.

I liked Jim too

Spoiler

but his LCK performance suggests that he probably got eliminated roughly when he was supposed to. 

[CrinkleCutCat]

1 hour ago, Nordly Beaumont said:

Yep, several times this episode alone. I mean, she's unpleasant for sure. But I'm just not seeing this horrible monster she's supposed to be.

I liked that the yellow team served dishes with pirate names and tied them to the pirate theme (Treasure Egg, Crewman Stew, Captain's Filet). They were really into it and I'm glad they won.

I love how Katsuji never just says "Thank you" - it's always "Thank you. Thank you thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you."

Casey talked about how she smelled the scallops over and over - why didn't she taste one? Did she only have exactly enough? 

Oh, I was being tongue in cheek about Emily never smiling!! I don't think anyone thinks she is a monster, just that her demeanor could do with some improvement. Maybe her nerves get the better of her? 

Im wondering why Casey smelt them over and over? Because she wasn't convinced they were ok.... in which case, no wonder she didn't eat one! If the judges and guests ended up with upset stomachs that would be way after judging....

Ugh, I'm making myself feel sick just thinking about not quite right scallops.

Edited January 15, 2017 by CrinkleCutCat

[RealReality]

 Raw, fishy tasting scallops would have negated anything else her team did for me.

It really sounds like the worst

[DarkRaichu]

7 hours ago, wings707 said:

No one.   His dish was terrible and he knew that even before his team lost.  John and Katsuji said that they would not have done that.  I wouldn't have either.  In the end, it is a game and aim to win no matter what.  

Yeah chicken satay is incredibly easy to make.  It is something a person with below average cooking skills like me can make well.  I could see how a chef like Jamie would feel ashamed for serving bad chicken satay

Edited January 15, 2017 by DarkRaichu

[DarkRaichu]

19 minutes ago, CrinkleCutCat said:

Ugh, I'm making myself feel sick just thinking about not quite right scallops.

Yes. Which makes me want to taste Katsuji's dish.  It must have been really damn good for it to save not so fresh sea food and whatever Brooke made.

[Canada]

I really think Casey should have gone home.  Both non-winning teams seemed equally bad; each had one good dish (Katsuji and John) and two crappy ones.  I think the show just wanted some extra drama, so they picked the team they did and sent Jamie home.  Jamie screwed himself the moment he said that he would go home.  You know the producers nearly wet themselves with glee when he said that.  Instant drama and they didn't even have to do anything to get it!

[Lura]

I really thought that Casey would go home, and I was so sorry to see Jamie leave.   He has the kind of personality that people seem to gravitate to.  He's not threatening, gets along with others well and in general, seems to have a great outlook on things.  I do like Casey and would have hated to see her leave.  Incidentally, on a special show a couple of years ago, Casey was shown with her mother, who is very ill and bedridden.  Whenever Casey gets time off from work, she goes back to her hometown and takes care of her mom so her dad can get some rest.  It's very sad, although Casey wasn't seeking pity.

The "most changed" person in my mind is Brooke.  I liked her on the Alaska show, but there's an undercurrent of an ego this time around.  She's young, attractive and successful, so maybe the ego is logical, but I question that.  Others, equally successful, still seem to remain as humble as they were at the start.

John is a big surprise to me.  He's so NICE!  Who would have thought it? I'm glad he got the help he needed.    

I can't wait for Restaurant Wars (next week)!  That's when we REALLY get to see what they're made of. 

[susannot]

Late to the party.  What everyone else said.  I loved the team of Sheldon/Shirley/Sylva.  Sylva's soup looked divine.  I love anything with an egg in it, or on it.

I'm back to not liking Casey.  She has an arrogance that makes it impossible for her to admit mistakes. She had to have known the scallops were off if she kept sniffing them.

I don't understand why Jamie's chicken satay was so bad.  As someone else said, it's a simple dish.  At one point Jamie said "someone turned the grill off."  Why wasn't he there watching the grill?  If I were cooking on a TV cooking competition I would be paying attention every second to my dish, my ingredients, my equipment, etc. How could someone have turned the grill off without Jamie noticing?  I presume he then baked the chicken and it was rubbery or tough, although the judges never said why, exactly, his dish was so bad.  To me, a lobster chowder with raw, uncooked flour thrown in sounded way worse.

[bravofan27]

On 1/13/2017 at 8:15 PM, sourpickles said:

As for Jamie, I admire his integrity, but he should have played the game.  Maybe he got tired of it all.

Jamie should have played the game. That's why he is there. The point of immunity is to be saved from being sent home. To give up immunity when you are about to be sent home misses the entire point. Immunity is worth nothing if the chef's dish isn't the worst and that is the insurance it gives. It's like paying for insurance but then feeling bad when you need to use it. Why have it then? He was an idiot OR he was tired of the game and wanted to leave. Whatever the case, he didn't think that out too much. 

[theatremouse]

On 1/14/2017 at 7:19 PM, CrinkleCutCat said:

Im wondering why Casey smelt them over and over? Because she wasn't convinced they were ok.... in which case, no wonder she didn't eat one! If the judges and guests ended up with upset stomachs that would be way after judging....

I didn't take the "over and over" comment as indication that there was reason to question their quality. I saw her as being defensive to the implication "why wouldn't you check them before deciding on that preparation" so she's overly insisting she did check them, not just in a general on the whole sense, or a "checked the first one or two and decided the whole batch was fine". She's trying to establish her own dilligence, that she didn't make an idiotic/dangerous mistake, but that she personally checked each and every one she used. She's not making herself look any better with this insistence, but that's how I read it. They were saying "you should know better" and she was insisting that she does.

Edited January 19, 2017 by theatremouse

[dleighg]

1 minute ago, theatremouse said:

but that she personally checked each and every one she used.

yeah that's how I interpreted it. I mean, if you have to smell something 10 times, you know it's not right. I hope no one thinks Casey is that much of an idiot.

[chiaros]

12 hours ago, Lura said:

The "most changed" person in my mind is Brooke.  I liked her on the Alaska show, but there's an undercurrent of an ego this time around.  She's young, attractive and successful, so maybe the ego is logical, but I question that.  Others, equally successful, still seem to remain as humble as they were at the start.

John is a big surprise to me.  He's so NICE!  Who would have thought it? I'm glad he got the help he needed.    

For myself, Brooke grated badly increasingly on me in her 1st season. Superior Attitude, Condescension, etc. In fact, to me she seems less objectionable this time around as compared to how she seemed to me especially towards the end in her first season.

John indeed has mellowed, or at least what he shows to the public.

[snarktini]

Sounds like Casey's scallops weren't "spoiled" as much as "not good enough to be served raw". They implied if she'd have cooked them they'd have been okay. Most seafood isn't sushi-grade, only the best of the best should be served raw, and a Top Chef should know better. One judge said something like they're only fresh enough if they're still moving, which seems to be a pretty high standard! (Personally I love sashimi and crudo and carpaccio and all that, although don't care for the texture of raw scallops. ) 

But if they were that unpleasant raw, they can't have been that good, period. What would have happened if a chef felt the required ingredient, provided by the show, was not good enough? What options did Casey have, and what would they have done? Could they have substituted in time?

[Jobiska]

On 1/14/2017 at 4:25 PM, Randomosity said:

But we did know - it had just showed another team finding the chest at the top of the big stairs. Then it showed the red team not seeing it from the base of the stairs. Then it showed them running circles around that building because they knew they were close to the point on the map.

I'm too slow to stitch together which sites were which from only quick partial views of them, all gray in the rain.  Yeah, I know at least one site had steps they had to run up (and that it was tough on Sheldon), but wasn't sure if the side view was still that site or not.  I mean maybe if they were running around Philly and I knew at least some of the landmarks I would know.  What can I say, I've grown too reliant on the Amazing Camerafolk doing that work for me on TAR.  

[Giselle]

26 minutes ago, snarktini said:

Sounds like Casey's scallops weren't "spoiled" as much as "not good enough to be served raw". They implied if she'd have cooked them they'd have been okay. Most seafood isn't sushi-grade, only the best of the best should be served raw, and a Top Chef should know better. One judge said something like they're only fresh enough if they're still moving, which seems to be a pretty high standard! (Personally I love sashimi and crudo and carpaccio and all that, although don't care for the texture of raw scallops. ) 

But if they were that unpleasant raw, they can't have been that good, period. What would have happened if a chef felt the required ingredient, provided by the show, was not good enough? What options did Casey have, and what would they have done? Could they have substituted in time?

Boyfriend has that same standard when it comes to uni. He likes to see it moving when they bring it out and generally won't eat it outside of Nobu.

[rho]

32 minutes ago, snarktini said:

Sounds like Casey's scallops weren't "spoiled" as much as "not good enough to be served raw". They implied if she'd have cooked them they'd have been okay. Most seafood isn't sushi-grade, only the best of the best should be served raw, and a Top Chef should know better. One judge said something like they're only fresh enough if they're still moving, which seems to be a pretty high standard! (Personally I love sashimi and crudo and carpaccio and all that, although don't care for the texture of raw scallops. ) 

But if they were that unpleasant raw, they can't have been that good, period. What would have happened if a chef felt the required ingredient, provided by the show, was not good enough? What options did Casey have, and what would they have done? Could they have substituted in time?

I may be putting words in his mouth, but I think he means if she wanted to serve them raw, she should have been shucking them herself. Or at least, that's the only way I would imagine eating them. They were cooking in what looked like a banquet hall. I think they easily could have turned just from being at room temp and stored in a plastic jug of water. It was probably a rookie move on her part to make a raw dish without knowing where it came from.

Also, not sure why Casey was mocking Katsuji so hard. She's running around like Linda Belcher with her limp wrists like she's trying to dog paddle through the rain.

[cooksdelight]

I laughed at Katsuji in the rain, having seen him recently in L.A during a cold snap (65°) and he was wearing a down jacket or something puffy.

[cooksdelight]

2 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

And that bugs me

Me also. Her THs and when she's listening to what Padma or Tom are instructing them to do in their next challenge, her nose is in the air. Drives me nuts and makes me dislike her, and I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person.

[steven T]

I found nothing noble in Jamie giving up immunity. That's the whole point of the immunity challenge, in case you make a crappy dish.  This is a competition, basically a game show and not a reflection of anyone's cooking ability outside of the show.  He was embarrassed, but so what.  Everyone, including chefs can make bad dishes, its no big deal.  Put on your big boy underwear and make a great dish next time. Very frustrating, but at least I don't have to see his ugly tattoos.

[sourpickles]

4 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I don't care if Jaime went home or not, I was tired of looking at his neck tattoos and feeling like I was being choked to death. Sorry, but that is a specific thing for me, that I feel intense pressure on my own neck, because it just looks like the person is being squeezed. I think the judges should establish from the get go that you can't give up your immunity. Why even try for it if you are going to give it away? It changes the dynamics of the game. Decisions were made based on the others not having immunity. I know he went home, so ultimately it didn't hurt the others. To me though it is like if the winner says I don't think my dish deserved to win, I am giving my win to another person. I think the contestants shouldn't be able to just say I don't want to follow the rules. What they should have done is sent him home if he felt that strongly that his dish was bad, and then sent the next person home also and had a double elimination. He doesn't get to change the rules, whether because of a good dish or a bad dish. Make immunity mean what it means

I feel like it was a waste of an immunity overall, since it won't be around too much longer.  Blown chance, if you will.  As for the neck tattoos, the only place I want to see or can deal with them is on Ink Master.  Other than that, they're a distraction.  I spend half my time trying to read the visible ones.  There was one gal, Jen, on the LV season I think, who had a large chest tattoo that drove me crazy the whole time she was there.  I mean, to each their own, but all I can do is stare LOL!

[micat]

I felt that Jamie made an honorable choice. It seemed like he looked at his priorities and said, do I want to stay on Top Chef worse than I want to be the kind of person I want to be? And he chose to be the person he wants to be rather than stay on Top Chef. I don't see that as stupid or pointless or as having a loser mentality. Top Chef is a reality show - a game show. He will benefit from being on it regardless of how long he stayed or when he went home. Many people would not make the same decision he made. That doesn't mean it was a bad decision, that means that there are different types of people in this world (thank goodness).

 

It is true that immunity only comes into the elimination decision if the immune person made the worst dish - but that is NOT the only purpose for immunity. Immunity has, many times in the past, allowed the immune person to take risks that they would not have otherwise taken. Sometimes those risks pay off and sometimes the person lands in the middle or wherever. That wasn't the case in this particular episode, of course.

[archer1267]

23 hours ago, Court said:

Casey had immunity a couple weeks ago and made the worst dish. During the judging, they said she would have gone home had it not been for immunity. 

She didn't consider giving it up and no one suggested it. Because that is exactly what immunity is for to save you even when you screw up.

Yup, and I remember in S3, she had immunity when she teamed up with Joey and Howie for a team challenge. They each contributed a tuna dish to their course and Casey's tuna "nests" landed the team in the bottom two, even though Joey and Howie did a decent job. Tom made a point of saying to Casey that her dish could be sending either of her teammates home. She said that they were throwing a "big guilt blanket" on her. The judges ultimately picked someone from the failed dessert course.

I didn't even think back then "why doesn't Casey give up immunity and fall on her sword?" Now that someone has actually given up immunity, I wonder if it will be seen as an expectation going forward.

[Bastet]

When Padma (or one of the judges) told Emily she'd have been going home if Jamie hadn't declined his immunity, I expected her to just say "I know," to look really awkward, or to thank him or something; I wasn't expecting the "Then I don't want him to go home," walking away to a corner by herself, or giving him that teary punch saying, "You shouldn't have done that." 

I don't think I'd have given up immunity in his shoes, even with how truly terrible his dish seemed to be (I do think I would have if Emily had made a dish as good as John's, so that immunity would have meant someone was going home for a really good plate of food while I was spared for making a plate of crap), but I respect the thought process behind his decision.  I also respect Emily's reaction.  The "You shouldn't have done that" in particular, had a sense of, "You know you're going to go further in this competition than I am, you should have let it be my turn now."

I did not like this episode; way too much time spent on running around Charleston in the rain, not enough time spent on cooking, even with 15 extra minutes. 

[RealReality]

6 hours ago, Bastet said:

When Padma (or one of the judges) told Emily she'd have been going home if Jamie hadn't declined his immunity, I expected her to just say "I know," to look really awkward, or to thank him or something; I wasn't expecting the "Then I don't want him to go home," walking away to a corner by herself, or giving him that teary punch saying, "You shouldn't have done that." 

I don't think I'd have given up immunity in his shoes, even with how truly terrible his dish seemed to be (I do think I would have if Emily had made a dish as good as John's, so that immunity would have meant someone was going home for a really good plate of food while I was spared for making a plate of crap), but I respect the thought process behind his decision.  I also respect Emily's reaction.  The "You shouldn't have done that" in particular, had a sense of, "You know you're going to go further in this competition than I am, you should have let it be my turn now."

I did not like this episode; way too much time spent on running around Charleston in the rain, not enough time spent on cooking, even with 15 extra minutes. 

Emily is starting to strike me as one of those people who are almost too authentic.  I think she doesn't have any sort of filter and it's gotten her into a lot of trouble.  I don't think she knows the "spoonful of sugar" technique.   I suspect she has been trying to "go with the flow" in these team challenges because she realizes she isn't as strong a chef and because she has been fired a lot for attitude.

If so, then that was her true reaction and it's sort of nice.  Instead of just being grateful that she gets to live another day, she wanted to go home instead.  Although I think she should have made a better case for that in the stew room.

And totally agree that I admire Jamie's thought process.  I don't know if I would be nearly as admirable in his shoes.  

But it's always something that strikes me about top chef...and project runway to a lesser degree.  Most the competitors will happily help each other out, because HOW they win is important to them.  They don't want someone else to fail so they win by default...they want to win in a manner that is, in their eyes, noble.

[jackjill89]

15 hours ago, micat said:

I felt that Jamie made an honorable choice. It seemed like he looked at his priorities and said, do I want to stay on Top Chef worse than I want to be the kind of person I want to be? And he chose to be the person he wants to be rather than stay on Top Chef. I don't see that as stupid or pointless or as having a loser mentality. Top Chef is a reality show - a game show. He will benefit from being on it regardless of how long he stayed or when he went home. Many people would not make the same decision he made. That doesn't mean it was a bad decision, that means that there are different types of people in this world (thank goodness).

 

It is true that immunity only comes into the elimination decision if the immune person made the worst dish - but that is NOT the only purpose for immunity. Immunity has, many times in the past, allowed the immune person to take risks that they would not have otherwise taken. Sometimes those risks pay off and sometimes the person lands in the middle or wherever. That wasn't the case in this particular episode, of course.

Exactly. It's not about playing the game, or going down in the TC history books or anything like that. It's about being able to live with yourself. He didn't think he could if he moved on with a crappy dish, even if that's what immunity is designed to protect. He made that choice. It was right for him. If that's what he needed to do live with himself, it was a brave and noble choice...for him. 

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Top Chef Puts The 'Arrrr' In 'Charleston'

A pirate party produces slimy scallops, and one chef's exit is written in the stars!

[bravofan27]

What would have been the most admirable, because now Emily is there when she didn't deserve to be there, is for Emily to refuse to stay. Because what Jamie did was give his immunity, which he won fair and square, to someone who made a horrible dish in the quickfire and no chance to win immunity. In the future, since this show is so much flat out luck, is to have the immunity winner not cook. 

[Princess Sparkle]

15 minutes ago, bravofan27 said:

What would have been the most admirable, because now Emily is there when she didn't deserve to be there, is for Emily to refuse to stay. Because what Jamie did was give his immunity, which he won fair and square, to someone who made a horrible dish in the quickfire and no chance to win immunity. In the future, since this show is so much flat out luck, is to have the immunity winner not cook. 

To her credit though, while she didn't push very hard, she did offer to go home after Tom said she would've if Jamie hadn't had immunity.  Tom told her it was too late to do that.  And while I don't particularly like her, I do give her a little bit of credit for calling John out for fudging the truth at the judges table.  

Jamie, however, is a moron.  Yes, he did cook a shitty dish, but who knows what he would've come up with if their team strategy hadn't been "stick the guy with immunity with the bad ingredients."    

Edited January 16, 2017 by Princess Sparkle

[marybennet]

I keep waiting for the mean-spirited and deranged John of the Seattle season (the one who thought he'd put the jar of pickles under his arm and win because of it) to crop up again, and I thought I saw maybe not that level of craziness but nevertheless something a little bad in his back-slapping and "my man" language when he was saying that Jamie would use any bad ingredients that appeared.  Because he wasn't quite asking but asserting and then leaving the table, he made it a situation in which would be harder for Jamie to say no, I'm not your man and I'm not going to do that.  Seemed like John had gotten an A in Manipulation 101.  (This doesn't make me agree with Emily, does it?  Uh-oh.)

[PamelaMaeSnap]

So, not sure if this is the right place to ask this (apologies in advance if I'm out of line) but it is related to the convo here if you'll bear with me.

While watching this all come down, hubby and I were also sort of spitballing about the mindset of the chef with immunity: other chefs throwing the "bad" ingredients at him (though my favorite meal is a bowl of LeSeuer (LeSueur?) canned peas with butter, so for me canned peas would be a GOOD ingredient, but you get my drift), taking a dive for the rest of the team, not trying as hard, or on the other hand being willing to take risks, etc.

And that reminded us ... wasn't there a point, once upon a time, where not only did the loser PYKAG BUT the "winner" got some sort of prize each week?  Sometimes a nice chunk of change, sometimes a physical prize by whoever was promoted/sponsoring the week's episode, etc.? In other words, there was an added incentive for EVERYONE, not just the chef with immunity, to cook his/her ass off in the elimination challenge.

And could the chef with the best dish come from a losing team? Am I totally misremembering all of this? Am I mixing it up with another show? Or was it the chef on the winning team with the best dish? We both seem to remember there having been a time when there was something for the "winner" but we can't remember if the winner was always from the winning team.

Now, no matter what, it seems like it takes away any incentive other than pride for the chef with immunity to cook his/her ass off. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by PamelaMaeSnap
Speling iz hard.

[dleighg]

^I think there's been discussion over time that the prize money has not been as generous in recent seasons as some earlier. I think there have been fewer big companies willing to underwrite those huge prizes (trips to Europe, 365 bottles of wine, $10k, etc.)

Edited January 16, 2017 by dleighg

[lh25]

On 1/13/2017 at 1:22 AM, RealReality said:

At the same time, I'm mad at him because the only reason he was in that position was because he was stuck with two of the worst ingredients because he had the immunity.

EXACTLY!!  That was what I was yelling at my TV.  He took the bad stuff because he had immunity, and while I know he had some issues making the dish, he started there.

[chiaros]

16 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

And that reminded us ... wasn't there a point, once upon a time, where not only did the loser PYKAG BUT the "winner" got some sort of prize each week?  Sometimes a nice chunk of change, sometimes a physical prize by whoever was promoted/sponsoring the week's episode, etc.? In other words, there was an added incentive for EVERYONE, not just the chef with immunity, to cook his/her ass off in the elimination challenge.

And could the chef with the best dish come from a losing team? Am I totally misremembering all of this? Am I mixing it up with another show? Or was it the chef on the winning team with the best dish? We both seem to remember there having been a time when there was something for the "winner" but we can't remember if the winner was always from the winning team.

I'm not sure, but I don't have memories of a winning dish (overall for the episode) coming from a losing team...what I seem to recall is that the winning dish = "the winner of the episode" will come from the winning team.

As for cash prizes, vacation packages, trips to wineries, merchandise (like the haul of wine mentioned above, etc) – you and your husband remembered correctly. In fact, one of the "curses" that developed on Top Chef was that the person who won the car (yes, an actual car, usually displayed on-screen,the keys to which would be handed over to the winner by Padma L.) or cars** will not win Top Chef. I believe Michael Voltaggio was the only one who broke that curse in Season 6.

** There was at least one season when they had two cars to give away... 

P.s. BTW Richard Blais won the car in the last episode before the final finale in Season 4, on Puerto Rico......aaaand didn't win Top Chef. :-) ;-) :-D

Edited January 17, 2017 by chiaros
grammar

[spiderpig]

I wondered what happened to the Toyota prize!!!

[archer1267]

Quote

And that reminded us ... wasn't there a point, once upon a time, where not only did the loser PYKAG BUT the "winner" got some sort of prize each week?

I've rewatched some past seasons and the prizes have seemed pretty arbitrary...one week, the winner gets nothing beyond a hearty congratulations, the next week, the winner gets a MacBook air or an all-expenses paid trip to New Zealand! Sometimes the prizes are linked to the guest judge or his/her product, sometimes they're linked to a corporate sponsor, and other times, they seem completely random, like Sam (?) on S2 getting more knife sets than he knew what to do with.

Carla made out like crazy on All-Stars - she won three trips, and Dale won a lot of prize money on a couple of challenges. But then Antonia won the Rao's challenge and I think that was it - "congratulations, Antonia!" I'm sure the cheftestants would say that the most important part is the accolades from well-respected chefs...but yeah, the prizes are nice too!

[LucyHoneychrrch]

Did anyone else notice that at some point, the credits changed from "a showcase at the Food and Wine Festival in Aspen" to "an appearance"? I clocked it last season.

[PamelaMaeSnap]

Thanks all for at least confirming that I am not TOTALLY losing my mind ... even though I mis-stated in my post "not only the chef with immunity" when what I meant (obviously) was that EVEN the chef with immunity would have that added incentive to make something great instead of playing it safe, taking one for the team, etc. 

I wonder if now that a chef with immunity gave it up and got PYKAG'd (I love it in verb form) they may rethink things and have some sort of reward for the winner of the elimination challenge ... or maybe they secretly love the drama.

And then maybe they can start picking the winning chef before they start eliminating people so everyone gets a shot!

[sourpickles]

2 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

I wonder if now that a chef with immunity gave it up and got PYKAG'd (I love it in verb form) they may rethink things and have some sort of reward for the winner of the elimination challenge ... or maybe they secretly love the drama.

Heh.  I like that, too.  If it hasn't been done already you could trademark it or something, and just go nuts...

INTERVIEWER:  "How do you feel now that you've PYKAW(ent)"?

PREVIOUSLY COMMENTER: "IMO, Jessica can just PHKAG"!  And it's even unisex!  Her, His....

I'm sure the list goes on, but I think I've lost my mind now, gotta go find it................

[ProudMary]

PYKAG has been used as a verb for years now, going back to the old TWOP forums.  I like that  usage myself and have used it here many times.   Big kudos to whomever came up with the idea originally!

[sourpickles]

36 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

PYKAG has been used as a verb for years now, going back to the old TWOP forums.  I like that  usage myself and have used it here many times.   Big kudos to whomever came up with the idea originally!

Yes, this is very true.  I reread my post and I didn't make myself clear, I meant I liked the verb form, then my overtired mind started thinking of other applications!!!!  No way would I poach that phrase!  I'd get internet blackballed!  My only regret is that I'm not clever enough on my own to come up with good phrases, thank goodness for forums!  I just don't have that kind of talent.  Though I wonder if Padma and Tom have ever heard the term.....it might save time on the show...... 

[PamelaMaeSnap]

LOL! I hope no one thinks that I was stealing the phrase or making it up ... totally one of way-too-many terms I've used ever since the days of TWOP.  I just love to use the (probably now overused) term "now in verb form." And I probably got THAT from TWOP as well ... it seems most of the clever expressions I use were copped from the TWOP lexicon.

[DarkRaichu]

You know you were a TWOP member when you just threw in acronyms like QC, EC, RW, and PYKAG in TC threads without any care in the world :P

[susannot]

You're making me miss TWOP, though I don't miss my stern reprimands from the moderators.  Are any of them here on PTV, does anyone know?

[chiaros]

18 minutes ago, susannot said:

You're making me miss TWOP, though I don't miss my stern reprimands from the moderators.  Are any of them here on PTV, does anyone know?

That would be nice to know, yes.  I thought there were many pearl-clutchers on TWoP, but that is in my view.

[FormerMod-a1]

Episode, please.