I really got the feeling that it was a forgone conclusion. It didn’t matter what any of them made, the judges already knew who they wanted in the finale.
The judges swear over and over that they’re judging based on the food. And still people assume they’re lying and the whole thing is rigged. And based on what? You haven’t tasted the food, so all you have to go on is the video, which is of course edited so as not to give away the loser until Padme says “Please pack your knives and go”.
In no way am I’m saying I think it was rigged. But it’s also not a blind tasting so prejudices can come into play. They also swear over and over the judging is based only on the most recent dish - and then discuss what was done previously, both positive and negative.
I don’t have a problem with past performance influencing voting. On Chopped, they wait until the dessert round to be explicit about it, but I’m sure the appetizer round influences the entree round, subconsciously.
Ah, then I withdraw my criticism. Some people have said it’s rigged and they’re just picking whoever the producers tell them to pick, so I mistakenly assumed this was more of the same.
I guess it’s true that the judges might be influenced by past challenges even when they don’t mean to be. For what it’s worth, Colicchio has said that blind tasting wouldn’t make much difference because they quickly become so familiar with each chef’s unique style that they’d know who cooked what regardless. (Although maybe that wouldn’t have been true of Sheldon in the last episode.)
I guess for me it would be a question of how much influence. If the winner of the finale is already a foregone conclusion based on the rest of the season, then that’s definitely too much.
I’m not saying it’s rigged either, but you do realize that if it WAS, it would be in the judges best interest to say that there was no impropriety involved. I mean, they’re definitely not going to telecast it via blog that they did something underhanded to fix the competition. Just saying.
ETA: And I don’t mean rigged as in a predetermined outcome sort of way. I mean more of sorta influenced.
I’m not sure. One season final I recall they used taped footage then switched to a short live feed for the judges to pick the winner.
The clips of the chefs cooking on a stage looked pretty nerve-racking. Especially for Kristen. Her nerves have been an issue all season.
I was sad to see Sheldon go, but I would have been sad no matter who went. Favorite finalists as a group ever.
I think Top Chef is the most credible of reality show contests. Sure, maybe Sheldon was dinged a little for not being true to himself (past performance taken into account) but then again, a few years ago, mediocre Lisa made it all the way to the end (past performance not taken into account). It’s not perfect, but I feel that generally the judges make the best decisions based on the information in front of them at the time.
Poor Kristen getting booted, despite how incredible she had been previously, showed they will keep lesser chefs, but Tom saying last night how she shouldn’t have been eliminated indicated again that had they known what a load she was at the time, Josie would have been gone.
Well, yeah, but I think it’s a pretty big thing to accuse them of with zero actual evidence.* The judges are mainly well-known professional chefs. These are people to whom “good food” really means something. I’d expect them to have some sort of professional integrity about this sort of thing, much more so than a T.V. producer whose job is really just to make a good show. It’s more akin to accusing a journalist of fabricating a story.
Plus, I’ve read most of Colicchio’s blog entries, and to me his insistence that they are just judging the food comes across as really sincere. And again, he’s actually tasted the food. All the people questioning the judges’ decisions have to go on is “Well, the edited footage made it look like the other chef did a better job.”
- If you were actually accusing them, I mean.
Oh, I agree, and I really can’t imagine them sacrificing their reputations that way. However, I just couldn’t resist playing devil’s advocate. 
I think the number of high-end elite non-PC chefs they’ve had on Top Chef as judges and guests over the past 10 years speaks to how it’s not rigged, not to mention the number of really great contestants. In that group of people - it’s got to be over 200 - I can’t believe at least one or two wouldn’t have stepped up with proof that the judging wasn’t fair if that were the case. I just don’t see Bourdain, Ripert, etc., or contestants like the Voltaggio brothers and Richard Blais (and others) would hesitate one second to call them out if there was something to call out.
Even if there wasn’t proof, and the people didn’t speak out because they were bound by contracts or some other such legalities, I think there would be enough rumors in the industry that people would shy away from the show, and instead of seeing Emeril and all the other really great names showing up, we’d start to see watered down B level chefs because none of the great ones would want their names attached to what everyone in the industry knows is a shitty, rigged competition
Geez, that kitchen at Craft is to die for.
I really like both Brooke and Kristen, so I’ll be both sad and happy with the ending.
I can see how that would be, and I think that adds to my frustration this week. Brooke was praised for doing more Brooke food and Sheldon was penalized for doing something outside the box. Since I can’t taste the food it would have been nice if they’d said a little bit more about what the Brooke thing was, and why it worked. (In addition to “depth”).
I know it’s the editing and judging goes on longer than what we see, but they really had very little to say about Brooke’s food at Judges’ Table at all. I got the “Yep, of course she’s in” vibe from it all.
And again, I’m not saying it’s rigged, just a forgone conclusion because of her talent and history in the competition. Maybe for dramatic reasons they can’t just outright state she’s blowing them all away and none of them is even in her league. But I’d love to hear it (maybe when she wins) and learn about why.
The best argument for it not being rigged is that, if it were rigged, they’re doing a spectacularly bad job of it. Chefs that have broad appeal are cut early for not cooking good food, chefs people can’t stand stay on despite nobody liking them and chefs that were obviously cast as villains depart before they can do any villainy.
Me, too. I think this is the best finale line up in forever. I can’t remember being so completely even as far as who I’d like to see win - they are both immensely talented and interesting chefs.
It will be so nice to have another woman TC!
~VOW
Is Andy hosting a reunion?
I think so, after Finale, part 2. Fan fave is supposed to be announced.
~VOW
My opinion is that the producers probably don’t influence the judging outcomes, but that the judges may be somewhat influenced (consciously or subconsciously) by what they’ve seen and tasted previously from the chefs. The editors will put anything on the screen that they think will bring in more viewers and cause ad revenue to increase.
StG