They are aiming for one or more Michelin stars and think this is the way to win them.
It’s also a huge time sink. Even if Carmy isn’t trying to micromanage, he may (or may not, no idea for sure) be using the new menu as a distraction so he doesn’t have to deal with the real issues.
I believe it’s supposed to be something I’ve seen in real life - the menu is based on the best of what they are able to buy locally that day. Maybe the cantaloupe and ham appetizer isn’t on the menu tomorrow because the cantaloupe is overripe.
And even a fantastic review is not necessarily enough to ensure profits. There are many top restaurants worldwide that have closed, in part due to a lack of profitability. Look at El Bulli, wd-50 and Noma for examples. (The second and third were featured in The Bear.)
There’s a restaurant in my area that has a constantly changing menu. I’m not sure if it’s everyday, but it’s often enough that they don’t have a menu posted online and a quick look at their facebook page shows that they’re regularly posting new dishes.
Some people really like that kind of thing.
Completely agree. I should have said that a good review gives him more rope because it gives him a shot. A bad review and his funding is cut.
Given Uncle Jimmy’s financial troubles, his funding may be cut anyhow.
The Bear has 23 Emmy nominations, in Comedy. Beating the previously held record of 22 for 30 Rock, an actual comedy. 
Is Sydney aware of what they owe him? Did we ever find out of that debt is on the books?
My concern is if the debt is on the books, Sydney might be on the hook for part of it and not be aware of it.
I remember something similar happening a while back (Dexter winning in comedy or something along those lines). Someone told me that if a show is up against some particularly strong contenders in their own category, they’ll use a different one where they stand a much better chance of winning.
Perhaps they’d rather take on Only Murders In The Building and Hacks instead of The Crown or they thought Ayo Edebiri had a better chance of winning against Selena Gomez and Maya Rudolph than she would against Sarah Paulson.
At least that’s what I heard, but I couldn’t say for sure if it’s actually the case.
And remember that those Emmy nominations were for the second season.
Yes this is the prevailing theory. Everyone says it. They did it last season to avoid being crushed by Succession.
I thnk it’s Vanity Fair that does those videos where they have an expert rate scenes in movies in tv shows. They had a chef watch scenes from The Bear…they showed one of these scenes with Joel McHale and the chef explained “This was common in the 90s, but you’d never have a chef act like that now.”
I haven’t been to a restaurant that changes its menus that often, but that is exactly the type of restaurant that would appeal to me. I eat anything and everything; I like experiences and trying new things; I like to be pushed out of routine; I like to be surprised.
But wouldn’t you just go to a different restaurant?
I think the issue with Carmy is that he’s acting like a celebrity chef that has a following that would show up regularly to The Bear to see what he’s making today…when they need to establish an overall reputation for great food.
I think the cliffhanger of “what’s in the review” is pretty effective because although we saw words flash on screen…positive and negative, I don’t think we can trust those.
Oh, sorry. I was just replying out of context. I haven’t watched this season yet. There are a few restaurant industry bits in the first and second season that didn’t make a lick of sense to me, either, so I wouldn’t be surprised if your take on it is correct.
Oh sorry, my response is framed awkwardly. First line is to you, the rest is just abut the general issue of changing the menu every day.
If you like variety, trying new things, etc… wouldn’t you just go to a different restaurant for that? Not back to the same restaurant that just changed their menu? Now having said that…ok… yeah, I kind of get it. If I liked the staff, the ambiance, the location… and the menu changed regularly, that does make sense.
I’ve been to restaurants that are kind of a hybrid. It would be like, “the salmon isn’t available tonight because there wasn’t anything acceptable at the fish market this morning but we have an amazing trout special.”
Yeah, if you trust the place and the chef, you might not. For a non-industry example, there are certain friends I have where if I get invited to dinner at their place, I don’t care what they’re serving, I don’t even want to necessarily know what they’re serving, I just know it’s going to be good and I’m excited to taste whatever it is on their menu. My brother is the same way with Grant Achatz’s restaurant, Next (he also is the guy who started Alinea, a 3-Michelin-Star restaurant here in Chicago that often ends up on those “best restaurants in the world” lists.) Every few months, Next changes its theme. It could be historical food. It could be regional ethnic cuisine. It could be something abstract. He goes there because he loves Achatz and wants to see his take on a theme. Now, this is a little different, as you know what it is you’re getting yourself into beforehand. His other restaurant, Alinea, rotates its menu fully throughout the course of a year. So I haven’t seen anything quite as extreme as every day a new menu, but if I was a huge fan of a chef, I’d totally be down for it.
The world famous Chez Pannisse has changed their evening menus daily since forever. It’s one of the main reasons I’ve never booked a reservation with them - you generally have to book out well, well in advance of menus and take what you get. Unlike pulykamell I will not enjoy everything and the thought of getting an organ-meat themed evening at $175/plate is enough to dissuade me 
.
I expect that one of the options will be vegetarian or vegan.