Hi everyone! I’m so excited to be writing my first blog post about Around the World in 80 Plates.
Going to London was a great way to kick off the incredible journey we experienced on the show. At least there weren’t any language barriers and the cuisine was… well, somewhat familiar. As you can guess, all that would change when we moved on.
My first impression was that I was blown away by the quality of the contestants. They were all true professionals with impressive backgrounds and lots of real world experience in the kitchen. I know they were all excited to be on the show but, as you can guess, they didn’t know what they were in for. It was really interesting to see how they reacted to hearing that they had to vote someone off. Obviously that changed their attitude to the game right away.
The first episode showed how demanding the show is. It requires a mix of culinary skill, physical stamina, teamwork, and political savvy. Not to mention heroic eating capacity! I know I couldn’t have drunk all that beer and polished off those plates of pub food.
Personally, I think having the chefs do the chosing is a crock. At some point the judges are going to have to step in, or the best chef deserving, will be the one going home.
While I understand you probably feel it was part of the fun, requiring the teams to drink any type of alcohol quickly was irresponsible.
Hopefully Cat & Curtis went home after London. If it all boils down to a manipulative chef deciding who goes home and not actual cooking skills or input of diners, there is zero need for professionals to be included.
Very disappointing decisions on the part of the show & since I see "Nookie" in future previews, I will be skipping the rest of this series. In fact, as long as "Nasty People" are Bravos' plan of attack, won't be watchin!!! What a waste of talent, travel, and beautiful everything...........
couldnt get interested in this show. I love Cat cora, but really? contestants choose who leaves? set up for bullying seems like.
you guys need to pick the winner and the loser each week. leaving it up to the chefs ain't going to cut it for the viewers.
So this show judges what a deceitful jerk you can be instead of how well you can cook? What would the point of winning be? I guess you would go on Top Chef if you wanted bragging rights.
I agree with the other comments... several of the chefs seem to be on the show for the wrong reason (to win at any cost rather than show what strong creative chefs they are). And while I appreciate Bravo's effort to mix up the traditional formula of having the "experts" decide who gets eliminated - I don't think that having the contestants make the decision is going to lead to the most deserving winner. Personalities and backstabbing and "game-play" is going to be a bigger issue than the cooking (as it already has on the first episode!)
I never watch Survivor because the dog eat dog premise goes against my moral values. I do love cooking competitions, and don't mind chefs competing on their own merits and skills.(coking actual dogs excepted, of course) I agree that choosing to ax one's teammate is too much like survivor and too little like Iron Chef. The hosts have so far played no productive role. This show has culinary travel draw, and could have been planned better.