Mistica wrote:

The recipes for two of the best dishes on tonight's show are not on the website. How do you decide what shows up and what does not. Can we get the recipe for the winning burger and a few of the other best burgers? Also, the recipe for the apple tatin dessert the judges said was wonderful? It would be much appreciated. I'm glad no one was eliminated tonight. The producers should take responsibility for a poorly designed challenge. Time should be given for all to participate in setting up the restaurant and for all to be involved in the cooking. Then plating and front of the house can be divided. Also servers need to show up more than 30 minutes before the "customers", especially on the first night. Let's put a little realism back in the mix. The judges made the right decision.

posted on August 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Anarosa Estevez wrote:

I was not at all sympathetic towards Sara being dismissed. Although I thought that the way the challenge was set up was deceitful, I thought she should have bounced back immediately.
I was not disappointed with the result tonight, both teams had very low points and some very good ones. I particularly enjoyed watching Howie learning to work in a team. It means he learned something from his previous team challenges. I was very surprised Dale and Hung decided to place vanilla candles! Even I know not to do that at my home when I am entertaining. Overall, I am glad the judges decided to give both teams a second chance. They gave some very good advice at the judging table. I can't wait to see how it all turns out!

posted on August 15, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Janice wrote:

Gail ... as always, I love your blog. My gripe about the shoes isn't that it can't be done, but the fact that the male counterparts did not have to contend with the same issue.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Lizzie Bennett wrote:

I do believe in seecond chances. However, this is a competition and your rules are to eliminate a chef (or sometimes two) every week. It seems that you didn't take this seriously and let them have a do over. If some of the chefs who did a reasonably good job this week mess up next week, is it fair. Or is fairness a consideration? It is hard for me to watch and enjoy something that isn't fair.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Zekia wrote:

Gail!

I just wanted to let you know that my roommate and I really enjoy your commentary in the episodes. And while we like Ted just fine, we miss seeing you! I might have missed reading it somewhere, but is there some reason why you aren't in a number of the episodes? We want you back!

posted on August 16, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Eric wrote:

Gail,

First off, I agree with other people on here it's better when you’re on the show. You intelligent comments are always welcome.

It's very interesting hearing about the burgers. I was first introduced to the high priced burgers when I visited my best friend who was working at Lumiere in Vancouver over two years ago. Well they are very good!!!

Also the ring you were wearing a few episodes ago. The one with the big white top was amazing, my cousin is a jewelry maker, so it caught my eye.

My best,

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:26 AM

Megan wrote:

Many women have had to wear heels when they did not want to, in the restaurant industry and outside of it. We could set up a whole website talking about it. The point is that in this *competition*, the men were not at this disadvantage.
I was happy to see a do-over. It made the whole episode more exciting. When someone goes next week, they will have had plenty of warning, and who ever goes, it will be fair -even if it is someone we are rooting for.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:28 AM

Andy B. wrote:

Hi Gail, I think there should have been an elimination, and a winner just like every episode. It's ironic that Hung should have been todays winner. Though almost everyone made puzzling mistakes, Howie made way too many. He should have pack up his knives and gone. After leaving out his frog legs in episode 1 and surviving, and then this
catastrophe. Along with constantly appearing on the bottom three. WWhat in the world will get Howie OUT. I don't get it!
Howie even defended his horrible gunk, and argued with renown chef Daniel and chef Tom in using cream in his dish. Looking at his dish he is so so wrong.
WWhat a mess of an episode.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:32 AM

Matt in Miami wrote:

What happened last week was everybody forgot why they were there. Unless the chefs go on all sorts of little junkets that we don't get to see, they should have seen it coming. And unless it's just a trick of editing, isn't the elimination challenge always immediately after the quickfire?

This week wasn't a smart decision, it was a producer's decision. I hate to say it, but after thinking about it I think Tre should have been sent home. He made the worst fundamental error. Not an error in strategy that would be normal in the opening of a restaurant, just really badly cooked food.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:36 AM

workerdummy wrote:

Call me old fashioned or no palate, but I'll take a 1/4 pound of ground chuck, grilled and plopped with a slice of onion and tomato on a soft bun with no seeds over a DB Burger Royale anyday.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:54 AM

Kellogg wrote:

Where can I get the book the chefs were given tonight? My son, who is sooo close to finishing culinary school in Denver, should read it. Heck, I want to, too.
Love your show. Well worth staying up "late" at least one night per week. My favorite chef? Tre, hands down. His suave and confident demeanor is so refreshing. He is cool, calm, and his expertise is developing nicely. Keep up the great work!! How did I do for my first blog...ever? Whew.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:54 AM

gary e. wrote:

Gail: you are missed when you are gone, I,m not sure if i,m getting use to Hung and Howie But! I did not grit my teeth watching them tonite. God! I hope they dont make it to the last two standing.....

posted on August 16, 2007 at 3:03 AM

andrew wrote:

gail,
thanks for your intelligent comments, which put this contest in context. you were missed on this episode!

posted on August 16, 2007 at 3:03 AM

Kat wrote:

Frustrated about no one being eliminated? Hardly. I actually thought for a second that you judges were going to eliminate both Brian and Dale! I'm glad you judges have given the contestants a second chance to analyze their mistakes, apply what they learned, and come back even stronger (or so I hope).
Great insight Gale! I always look forward to reading your blog.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Maryanne wrote:

First I want to say that I love Top Chef and I always find myself thinking "what would I do for this challenge" While I don't know all the techniques that the chefs use and have not been privy to all the different kinds of foods they use, I still like to imagine how I would do . . .

Regarding the challenge last week and the fairness of high heels in the kitchen . . . I would have just taken my shoes off and kept going . . .

posted on August 16, 2007 at 4:19 AM

No wrote:

Gail, c'mon. There's a difference between whipping up a burger for some journalists in heels and trying to command respect from the guys in the kitchen while dressed that way. Not to mention being impeded a great deal more in a professional set up. You're comparing apples and oranges--if you screwed up a burger for the Podunk Press, would that have neded your career on the spot?

posted on August 16, 2007 at 4:26 AM

James wrote:

I think for the challenge 'restaurant wars', the chefs should be given more time for the challenge One day for planning the menu, name, concepts, the next day for the food/decor shopping, setting up the restaurant, and then go live that evening. I think if you try to cram a challenge like this in, you're going to get poor results, which is what happened last night.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 8:38 AM

Ramona wrote:

Gail:
Finally TC realizes that it is practically impossible to create a resteraunt in 24 and have everything go smoothly. I am looking forward to seeing the results next week and I hope that the teams are allowed to re create their menus to be more seasonally appropriate.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 8:42 AM

John Robie wrote:

I have to say Gail, I was dismayed at everyone harping on the inappropriateness of Howie and Sara's "heavy" menu for the season. You were in Miami, are there even seasons there? Isn't it pretty much constant summer?

Following the judges' argument to it's logical conclusion, it would seem that no restaurants in Miami should ever serve a roast or a lamb shank. And that's ridiculous because wherever you can't eat sushi and citrus salad every day, sometimes people are going to want a lamb shank.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 9:10 AM

juni wrote:

The hamburger war stories are interesting--and also the whole debate about women cooking in high heels. Hey, women wearing high heels, period, is crazy. There's a club in NYC whose ladies' room hangs flipflops all over the ceiling. She sells them for $7.50 to all the women who show up in strappy stilettos and end up begging to buy her wares when their blistered and bloody feet can take it no more. Dancing, cooking, walking, these shoes are always a disadvantage.

Sara was a crybaby about it all though--Did she really think the viewers were going to tune in to watch these people partying? Did she forget that she was in a contest? And then to say she is too nice to be in a contest? Nice but ineffectual doesn't cut it.

Tonight's contest was a confusing mish-mash of disconnected ideas. The restaurant names didn't make sense, nor did their menus--and especially for Miami--lamb shanks that look like cavemen's clubs and sticky risotto is not what anyone would order on a hot day in Miami. And the scented candles--how pathetically not-thought-out. I'd love to see a garage with potpourri and scented candles, right?

posted on August 16, 2007 at 9:23 AM

LSTaff wrote:

This was one of the worst episodes yet - and it had nothing to do with the contestants. The organization and execution by the producers seemed to be the culprit. First the quick fire challange seemed to lack focus. They were to make burgers that would be on a Red Robbin menu, but had some high end chef judging them? What about some executive chef from RR or someone intimate with RR's vision and food do the judging? So what were the contestants supposed to make - a high end burger that the judge would like or a burger that fits RR's concept and RR customers would like? Scallop and shrimp burger? c'mon that would not sell well at RR unless it was deep fried. The challange would have made more sense if they left RR out of it, but they HAD to get the product placement in somewhere - this time it seemed way too forced and disjointed.

I am also a little confused on what the point of the elimination challange was - is it to see who can or can't handle the pressure of opening in 24 hrs - if so, why the need for a do-over - there were clearly people who made major mistakes and should have gotton kicked off - certaintly other contestants have been asked to leave in the past for lesser crimes. And if the point is to see who can pull off a certain vision, then why not give them extra time to get it right in the first place? Seems to me that with this no-decision that some contestants are being protected from elimination (howie, dale, tre) so they stay on the show for one reason or another.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 11:02 AM

julia wrote:

You comments on the burger were terrific. Love your blog but I really like having Ted Allen as the judge. Sorry.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Kim wrote:

I have to ask . . .if the judges know it's a near impossibility to open a restaurant in 24 hours why have the contestants do it?
There have been other situations where the judges make a comment about difficulty. How can they fairly let someone go on a challenge that they know they themselves couldn't complete?
TC is beginning to grasp at straws. They need some workable ideas.
However, I must say this year's cast is MUCH more enjoyable than the vile personalities last year.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Diane wrote:

I am so pleased that all of you judges made an "out of the box" decision here. I was pleased that you didn't send anyone home because to do so might have meant you were sending home the best chefs this season for mistakes that are understandable. (with the exception of scented candles (not a wonderful idea to be sure.) For the most part, my congratulations to both judges and contestants (please, no cheftestants-too corny). Sara and Howie really tried hard to get along with one another, learn from their mistakes and move on. I have liked every contestant on this show. I was actually in tears along with Joey a couple of weeks ago. Great Chefs, great judges. Excellent season

posted on August 16, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Jen wrote:

Personally, I don't think that last week's challenge was more unfair to the girls than the guys. Everyone chose what they went out in, and honestly, Sara was in a sleeveless shirt and JEANS. I bet her feet hurt, but so do mine after a day of teaching in cute shoes. Many of the guys were in silky looking shirts that probably stuck to them like the Glad Saran wrap that is shown so often on the show. And come on, this is a reality show, so they shouldn't have been that surprised that there was a hitch to the evening's plans.

I was disappointed that no one went home this week, but it will be interesting to see what happens next week. Do they start with complete new budgets...they can redecorate, etc. as need be?

posted on August 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Matt in Miami wrote:

To all who are complaining that Restaurant Wars is unfair, remember that in seasons 1 and 2 they gave 3 chefs (not 4) more work to do and we never witnessed a disaster of the proportions that occured last night. Both team captains screwed up. Both executive chefs screwed up. Both had major problems in the front of the house. Neither team was what anyone would call successful in any aspect of the competition. That has never happened before, and this year was easier than any previous year.

It isn't that the competition is too tough, it's that the competitors are a lot weaker than they have been in the past. Much as I like Tre and Casey, they wouldn't have made it past the 6th week in previous years. I only hope this trend doesn't continue and the producers round up chefs of the quality that made this show great.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 3:38 PM

dave wrote:

gail... yet another episode that totally sucked because you weren't in it... well, it didn't suck but it would've been so much better if you were there... i know i speak for many when i say we miss you!! sigh...

posted on August 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Jill wrote:

Gail:
You come off as a Top Chef cheerleader. Just once, I'd like you to call a spade a spade, the way Anthony does on his blog, and sorry, I don't believe you could cook in that type of environment in stilletto heels.

Top Chef as become less about the artistry of cooking and more of a reality show designed to humiliate the participants.
Sarah nailed it when she said she felt"demoralized". I think maybe Brian may have felt demoralized too when he had to work as a front man in sultry heat, and some no-nothing blogger wrote that he needed to use Right Guard.

Why quote that low-life blogger at all at the judges table when you have a panel of experts?

posted on August 16, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Todd wrote:

Enough if the whining along the lines of "how could we be expected to eat such heavy food".....the total volume of ALL the dishes is always so small I find it hard to think that someone could "not get through it"

posted on August 16, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Cheryl wrote:

Last season they had decorators for the restaurant wars episode. Combine that with Tom Colicchio's infamous "It's a cooking show, he didnt cook anything" comment from the finale last year, it's totally appriopriate that they didn't eliminate last night. All the chefs need to actually COOK something to be fairly judged and to have his fellow contestants be fairly judged as well. This is not Top First Night Restauranteur and a restauranteur is DIFFERENT than a chef.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Delta wrote:

I like mine with Lettuce and Tomato, Heinz 57 and french fried potatoes a big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer....and a price of less than $10. $50, $100 for a burger. Insanity. Also, maybe a little less product placement? Still love the show.

posted on August 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Jade wrote:

I love this show so much. I can't wait to see the next one. I am very glad to see no one was eliminated. It would be not fair to Dale or Brian to be blamed. No human being could make over a junk yard place as a high class restaurant alike within 24 hours. I have to give both of them a lot of credit to do this impossible thing. This is almost like Hell's Kitchen show. In HK, they had the designer and handymen helped the project. By given such a short time, Kudos to Brian and Dale!!! I am truly IMPRESSED!!! Hope judges can see the bright side of these guys. They are genuis.

I really hope the program designers can focus on cooking, design more fun and impressive programs. These past two programs really not well thought and well planned. When no one was eleminated, that means the program itself FAILED. Please give those chefs enough time to prepare their food. I am sure they can bring out wonderful food, better than "pressure cooking".

posted on August 16, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Deanna wrote:

Hi.
Because I wrote inlast season to complain about the low-quality "drama" (from Betty the mouth to shaving Marcel's head and the constant yelling, fighting and bleeped cusswords), I felt compelled to compliment this season's show. Quite an improvement. Thank you!
When the previews began before this season started, I was totally sure this would be another low quality season when the preview chef (Micah- we later learned) was telling me to "Get the Hell out of the kitchen." I thought this season would be a south park or something similar to last season. Thanks for the upgrade. You didn't loose this household as viewers after all.
As for this recent show- I think a second opportunity was the perfect solution to the problem of so many problems in the restaurant wars.
I must admit, watching sweat run down Howie's forehead, off the end of his nose and into the food is a total gross out and seems awfully unprofessional.
That other cooking show (H.K>) seems to ignore pieces of their chef's body falling in the food as well- namely untied hair swinging all over the place over the bowls.
I really appreciate any and every single shot of the chefs showing their consideration of sanitation- like when Hung uses a fork instead of sticking his finger into the food and then into his mouth. I woud like to see an occasional shot of a Chef washing his hands- just to remind viewers that Top Chefs are aware of sanitation.
I love your show.
Deanna

posted on August 17, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Edward Barnett wrote:

I would like to comment on the "Too Heavy" thing. A while back it became trendy to serve a strip of meat on some veggies and put some whipped fruit on it and call it dinner. Most of us eat in AC or heat so we do not need a meal that matches our surroundings. To knock food for being filling is a joke! 90% of America wants a good but filling meal. Stop acting like trendy food critics and remember food is for people, not for food magazines!

posted on August 17, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Kenneth Hargrove wrote:

Personally, this challange would have been better without the chef's having to futz around with the front of the house. Give them a usable space that they can make ready with a slight redesign, and let them spend most of their time and energy on the food aspect of the service. If we want to watch aspiring designers, there's a dozen design reality shows. And if we want to see contrived design "emergencies" then there's always the season finale of "Hells Kitchen". Maybe there could be a crossover edition of Top Chef and Top Design.

posted on August 17, 2007 at 3:02 AM

Bach wrote:

I thought the episode was very good, but not as good as when Gail is present (so hot). Part of the idea of the competition is to throw the contestants off..and apparently it threw off some viewers as well. So what noone went home, it was a nice twist.
Do you really have to have the same exact program every week.
I'd like to see more change ups.
My only criticism is that everyone should have cooked and everyone should be judged on the food. Otherwise, make everyone go shopping for the decor and candles etc. so they all have an equal opportunity at a none cooking screw up.
Put a professional host out front and put the chefs in the kitchen.

posted on August 17, 2007 at 8:06 AM

kayceem wrote:

Would it kill Chef Tom Colicchio and Gail to smile once in a while. They always act so ticked off when they criticize the chefs. Face it, if someone didn't fail just a bit, there would never be an elimination.

posted on August 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

dave wrote:

I have had no interest in cooking ever....(yes, I'm that lazy)...till Top Chef. I never knew of the New York Burger War and its story was fascinating! Throwing in your own personal stories makes things a little more interesting. Great blog.

posted on August 18, 2007 at 1:22 AM

Corey wrote:

Gail, how long did it take Chef Daniel Boulud to perfect the DB Burger Royale? About 30 minutes? And he got it right on the very first try, right?

I'm just kidding around. I'm glad that you think it was a good idea to give the contestants a second chance to perfect their vision and their execution. I mean, only thirty minutes to plan? Only one chance to get it right? With no chance to recover from the previous challenges, which were also exhausting? It's a wonder that they did as well as they did. They're troopers, and I'm amazed by their performances.

posted on August 18, 2007 at 5:22 AM

lon wrote:

The performance of the chefs was abysmal this week. It's pretty obvious that the overall quality of the chefs is higher than in previous years. However, both prior seasons, the restaurant challenge came with only three people on each team. Plus, the teams had more money and at least as much time this season. Except for Steven in Season 1, none of the previous chefs had much front of house experience either.

Perhaps the producers, noting the problems with Restaurant Wars shows in previous seasons, decided to allow more participants. How sad the results. This time the service was terrible and the food wasn't much better. To have such poor results with four participants on each team was very disappointing. And it doesn't sound, based on the previews, that the second go-around got much better.

I miss Chef Tom's comments because I have lost one common point to use in comparing seasons of chefs. However, at this point, I still think Season 1 was the best.

posted on August 18, 2007 at 5:44 AM

Gail wrote:

I like the idea of a 2nd chance. As a rule, we NEVER go to a restaurant the first month after it opens. We have done it, and it is inevitably poor service/food/cleanliness. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a halfway decent restaurant takes more than 24 hours and 4 people!

posted on August 18, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Deborah R wrote:

Love you, Gail, but ...

The issue isn't whether a woman can cook in high heels if she must--it's that ONLY the women were required to cook in high heels. This is a competition and that placed an unfair burden on the female contestants (that I'm dismayed to hear another woman defend). Yes, we should all move on--but I guess some of us keep belaboring the point because, with all due respect, you just don't seem to get it. The designers of that challenge (and the judges who've failed to cop on as Ted has) blew it. I don't think the producers intended to unfairly burden the female contestants, but that's what happened and it would be nice if everyone could just own up to the mistake instead of stubbornly trying to justify why women should be able to cook in high heels. Good grief.

On to this week: Why should anyone feel let down because no one was eliminated? I was thrilled--especially given that Dale and Brian are two of my favorites and I'd hate to see a chef eliminated because he did a poor job in the front of the house. Top Chef is a competition, but it's also top-notch entertainment. The failure to eliminate anyone this week just extends the drama--and the fun--a week longer. Bravo!

posted on August 18, 2007 at 1:36 PM

john wrote:

Definitely an interesting episode...Brian should have been thrown off because his bad "front of the house" skills doomed restaurant april.

garage had their own problems; aside from the bad design choices by Dale, both howie and hung let sara take a job which was woefully beyond her capabilities.

Beyond that, howie has overstayed his welcome.

No one wants to work with him because he is a jerk!

Howie, take your bossy arrogant attitude and your crappy risotto and HIT THE ROAD!

Next week they should throw two contestants off of the losing team - the team leader and the team member which does the poorest.

No one has really impressed this season, except Hung, Casey, and Tre.

posted on August 18, 2007 at 3:48 PM

ChefinNYC wrote:

I just have to say that I think Chef Colicchio is *beyond* hypocritical in his criticism of the cheftestants this week. I know for a fact (having worked with/known) people who have worked for him that Chef C spends YEARS planning the opening of a restaurant. He has a phalanx of staffers working around the clock to ensure no detail is overlooked. For him to be so critical of the cheftestants when they had 24 hours, 4 people, no other staff or consultants, presumably no idea of the week's challenge in advance, and roughly $3500, is laughable. No one opens a restaurant in 24 hours and that should be taken into consideration. Instead all he, and Padma, could do was sneer at any mistakes that were made. Yes, some were unforgivable - Dale and Hung were way off the mark with scented candles and Tre should have sent the fillet out without a side dish rather than serving the nuclear potatoes - but kinks in service? Spare me. The *best* of restaurants all take time to work this out and they met their servers 20 minutes before service - they didn't have months of vetting beforehand. Front of house issues? These people are CHEFS - they work back of house, NOT FRONT. I could go on and on. This season had such potential earlier on but I am quickly losing interest as good people go, mediocre people stay and the judge's egos expand.

posted on August 18, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Mas_Tequila wrote:

Hi Gail,

I, for one, was glad no one was eliminated...they all did nearly as bad a job as the next, to choose one would have been unfair. I can usually call who is going to get it, but this one had me completely at a loss! Apparently, the judges felt the same way. They made the right call, as usual.

It would have been unfair to boot either Brian or Dale given their complete lack of experience. Love your work on the show!

For the record - I think Tre has it in the bag unless he completely screws the pooch at some point.

posted on August 18, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Mark Gaipo wrote:

Gail, love the show, love the food but you are one of the reasons I LOVE Top Chef -

posted on August 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM

grace wrote:

i just finished watching season 2 finale. i'm a little behind in my top chef viewing. you gotta be kidding me! marcel should have won! he has so much more creativity and pushes the envelope in his original dishes. by the way, i can't stand ilan , betty, elia and mikey. stop picking on marcel. ilan is a complainer. so glad season two is over. none of the contestants were really likeable. season three contenders are more interesting as a whole.

posted on August 20, 2007 at 2:08 AM

Gary Wells wrote:

Gail, you are always missed when you aren"t There is a difference between Straight and narrow. What was so great looking about a ragamuffin like Sam anyway for mature women. Probobly mature men. Any way This is a cooking show!!! If Any of the female contestants were working yhe front of the house, and an emergancy occured what are they going to do. I cannot cook in heels because they did not teach that in manager training! Bull crap if you earn the bucks and you trained in the kitchen, you will purchace new clothes tommorow or, In my way I run my place,Don"t let the door hit you in the ass!

posted on August 20, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Fred Lewis wrote:

Ithink Howie defends his gunk as one polester wrote, Because CJ and Brian and Dale"s inexprience prevents them from defending themselves,CJ is a rude ego driven jerk who cannot run the front or the back. Who does he cook for,Lassie. Brian should be a Red Lobster Manager and Dale should be Billy Idols chef!

posted on August 20, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Raven Windrider wrote:

Hi Gail,

Regarding Howie's risotto this episode. You know, it is funny that Colicchio et al were complaning about Howie's risotto during restaurant wars, and yet, it probably helped save him in Week 1 turning in an incomplete. The judges - yourself included - then said they really liked Howie's risotto. Unlikey that Howie made a different style risootto in Week 1.

Just a thought....

posted on August 20, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Edwin wrote:

Remember, "chef" is a French word that translates into English as "chief." It's become corrupted to include just about everybody above the level of short-order cook getting paid to prepare food.

To me, this means that chefs -- as opposed to the cooks in a restaurant's kitchen -- should be expected to manage budgets and such basic planning issues such as having sufficient quantities of food available, and ensuring that the servers can get it to the diners in a timely fashion. These are areas where both teams failed, and both were rightly penalized for it. Conversely, the decor issues (except candles, which I detest, and scented candles, which I detest more) should not be considered during the judging of a toy restaurant, like this week's challenge.

posted on August 20, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Sevenmack wrote:

As I've said elsewhere, the complaint that the women were disadvantaged during the Roach Coach episode is ridiculous. After all, wouldn't Sara M have performed poorly? And remember, she was on the winning team.

As for the heels? Kick them off like most women do after hours of dancing, walking or just standing. Hell, my mother cooked in a ball gown. I've cooked in a business suit and $500 dress shoes. Sara N. was in jeans and a blouse, not in a micro-mini and a bra.

The reality is that Sara N., unlike Howie, Tre or Hung (or even like Lia or Joey, who were eliminated before her) didn't show a lick of talent. She complained that she didn't have enough of a chance to show her stuff. Crap. She had eight more episodes than Clay, seven more chances than Sandee and more chances than Lia or Joey, who had more talent than her. She was either middle of the pack or at the bottom of every competition. She whined like a little girl -- and actually, that's an insult to little girls; they usually show more spunk than Sara N did -- after the elimination competition. She deserved to go.

There was nothing sexist about the previous challenge. Sara N. couldn't hack it and frankly, neither could Casey, who like Sara N, should have been tossed out long ago. The only reason why Casey managed to survive was because Howie screwed up big time with his Cuban sandwich. And he would have been gone if not for the fact that Sara N demonstrated an absolute lack of professionalism during the Judge's Table session.

Grown women don't cry in public. Or during competitions. They get to work and get the job done.

posted on August 21, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Cheryl wrote:

I am addicted to this show. I agree that the cheftestants this series do not seem as accomplished as in the first two.

I was wondering if Dales' Peach Cobbler ice cream recipe was going to be posted? It looked and was decribed as very yummy!

posted on August 21, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Cyclechef wrote:

Gail,
You are right on the mark about the uselessness of whining over high-heels-while-cooking. However, as others have mentioned and I feel compelled to echo, this is a COMPETITION. While your experiences during the Burger Wars was, I am sure, no less harrowing, you were not "cooking for your life" in a discrete challenge against men in loafers.

What baffles me is that Top Chef did not see this as an opportunity to gain a sponsor (Crocs? Dansko?) so as to create a more level competitive situation. Perhaps next season?

Best regards. Enjoy your commentary immensely.

posted on August 22, 2007 at 2:02 PM

catrece wrote:

Hi, Gail. Am I wrong or were in Aspen a couple of weeks ago? We were sitting at a table at the bottom of mountain on Aug. 6, and I think you were sitting next to us with of the producers. Didn't comment because I think it's rude to bother people when they're trying to have some privacy! Was it you?

posted on August 22, 2007 at 4:02 PM

garebhur wrote:

Hi Gail,
Are you a chef? How do you know so much about culinary expertise? I went to the Asheville Bumcome Tech Culinary School in Asheville, NC for a year. I was a full service restaurant manager for years before that and wow! when I did that year I learned alot. I just love the show and watch it all the time. Keep up the great work and put out as many Top Chefs as you can, we can use them.

p.s. I was a stright A student, not to bragg

A real fan, Garebhur

posted on August 30, 2007 at 4:09 AM