HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Top Chef Masters, Season 3 Episode 8: The judges are nuts Spoiilers may show up

  • j

As a teacher I was impressed with the demos. The judges were almost cruel with their remarks. The chefs gave lots of info, did demos, and sounds like the food tasted really good.

I am tired of tricks, no equipment. Are they ever going to let the chefs just cook?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. Agreed completely - such good chefs and so little cooking they are asked to do. just let them cook!

    5 Replies
    1. re: Siun

      This show has gotten so gimmicky it's almost silly. We never get to see these chefs do what they do well.

      And James Oseland may not be the worst person in the western world, but he is increasingly pompous, arrogant, annoying and irrelevant.

      And I agree with re remark about those two unfunny comediennes that I've never seen or heard about who know nothing about food. The product placement and cross-marketing is way beyond the pale.

      No good reason to be watching this.

      1. re: chicgail

        I am becoming more and more annoyed with James Oseland. He reminds me a lot of that whiney little man Steve Ells who was on 'America's Next Great Restaurant'.

        Plus, as flaming as Oseland is, his comment about Naomi's calzone 'spurting unpleasantly in his mouth' didn't bring up a great mental picture.

        1. re: TuteTibiImperes

          I was thinking the same thing regarding Steve Ells. Insufferable smug racoons both.

          But which one is worse?

          1. re: TuteTibiImperes

            Oh Thank GOD I wasn't the only person who cringed at that...I could only think, well, you're the expert, James!

            1. re: TuteTibiImperes

              I have watched a few episodes of each season of TC Masters. I have not cared for any of the main judges, at least the hat lady and the Britsh guy with the bad hair are gone. I don't care for Oslund either. I just looked him up and was surprused to see he was just 48 years old. His Mr. Rogers look had me thinking he was at least ten years older.

        2. Glad you started the thread, Janet. Maybe the mods could edit the title to show that it's the 8th Episode of Season 3?

          Who were those two comediennes? Where are they finding these people?

          I can't believe Traci got away with doing crudo AGAIN. I'm sorry to see Hugh go, he'd grown on me (much like his unibrow) with his humor.

          Padma was her bitchy - not holding back at all for these chefs. Which was fine. It was actually good to hear from her again.

          Poor Floyd! Foiled again. Mary Sue continues to surprise - winning with churros! But she really did look like she got into the demo.

          I'm out for the next two weeks - - but will look forward to someone's posting about the next two episodes, if they can hold anyone's interest anymore.... I do agree, i want to see more straightforward delicious cooking!

          1 Reply
          1. re: mariacarmen

            I used to see those comedians when VH1 had the show 'Best Week Ever'. Not sure why'd they'd get them for this challenge. I agree with Roxlet and thought the show was okay, altho like James, I glaze over when you start talking science. I didn't even mind the cooking tools, it wasn't completely ridiculous. Would have been odd if Traci went home. Felt super bad for Floyd getting passed over twice in one show, now it's just him and the gals.

          2. I thought that this was a pretty good episode, especially since we lost those other two "critics" and got Padma and Ruth instead. I did feel that Hugh deserved to go home. Starting from last week when he was cooking "down" to the couple, I felt he was kind of skating. His salad was pretty uninspired. I was happy Mary Sue won, though I feel bad that Floyd is always the bridesmaid. I used to love Tabla, and I think his food is excellent.

            1. Hugh annoyed the crap out of me...he was so argumentative.....glad for the results!

              3 Replies
              1. re: christy1122

                I would be argumentative too if I had to deal with someone like Oseland

                1. re: SuperGrover

                  Hugh was argumentative with his scientist partner as well, who was trying to give him advice on how to make it a more compelling demonstration. Hugh has shown some flashes of brilliance, but he earned his ticket home by failing to check his arrogance on this one.

                  1. re: TuteTibiImperes

                    I agree. I thought it was a riot when he asked his scientist a question flippantly and thought he wouldn't know but he replied quickly and Hugh had no response.

              2. I've been a top chef junkie since the first season and have enjoyed every single season up to this point, but this season of top chef masters is just awful in my opinion. I agree with pretty much all the complaints in this thread. James Oseland makes the show a chore to watch and many of the challenges have just been abysmal. I found the last 2 weeks main challenges to be OK, I didnt mind the one last night or the date night challenge, but other than those two pretty much every challenge has been way too gimmicky for my tastes. I hope they at least stick with the traditional challenge for the final of top chef masters as its the best challenge of any cooking show (the one where they tell the story of their culinary career with a meal).

                I'm pulling for floyd at this point too, he's very easy to like.

                3 Replies
                1. re: twyst

                  I liked the old TC Masters format better. It was a lot more fun to watch. Happy Mary Sue won (she's my favorite) and sorry to see Hugh go - he was funny, once they started editing him better. I still think Naomi is going to pull it out in the end.

                  1. re: jeanmarieok

                    I agree, I think Naomi's going to take it.

                    1. re: mariacarmen

                      I concur. Naomi is a beast (plus she is pretty cute). She has shown some awesome talent this season, and of everyone so far I'd say either she or Traci deserves the win.

                2. Totally agree with most of the negative comments here. Unlike the regular Top Chef, they seem to have succeeded in getting rid of some of the most talented, most interesting chefs early in the game. I guess this is bound to happen when you create such gimmicky challenges that chefs are forced to go back to basics to turn out something decent, and then you bounce them for offering, say, a perfect risotto.

                  1. Forgot to watch it - we were dealing with thunderstorms and tornadoes west of where I live, so I was busy watching the weather updates up until 10pm...and then when the tornado warnings were called off, I went to bed.

                    Haven't read any comment but the OP's, so I'll post and see if it's OnDemand or wait until next week. Dammit, I have DVR now; I'm going to have to remember to set it to record! LOL

                    3 Replies
                    1. re: LindaWhit

                      I'm waiting for the DVR that can read my mind and record what I *intended* to record!

                      1. re: pine time

                        That's way too Terminator-machines-take-over-the-world for me. :-)

                      2. re: LindaWhit

                        Well, yet again - forgot to watch BOTH last week's and this week's shows. Looks like TCM2 has lost me as a viewer.

                      3. Maybe the show was edited in a way to inform the viewers, BUT I just think all the chefs and even some of the judges seemed a little clueless about the science of cooking. Sure, they may have needed the scientists to explain how to use the equipment, but did they really need them to explain an emulsion? Or the maillard reaction? Hugh especially seemed ignorant about the whole science of it. I am, at best, a competent cook, not able to create but can follow a recipe and I knew the basics behind all of the concepts.

                        1. I enjoyed this episode (but then I'm a scientist myself). I did at first feel that it was unfair to give them poor cooking appliances, but then I thought some more and realized it made the whole demonstration more "cool" for the kids, so it makes sense. I thought that Floyd was robbed; while I'm sure that MarySue's dish tasted good, I'm not sure the dish itself relied so much on the viscosity aspect, while Floyd made two delicious dishes that clearly demonstrated the difference. Of course one could say he got the easy one :) I thought that Naomi deserved to go home; I didn't think those doughs really showed elasticity whatsoever. If she'd stuck to the two versions of mozarella that would have been clearer. And when she said "mushrooms show elasticity too" prior to the demo, I was sure her assistant was kind of like "OOOO K....... suuure that's great......"

                          1. Could you imagine if Richard Blais or Wylie Dufresne were given emulsion in this challenge?
                            Making split mayo? lol....

                            1. I found the quickfire was a good concept but turned out boring because the chefs almost all made variations on the same dish. Maybe they should have had 15 minutes so they could come up with something more creative.

                              I loved the idea of the EC but I think they went too far in having them cook with lab equipment. After all, this is a cooking show, and we'd like to see them turn out good food. Plus, the point of the demonstrations was to show that scientific theories apply in real-life situations, and I think that would have come across more had they cooked with normal cooking tools.

                              I'm glad Hugh left because it really did seem like he was mailing it in this week, plus he was a jerk to his scientist helper.

                              1. Thanks everyone for the very clear recap. I was out of town last week, so missed it. The thread left me feeling as if I had seen it all. (without being subjected to Oseland.

                                I was at IACP in Austin, Tx.. and interestingly heard several Saveur folks speaking "lovingly" about Oseland. Could he really be nicer than he comes across on TCM?