Top Chef Conspiracy Theories

[FormerMod-a1]

Discuss your theories on "fixed" outcomes, why certain people are back, or were dismissed, or why sometimes X matters and sometimes it doesn't, etc.

[cooksdelight]

My own personal opinion of why I think Tom wants Brooke to win:

1) She didn't make a dish about a childhood memory. She totally ignored the instructions and made something that SHE herself came up with to fix for her son. 

2) Her disaster of a yogurt dish let her stay. At least they liked the taste of Sylva's. Hers wasn't even a mash up of a brunch dish.

3) LCK at the very end, only one person to compete against. 

4) She didn't have to do a special challenge once she came back into the competition as others have in the past.

5) She's talked non-stop ever since she lost to Kristin about her loss, how it's bummed her out.... to the point I myself am sick of hearing about it. Tom sees this as a way to have the poor butterfly who had her wings plucked to get them back again and fly off with the win. I think he's in for a surprise, based on a lot I am reading not just here, but in other places, that people really think something is amiss.

I am not saying Brooke isn't a good chef, I believe she is. But she's not getting dinged for things that others have. It's not been fair across the board, that I have seen. When a contestant doesn't fix a dish that follows the criteria, they are called out for it. Brooke hasn't been.

[dleighg]

8 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

She didn't have to do a special challenge once she came back into the competition as others have in the past.

 

Can you give an example? I don't recall this; I looked up season 13 below and don't see reference to anything special. How can one returning person have a special challenge in any case? Against whom would they be competing?  I recall in much earlier seasons they gave a couple of eliminated chefs an extra chance and they competed for the opportunity, but that wasn't LCK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chef_(season_13)

[cooksdelight]

Honestly, my memory on that aspect is fuzzy, but I do remember Jeff Innes getting a shot at the finals, trying to get back in and not winning the special thing he had to do. There was someone else also, a man, who tried to get back in via a special challenge and not making it. 

[biakbiak]

Jeff was  before LCK. 

[Blonde Gator]

I'm sorry, I just don't see a conspiracy to have any particular chef win it.  And I don't think Tom Coliccio would put his reputation on the line for anyone, particularly not any one of the cheftestants.  I think the judges have their favorites on a personal level, but I really doubt they let that affect their decision making.

Furthermore, I think we'd have a lot more to think about in regard to pre-ordained winners if we knew WHEN the editing was done.  Is it done after each episode?  Are the "Talking Heads" filmed after each episode?  Or is that done at the end of the season, after all is said and done?  It would make a huge difference.   If the entire season is edited, and the TH filmed afterwards, it is far easier to set things up so that it appears that there's a favorite, like Brooke.  So the editors know the outcome, and how each episode turned out, so they can make the edits to give them a "more interesting" and compelling TV arc, whatever that means!  

Personally, I think that's exactly what happens.  So we get the "possible John redemption for being a jerk" edits, and the "Brooke makes up for being crushed by Kristen"edits.  And sad sack Casey edits.  Etc.

I'll be interested to see what you all think who are of the opinion there's a pre-selected winner.  I just don't see it, but I've been wrong before, many times!

[cooksdelight]

1 hour ago, Blonde Gator said:

Are the "Talking Heads" filmed after each episode?  Or is that done at the end of the season, after all is said and done?

I know in the case of Atlanta Housewives, they are all done at one time after filming has ended. Most times, they do them that way so that, as you say, the editors can tell the story the way they want to. All the editing is done after the season wraps, none of it is done while they are still filming.

[rho]

4 hours ago, Blonde Gator said:

Furthermore, I think we'd have a lot more to think about in regard to pre-ordained winners if we knew WHEN the editing was done.  Is it done after each episode?  Are the "Talking Heads" filmed after each episode?  Or is that done at the end of the season, after all is said and done?  It would make a huge difference.   If the entire season is edited, and the TH filmed afterwards, it is far easier to set things up so that it appears that there's a favorite, like Brooke.  So the editors know the outcome, and how each episode turned out, so they can make the edits to give them a "more interesting" and compelling TV arc, whatever that means!  

Having worked sporadically in reality tv I can say that it's a little bit of both. Spoiler tagged in case you like to preserve the fourth wall: 

Spoiler

Elimination shows like this film TH in between each challenge and will occasionally slip interviews in between major events. For example, if there's a delay in production, say someone is injured, they might send the A cams home and just do interviews with the B roll until they can get back on schedule. Obviously they don't like to do that because it costs money but safety comes first. Aside from that, the usual format is to give them a day or two "off" in between eliminations, and just do interviews all day while it's fresh. Eliminated contestants are also held for a day or two to do more interviews. And then at the end of the season, if everyone comes back for the finale, they might do more interviews and cover anything that might have come up during the editing process. You might notice they're wearing the same outfit for most of the TH. It's someone's job to document clothing/hair/makeup continuity so you can't pinpoint where a TH is happening long after the fact.

As far as Brooke being fixed to win, I don't really care. At this point I think all three are deserving and the only thing standing in the way are their own mistakes, like Shirley's vanilla steak. My only opinion is that it would be a real shame if Brooke's win was fixed, because she's done really well since coming back and that would totally diminish a win she could have earned on her own.

[pennben]

9 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

My own personal opinion of why I think Tom wants Brooke to win:

 

I liked how you put it as stating the question as less of a conspiracy and more of a question of who Tom wants to win.  

That's the only 'conspiracy' that I can see on the show.

I always go back to one of my favorite chefs...Stephanie Izard.... and her battle with Richard.  If Tom could have had a trap door drop Stephanie so as to make her disappear and Richard be the winner of that season, he would have triggered it.  However, it was apparently somewhat close (or not as close, but Tom wanted it to be) and it seemed that all the other judges weighed in to tip to Stephanie and Tom couldn't convince them otherwise.

I've been in and out this season, same for the last couple of years.  From what I've seen this season, I think he does like Brooke['s cooking] the most, but he's also given the "you're going to become a famous chef" speech to Sheldon, so I'm hedging on ultimately what I think he wants.  Anyway, there can be a great storyline now for Brooke either way.  When she came back from LCK she decided to cook like she didn't care if she won, so if she doesn't win she's still ahead with a new attitude. Also, great story for why she wins, if she does. I don't really see Shirley winning, so to me that would be the upset. 

PS: Based on my prognosticating history, congratulations Shirley!!::))

Edited February 18, 2017 by pennben

[Totale]

All of these reality TV shows cost literally millions of dollars to produce.  It would be irresponsible to start a multi-million dollar project without a plan.  They are writing a story arc which has a beginning and an end onscreen, and a future (sponsored appearances by the "winner", etc.)  beyond.  If I were in charge (which would put me a level above "Executive Producer" Tom C, although if you have a proven track record like his, you can within reason have your way as to how you handle your end), there's simply no way I would let anyone structure how they spent my millions of dollars based on week to week decisions as to whether or not some particular dish had too much salt.  Who gives a shit?  The job I am funding is to produce 13 hours of television which the product (which is you, the viewer) will find compelling enough to stick with throughout.  Deliver that product (you, the viewer) so that I can sell advertising and recover my millions, and you can come back next year.  I'm really confused as to how anyone finds these basic realities of "reality" television confusing.

[rose711]

17 hours ago, Totale said:

All of these reality TV shows cost literally millions of dollars to produce.  It would be irresponsible to start a multi-million dollar project without a plan.  They are writing a story arc which has a beginning and an end onscreen, and a future (sponsored appearances by the "winner", etc.)  beyond.  If I were in charge (which would put me a level above "Executive Producer" Tom C, although if you have a proven track record like his, you can within reason have your way as to how you handle your end), there's simply no way I would let anyone structure how they spent my millions of dollars based on week to week decisions as to whether or not some particular dish had too much salt.  Who gives a shit?  The job I am funding is to produce 13 hours of television which the product (which is you, the viewer) will find compelling enough to stick with throughout.  Deliver that product (you, the viewer) so that I can sell advertising and recover my millions, and you can come back next year.  I'm really confused as to how anyone finds these basic realities of "reality" television confusing.

I think there are standard and practices rules against this in competition shows for money. Maybe ithe rules are different where there is an expert panel of judges but it isn't allowed on other competitive reality shows.

I don't see any conspiracy here though and I find the whole question pretty odd. The final 3 chefs are very good and any one of them will be a good winner.

Maybe people are reading into the edit to see a conspiracy?

On 2/17/2017 at 4:03 PM, cooksdelight said:

My own personal opinion of why I think Tom wants Brooke to win:

1) She didn't make a dish about a childhood memory. She totally ignored the instructions and made something that SHE herself came up with to fix for her son. 

2) Her disaster of a yogurt dish let her stay. At least they liked the taste of Sylva's. Hers wasn't even a mash up of a brunch dish.

3) LCK at the very end, only one person to compete against. 

4) She didn't have to do a special challenge once she came back into the competition as others have in the past.

5) She's talked non-stop ever since she lost to Kristin about her loss, how it's bummed her out.... to the point I myself am sick of hearing about it. Tom sees this as a way to have the poor butterfly who had her wings plucked to get them back again and fly off with the win. I think he's in for a surprise, based on a lot I am reading not just here, but in other places, that people really think something is amiss.

I am not saying Brooke isn't a good chef, I believe she is. But she's not getting dinged for things that others have. It's not been fair across the board, that I have seen. When a contestant doesn't fix a dish that follows the criteria, they are called out for it. Brooke hasn't been.

Well your number 4 has already been proven wrong so I'm not sure how much you still stand behind this opinion.

As for 1: i know there have been many times the chefs don't follow the "instructions" regarding a story and they survive if they make a good dish. I'm sure if you looked back through the recaps even of this season it will have come up. Past seasons too, it has happened frequently. It isn't a requirement like "must use a radish" or something. 

As for 5:  the editors are telling a story the best they can. If you note, they have all been talking about how they want to improve. John in particular had the same story line. 

[Totale]

37 minutes ago, rose711 said:

I think there are standard and practices rules against this in competition shows for money. Maybe ithe rules are different where there is an expert panel of judges but it isn't allowed on other competitive reality shows.

This was hashed out pretty thoroughly once on another of these boards, or maybe even back on TWOP.  My takeaway was that the quiz show laws from the 1950s apply in cases like Jeopardy!, which are bona fide intellectual contests, or something like a race which can be objectively judged, but the more general run of reality competition shows with the results hanging on an aesthetic judgement like Top Chef or American Idol are seen strictly as entertainment programming and are not subject to those rules.  And even if they were the participants have likely signed away their rights to complain about it in their agreements to appear on the show.  Usually somewhere in small print in the credits it says the decisions made on the show can be arrived at in consultation with the producers and may be influenced by events not shown onscreen.

[cooksdelight]

3 hours ago, Totale said:

Usually somewhere in small print in the credits it says the decisions made on the show can be arrived at in consultation with the producers and may be influenced by events not shown onscreen.

It's there, on this show in particular. It flashes so fast you have to hit pause to read it, but it says the final decisions are made by producers.

[dleighg]

17 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

It's there, on this show in particular. It flashes so fast you have to hit pause to read it, but it says the final decisions are made by producers.

Here's a screen cap. So it doesn't quite say that final decisions are made by producers. It says "in consultation with" producers. Whatever that means.

Edited February 19, 2017 by dleighg

[cooksdelight]

Thanks for that, I couldn't remember the exact verbiage, but I also see Bravo's input is involved.

[xaxat]

On 2/17/2017 at 7:18 PM, Blonde Gator said:

Are the "Talking Heads" filmed after each episode? 

The were definite shenanigans with Sylva's talking head(s) in his final. He started out wearing a purple t shirt and had shaved his mustache. During the middle of the same episode, he was wearing the same shirt, but he still had his mustache. In LCK, he also had his mustache. 

I have spent far more time than is reasonable trying to figure out that timeline. 

As for conspiracy theories, I wonder how much "encouragement" Brooke received to pair John and Katsuji together. 

[chiaros]

1 hour ago, dleighg said:

Here's a screen cap. So it doesn't quite say that final decisions are made by producers. It says "in consultation with" producers. Whatever that means.

Back on Season 2 when Marcel Vigneron was physically attacked with all the remaining cheftestants in various states of complicity Tom Colicchio wanted to throw everyone except Marcel off and award the trophy to Marcel by default. He was overruled by the producers. So even though he and lots of people say "he has the final word" it ain't entirely true. 

On Top Chef Just Desserts when Seth Caro had the "meltdown" and was taken off the show it seemed it were the producers who BOTH induced his meltdown AND specified his removal to psychiatric facilities. Seth also gave an interview about this here...

My suspicion is that the producers have much more power than Tom C publicly acknowledges.

BTW, it has been noted (speculated about?) on various forums/BBs that TPTB (i.e. the producers of the show) take note of what is being said on forums (I suppose including this one) as each episode is aired and have made "adjustments" a.k.a. re-editing of the next episode before it is aired. I don't know if this is truly so, but it is "out there".

ETA: It is also not an inconsequential detail in this context that even the judges do not know what any particular segment (which becomes an "episode") will look like until they see it at the same time as we the viewing public does. It seems like the producers decide what they want an episode to portray, and edit it accordingly. 

Nevertheless, I would repeat what I said before - even under this rubric, cheftestants say and do what they decide to do. The "editors" cannot edit what they do not have if they do not have the footage of it to start with. And surely the cheftestants KNOW that everything they say and do within a thousand feet (so to speak) of a camera or mike can be recorded.

1 hour ago, xaxat said:

The were definite shenanigans with Sylva's talking head(s) in his final. He started out wearing a purple t shirt and had shaved his mustache. During the middle of the same episode, he was wearing the same shirt, but he still had his mustache. In LCK, he also had his mustache. 

I have spent far more time than is reasonable trying to figure out that timeline. 

See here, here, here.

Edited February 19, 2017 by chiaros

[jackjill89]

1 hour ago, xaxat said:

The were definite shenanigans with Sylva's talking head(s) in his final. He started out wearing a purple t shirt and had shaved his mustache. During the middle of the same episode, he was wearing the same shirt, but he still had his mustache. In LCK, he also had his mustache. 

I have spent far more time than is reasonable trying to figure out that timeline. 

As for conspiracy theories, I wonder how much "encouragement" Brooke received to pair John and Katsuji together. 

I think Brooke wins because her demeanor in her THs for the finale is much lighter and happier. I think they were shot after the fact. Could be wrong, but she seems much more animated. Well, animated for Brooke.

I don't think it would take a whole lot of encouragement to pair John and Katsuji. It's just good gamesmanship. I totally would have done that. She gave Emily to Sheldon. She was playing it smart. I sure wouldn't have chosen Casey for myself, but they seem close. 

[Court]

In regards to @cooksdelight #4, I recall something similar. The LCK winner usually had a disadvantage in the EC or had to win the QF to advance? 

[chiaros]

LCK was introduced in Season 9. There was no "extra qualifying barrier" for the winner of LCK to rejoin the main competition. Beverly Kim, the LCK winner, walked right back into the competition in Whistler, BC.

I don't recall any "extra step" for the LCK winner in every other season for them to rejoin the main competition.

Perhaps folks are thinking of Season 5, when the last three chefs who were eliminated before the finale (SIX months later) competed in a separate cookoff, equivalent to a "Quickfire-of-sorts" in front of the "main competition finalists" (who just watched) and the winner of THAT rejoined the "main competition finalists" but ALSO had to WIN the subsequent EC to stay in the main competition i.e. advance to the next stage in the multi-step finale.†† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chef_(season_5) (scroll down to "Finale: Part I)

Insofar as who performed best in LCK, it was LOUIS MALDONADO, who won 8 straight matches to get back into the finale. Kristen Kish only had to win 5 matches to get back in.  It was so disheartening when Louis then got dismissed in the first challenge, part of a double elimination - and it also seemed a little cruel because he had the misfortune to be located in a spot of that al fresco site where the wind kept blowing his efforts to bits. Well, he got PPYKAG, but he was then followed later by Shirley Chung.**

**ETA: Who, I might murmur, made up a song-and-dance story about how being on Maui made her feel sweet and so she made her dish to be sweet (her pork dish) when she was being faulted for, yes, making it so sweet. ;-) :-D

†† ETA2: And to clarify, he did not win the EC (Carla Hall did) so he did not move on and went home again...even though his dish & cocktail was liked by the judges. It was Fabio Viviani who was on the bottom and he got sent packing as well. See here; and here (as one recap) for details.

Edited February 21, 2017 by chiaros

[DarkRaichu]

I do not think Brooke was a fix for the win as much as she was the ordained "chef to beat" this season.  

Either that or the producers just determined to show here off in bathing suit (per next week preview) lol

[LennieBriscoe]

I think TFII (The Fix......) because Brooke is TV-able: Attractive but not Padma-level of makeup and dress, calm, Kelsey-like, and skilled. But I like more of a funny Galloping Gourmet or Sandwich King, so I won't care about her future appearances. 

[cooksdelight]

LOL, Lennie, I would fall asleep listening to her. She's a skilled chef but doesn't have the "it" factor for hosting her own show, in my opinion.

John and Katsuji, however, would be a riot together on TV if they keep it light and fun ribbing each other.

[DarkRaichu]

2 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

John and Katsuji, however, would be a riot together on TV if they keep it light and fun ribbing each other.

That would be a dreadful show.  Both of the together are like black hole filled with snarky responses and complaints, a place where hope dies.  Even in the beginning of this season when they were civil with each other, there was 0 joy in their interactions.

But then again, the above seems to fit with the rest of Bravo's current line up.. :P

[seaELare]

On 2/19/2017 at 2:55 PM, jackjill89 said:

I think Brooke wins because her demeanor in her THs for the finale is much lighter and happier. I think they were shot after the fact. Could be wrong, but she seems much more animated. Well, animated for Brooke

I'm not so sure about that.  Sheldon has certainly been acting like a big winner.  He's opening a new restaurant in Hawai'i, cooking at the James Beard House (last night), giving interviews to the NYTimes and will be a guest chef at Sylvia's restaurant in B'klyn, LaRina, next week.   A lot of these little tidbits can be found in his InstaStories rather than his Twitter or Instagram.  

[Wings]

28 minutes ago, seaELare said:

I'm not so sure about that.  Sheldon has certainly been acting like a big winner.  He's opening a new restaurant in Hawai'i, cooking at the James Beard House (last night), giving interviews to the NYTimes and will be a guest chef at Sylvia's restaurant in B'klyn, LaRina, next week.   A lot of these little tidbits can be found in his InstaStories rather than his Twitter or Instagram.  

Interesting.  One could say that the money he earned being on the show would be enough to seed a new restaurant and his popularity alone got him those gigs.  I want it to be a sign that he wins but since the finale has not aired, do these people know he won?  

[cooksdelight]

Regarding post in episode thread as to why Brooke doesn't deserve praise for her cooking

 

She deserves praise for her good dishes. It's the constant "Kristin beat me" that harkens back to Blaise saying he choked, that leads me to think she's back for the same reason he was brought back... when he won, crying. JMO

[Jesse]

THE FIX IS IN!!!

(lol)

[jaybird2]

well, i didn't think there was a 'fix' at first......but, now?  i think so.   

[RealReality]

mileage will vary, but if Brooke wins, it will always be an asterisk win to me, because I think there was producer intervention here.

I mean, what are the odds that the one person that was beaten by a returnee of LCK, returns from LCK to win the entire season.

As Blanche Devereaux once said "you'd stand a better chance of getting hit by lightening in a house you won from Ed McMahon"

I'm sure Brooke won't care, and thats fine.  I think Sheldon probably won't suffer for not being TC and I believe the true joy he seems to get out of life will always make him a winner (yes, I realize I sound like an ABC After School Special). 

But still....asterisk win.

[cooksdelight]

I agree on the asterisk. She'll be called the female version of Richard Blaise, after his comeback win in All Stars. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't hear the judges praise other dishes, then give Brooke a pass or a win. There's no other explanation except they like her and want her to be the Top Chef.

[Jezebel97]

3 hours ago, RealReality said:

mileage will vary, but if Brooke wins, it will always be an asterisk win to me, because I think there was producer intervention here.

I mean, what are the odds that the one person that was beaten by a returnee of LCK, returns from LCK to win the entire season.

As Blanche Devereaux once said "you'd stand a better chance of getting hit by lightening in a house you won from Ed McMahon"

I'm sure Brooke won't care, and thats fine.  I think Sheldon probably won't suffer for not being TC and I believe the true joy he seems to get out of life will always make him a winner (yes, I realize I sound like an ABC After School Special). 

But still....asterisk win.

and the final 2 are female just like when she was beaten by Kristen, which was the first time it came down to two female chefs

With Sheldon gone, I'm done watching but I am so happy for his successes & I hope he wins Fan Favorite

I'll come back next week to read all about it

[mwell345]

As soon as Shirley won, I knew Sheldon was a goner.

I'll be surprised if Shirley wins - it's clear to me Brooke is the designated survivor.  (Project Runway did the same thing when Mondo lost to Gretchen of all people, only  to win All-Stars).

[cooksdelight]

Maybe Brooke won't win, and will once again be sent into despair. 

I can dream, can't I? :)

[tinderbox]

6 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Maybe Brooke won't win, and will once again be sent into despair. 

I can dream, can't I? :)

Yeah.  One can only hope. 

[candle96]

On February 18, 2017 at 1:50 AM, pennben said:

I liked how you put it as stating the question as less of a conspiracy and more of a question of who Tom wants to win.  

That's the only 'conspiracy' that I can see on the show.

I always go back to one of my favorite chefs...Stephanie Izard.... and her battle with Richard.  If Tom could have had a trap door drop Stephanie so as to make her disappear and Richard be the winner of that season, he would have triggered it.  However, it was apparently somewhat close (or not as close, but Tom wanted it to be) and it seemed that all the other judges weighed in to tip to Stephanie and Tom couldn't convince them otherwise.

I've been in and out this season, same for the last couple of years.  From what I've seen this season, I think he does like Brooke['s cooking] the most, but he's also given the "you're going to become a famous chef" speech to Sheldon, so I'm hedging on ultimately what I think he wants.  Anyway, there can be a great storyline now for Brooke either way.  When she came back from LCK she decided to cook like she didn't care if she won, so if she doesn't win she's still ahead with a new attitude. Also, great story for why she wins, if she does. I don't really see Shirley winning, so to me that would be the upset. 

PS: Based on my prognosticating history, congratulations Shirley!!::))

Stephanie vs Richard was, what, the 3rd or 4th season? Still early on in the show. I think it's changed. The All-Stars season was the first time I became suspicious of Colicchio and his supposed integrity around judging the dishes. It was obvious to me that he wanted Richard to win the whole thing from the beginning, and it became more apparent as the season went on. It was RB's "redemption," and I thought the judges were in the tank for that from the beginning. (save maybe Gail) And now we have 3 likeable people who almost made it the first time around end up at the end. I don't doubt they are talented and deserving, but it all seems packaged a little too neatly for me. Tom really didn't seem to like Shirley's vanilla steak or drink at all, and yet John went home.

I personally would love to see more blind judging, because basic psychology tells us that a personal relationship affects how a performance is judged.

[cooksdelight]

I've been begging for blind judging forever, but it will never happen. The show is, as you say, packaged.

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

I've been begging for blind judging forever, but it will never happen. The show is, as you say, packaged.

I think blind tasting on this show would be irrevelant because the strong chefs tend to have a definitive point of viewand the weaker chefs make a lot of the same mistakes, as a viewer who doesn't taste the food I could pick out who made what just from the descriptions after the first two or three weeks. I imagine it would be even easier for the regular judges who actually eat the food and spend a lot more time at Judge's Table discussing why they made the decisions they made.

The Taste was a hot mess for a variety of reasons but I didn't feel the blind tasting added anything special particularly after the initial pick. The only thing that was somewhat surprising is that the judges all misidentified main components of the dishes more than once.

[cooksdelight]

9 hours ago, biakbiak said:

The only thing that was somewhat surprising is that the judges all misidentified main components of the dishes more than once.

Which goes to show that some of the chef/judges have no business being on TV judging someone else's food.

[Blonde Gator]

15 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I think blind tasting on this show would be irrevelant because the strong chefs tend to have a definitive point of viewand the weaker chefs make a lot of the same mistakes, as a viewer who doesn't taste the food I could pick out who made what just from the descriptions after the first two or three weeks. I imagine it would be even easier for the regular judges who actually eat the food and spend a lot more time at Judge's Table discussing why they made the decisions they made.

The Taste was a hot mess for a variety of reasons but I didn't feel the blind tasting added anything special particularly after the initial pick. The only thing that was somewhat surprising is that the judges all misidentified main components of the dishes more than once.

An interesting and provocative post, thanks.

Remember the TC finals (I think it was the season where that moron who was bragging like mad got kicked by Tom out in the very first episode for hacking up a pork chop).....where the contestants were given their three sous chefs based on a blind tasting of hors d'oeuvres the sous made for them in a QF-style challenge?   IIRC, the jerk who so ineptly hacked the pork chop was one of the first chefs selected.   So after having cooked with all of these chefs up to the end, the final two or three (??) chefs weren't able to pick exactly who they thought they were getting, by the dishes prepared.   And the potential sous (what is the plural???) were doing their best to SIGNAL who they were, too, via their food.

Doing the tasting totally blind would also require that someone else describe the dish to the diners, and eliminate the back and forth at the table that seems to be an integral part of the show (particularly as the chefs try to justify what they may have just been smacked in the face with as a glaring error!).   I also enjoy the chefs who are particularly pleased with themselves describe their dishes. 

[JeanneH]

2 hours ago, Blonde Gator said:

An interesting and provocative post, thanks.

Remember the TC finals (I think it was the season where that moron who was bragging like mad got kicked by Tom out in the very first episode for hacking up a pork chop).....where the contestants were given their three sous chefs based on a blind tasting of hors d'oeuvres the sous made for them in a QF-style challenge?   IIRC, the jerk who so ineptly hacked the pork chop was one of the first chefs selected.   So after having cooked with all of these chefs up to the end, the final two or three (??) chefs weren't able to pick exactly who they thought they were getting, by the dishes prepared.   And the potential sous (what is the plural???) were doing their best to SIGNAL who they were, too, via their food.

I'm trying to figure out which season you are referring to, as I thought the butchery, with Tom not even letting the guy finish, was some piece of beef. The closest I can come was the Seattle season, where they had a qualifier before the competition really began. They divided the cheftestants into groups of 5 or 6, then each group had to perform some task determined by 1 of 4 chefs (Tom, Emeril, Wolfgang Puck and Hugh Acheson), who would then decide who could go onto the competition from their group. Tom's group had to butcher a chicken. Jorel Pierce (Top Chef Masters) and Anthony Gray went home from Tom's group.  In the final Kristin and Brooke each had 3 sous chefs: Kristen was assisted by Joshua "Josh" Valentine, Elizabeth "Lizzie" Binder, and Sheldon Simeon. Brooke was assisted by Chris "CJ" Jacobson, Kuniko Yagi, and Stefan Richter. I couldn't find how they were chosen.  Anyway, is this the episode you were referring to?

As an aside, Stephanie Cmar, who was "Kristin's friend" that season, also did not qualify - she was in Emeril's group  and was eliminated because her cauliflower needed to taste more caulifower-y. She came back the next (New Orleans) season, and was the one who had to leave when Nicholas Elmi, the real loser that week, had immunity.

[cooksdelight]

The butcher was Tyler, season filmed in Texas.

[dleighg]

With @cooksdelight help I found this summary: The finalists were to pick their sous chefs in an anonymous tasting of their dishes from the challenge. Paul scored Barbara, Chris Crary, Ty-Lor Boring, and Keith Rhodes. Sarah would work with Nyesha Arrington, Heather Terhune, Grayson Schmitz, and Tyler Stone (who judge Tom Colicchio eliminated from the first 29 for his awful butchering skills while still in the kitchen).

[JeanneH]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

The butcher was Tyler, season filmed in Texas.

On behalf of myself, thank you  :)

[Lura]

I am mightily impressed by the number of convincing arguments on both sides of the issue at hand.  It seems that no matter how strong any given argument is, however, it contains as many supporting facts as needed to make it plausible, landing one back to the other side of the issue!  Congratulations to the posters who have researched so thoroughly.  I can only conclude that for me, one argument cancels out the next and leaves me as undecided as I was at the start.

So, here's to the "winner," and here's to the "fix," or the other way around!  See you in front of the screen!  Hold on to your sense of humor.                                                                                                            

[Christina]

After realizing I was enjoying the recaps more than the actual show, I decided to take a break and watch the season before the finale. Having just finished, I came here to catch up on posts and found this thread, to which I'm going to add my own conspiracy theory.

First, upon re-watch I noticed how well Emily did in the beginning. She didn't fall apart until The Feast of the Seven Trash Fishes. The first challenge with the chicken landed her in top three; the second episode, when they were broke into groups, she again was called out as top three in her group. The next two episodes she received positive comments. As soon as the groups were more integrated, the vast difference in talent was obvious, some of which was merely because the stress and limitations of the competition were better tolerated by some than others. It is part of the reason I didn't enjoy the season; the disparity was not enjoyable to me. 

Second point toward my conspiracy theory is that I noticed the talking heads during the episodes would often have the chefs in two different outfits over several episodes. John, Casey, Emily, Brooke and Sylva really stood out. So, there were at least two talking heads, but the questions were the same for both. For instance, John was asked something about Restaurant Wars and he answered in one shirt. Then a clip was shown, and they returned to him answering the same question wearing a second shirt. The next episode, talking heads in the same two shirts. And the next episode, and the next one.

The third point toward my conspiracy theory has to do with how uncomfortable I found this season to watch. I don't think the judges or producers thought about the fact the first elimination challenge was going to be held at a plantation with one white chef and one black one, and I'm sure the location had been planned long in advance. I'm not suggesting any ill-will on the part the show. But, where it fell apart was the editing of them discussing their location, Padma asking "How are you feeling?" like she does every time, but the way it played out on the show caused a bit of an uproar on social media, because it seemed so tasteless. 

Next, we don't see all of the food, in part because there are sixteen chefs to start and limited time. But we certainly got to see Amanda spinning, Sheldon's fall, Sheldon's fall again, and again, and again, because they played it before the commercial, after the commercial, during the commercials, his pained expression as he was going to the doctor, repeatedly; everything but the laugh track. There was enough time to show us every negative comment from Katsuji, Casey, John, Brooke and Emily. Glares shot across the room from Katsuji to John. Emily nearly in tears because of Katsuji. Emily in tears because of Katsuji. Showing some of the same clips again. To show us the turmoil of the competition is one thing, but I think they took it to a level that made it not enjoyable to watch for me.

So, my conspiracy theory is that they decided to fire real people as editors, and instead are using computer to do it all, which is why subtle changes like leaving in Padma asking, "How are you feeling?" were not caught as being tasteless; the entire season not showcasing the area wasn't caught; there was no one to say that John and Katsuji bickering had gone past amusing to irritating and could be pared down; Brooke was coming across as being the winner too obviously, with little doubt who would be returning from Last Chance Kitchen; and the chefs new to the competition were coming across as rank amateurs who couldn't cook very well.  Robots have taken over the editing of the show.

[biakbiak]

13 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Which goes to show that some of the chef/judges have no business being on TV judging someone else's food.

To me it showed that expectation means a lot even to Marcus Samuelson and Ludo Lebreve who's food is delicious and Bourdain who has eaten all the food in the world.

[susannot]

Having re-watched much of the season today on mute while waiting for the finale, I find myself having mad respect for Shirley.  She is the only chef who made it to the end by her cooking skill, without being eliminated.  As she said, she has won the most elimination challenges, and she killed it in the last episode.  When Jeremiah Tower says "that girl can cook", that means she can cook.  

I know Brooke also cooked her way to the end in her season, so it doesn't signify, but I think that Shirley has been more creative and original than Brooke all season long.  Will find out soon enough who wins.  Either woman is deserving and I'm happy for another female Top Chef, but I'm rooting for Shirley.

And just because I'm a mean girl, I will laugh my ass off if Brooke gets Casey as her sous-chef and Casey Carla Hall's her.

[MKL122788]

I honestly don't feel this season is as clearly rigged as All-Stars, if it is rigged at all.

God, they wanted so badly to make Richard look like the good guy while winning, that they even aired very clear manipulation of the final result in order to get Mike into the final instead of Antonia. Why? Because they all knew that Antonia was way more likeable, so the only way to guarantee people would be cheering for Richard was to have them cheering against Mike.

The shenanigans in All Stars still upsets me to this day. I could go on about it for way too long.

[susannot]

That still angers me too.  Man, did we ever blast Tom on the comment section of Bravo, back when they still allowed a comments section.  That's why they got rid of it.  Also TWOP resounded for months with indignation.