Lizzie wrote:

Great show last night and it's great to have you back blogging. I'm thrilled with your new Craft in LA - I've been out here two years (from NYC) and I've missed your food.

I couldn't quite understand the two-apps strategy from some of the chefs. Sometimes less is really, truly more. With Howie blowing off the Quickfire AND blowing both his apps - it was a no brainer.

I was very glad that the judges decided not to buy into Howie's "I'll fall on my sword" play. For a guy who looks so much like a dock worker, he's a big ol' drama queen. It was past time for him to pack his knives.

And then there were six.... can't wait to see how the rest of this season unfolds. Tre was my favorite, but Sara and CJ are growing on me. I'm even warming up to Hung - which I would not have predicted at the beginning of the season. He got to me when he cut up those chickens like a man possessed. Loved it.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM

kris i. wrote:

Hi Chef Tom!

Let me start off by letting you know what a wonderful experience my husband and I had at Craft Los Angeles! Each dish we tried was just delicious, especially the Japanese Wagyu Sirloin that was no less than superb. The overall dining experience was delightful, so i would like to congratulate you on a job well done! The raspberry cornbread that we took home was delicious, and let me tell you, that really made us vow to come back for more 'craft'-y treats.

Now about your blog. I totally agree with what you said about the budget. I think the chefs did not get the challenge at all and most of them just chose to make crappy half-ass dishes. Frankly, most Americans have the same type of budget when throwing parties, or even less, and can come up with more satisfying meals that "wow" you.
I was really sad to see Tre go last week, and seriously I dont think there is anyone now who totally stands out. I could see the frustration in your eyes, and if I may say, I think its been a while since any of them has blown you away. Pretty disappointing....

I am so glad you are back and blogging, and congrats again on the successful opening of Craft LA! Cheers!

kris i.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:11 AM

MAP wrote:

Tom, I'm glad to see you back on the blogs and congratulations on Craft LA. My all-time favorite restaurant is Craftsteak in Las Vegas (there is no better steak), but I'm hoping to give LA a try soon. Regarding this week's episode, I can appreciate showing the chef's operating within a budget, but the appetizer/finger food/small bites episodes are getting old. And I am hard pressed to pick a leader at this point. I can't imagine any of the remaining chefs putting together a cohesive finale menu. Maybe it's the suspense factor, but it's not working for me. Last season when they announced the contest to have the winning Top Chef come cook in your home, I was formulating my guest list and choosing my outfit to meet my favorite chef, Sam. No, I didn't win and no, it wouldn't have been Sam anyway, but this season...I don't have a favorite and I really miss that.
One more note: I loved that you were in the kitchen for Restaurant Wars Part Deux. It's always hard to tell how long you are in the kitchen when you're just passing through.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Megan wrote:

Count me as one of the three season loyal Top Chef fans who is about done with this show if you do not do something about the judging. I feel like it is almost certain that Hung will win. The worst part about this is I feel that he has been protected through all his disasters (especially the arroz con pollo) until he gets to his strengths, fine dining. I have no doubt he will be able to pull out some impressive recipes from Guy Savoy to dazzle judges in the last two episodes. But if you are not looking for a well rounded Chef, who is creative, then why even bother with other styles of cooking? Fried chicken wings, a low showing on BBQ - if all of that was cumulative, then Hung might not even be around. On the opposite side, had Tre not taken the job, he would be. It just makes me lose my enthusiasm for the show. I have fallen in love with Anthony Bourdain and Rocco's blog, but I cannot see watching the show next year unless you do something about the judging criteria.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:22 AM

Susan wrote:

I liked the way you dealt with Howie at Judge's Table. Admittedly I have a little affection for Howie because people dismiss him and yet several times he has been a winner or finalist if quickfire and elimination challenges. BUT HE AS A MAJOR CHIP of insecurity on his shoulder and it is a problem that is going to keep dogging him throughout his career unless he addresses it now. You didn't let his immaturity dictate the proceedings -- you put it aside and let the issues, facts, and evidence adjudicate the matter. Your bottom-line approach and honesty is a refreshing aspect to this show and one of the reasons I look forward to watching it.

I wish Howie well, and advise him to believe in himself, open his mind to other views, and just learn & grow. Most of all HAVE A GOOD TIME, relax, and laugh a little -- you might find out that the world isn't really out to get you...that this is just unneccesary stress you put upon yourself. RELEASE IT, you'll live longer.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM

kriselda jarnsaxa wrote:

It's nice to see your reconsideration of some of the criticism you leveled at Brian in this episode. While he wasn't a "whip cracker" keeping the troops in lock step, I think he did do a decent job balancing the need to ensure that the overall presentation is appropriate for and appealing to the guests, while still allowing each chef to show off their strengths or weaknesses (whichever the case may be.) Had Brian insisted that everyone only make one dish and been more involved in how each dish was prepared, he could have ended up carrying a weak contestant into another week when, had the chef been left to their own devices, that contestant might have been the one eliminated. It's a very difficult position to be in, and I thought Brian handled it quite well.

When Casey and Sara asked him if he agreed with their decision that it should not be served, he was working for the betterment of the team. When he let Howie serve two not-so-great appetizers, he was letting Howie hang himself without reducing the overall quality of the presentation suffer too greatly.

Imagine if he *had* gone to Howie and told him "you can only make one dish, so make it good" or if, after tasting Howie's two appetizers he'd said that one was unpalatable enough that it should not be served, come Judge's Table time, Howie's going to say that Brian sabotaged him by either not letting him serve, or not letting him make, a 2nd appetizer. If he *had* made a 2nd appetizer and Brian had refused to let it go out, Howie could have a valid complaint that you and the rest of the Judge's didn't have an opportunity to judge his entire effort and that Brian had substituted his judgment for yours by deep sixing the dish.

So being in the "leader" position gets to be exceptionally tricky - in ways that would never exist in a working restaurant (where you're not trying to get your co-workers fired instead of yourself,) and Brian, I thought, did an excellent job of handling it.

I also wanted to ask - in the earlier weeks, did we just not get to see the best of Sara M's work, or did she just all-of-a-sudden-like get really good in the middle of the competition. Initially, I thought she was going to be gone early on, but the last few weeks she's really been impressive - in how she handled the leadership role for Restaurant Wars and in the creativity she showed in this episode both with her Quickfire (even if it didn't win, it looked and sounded quite good) and the appetizer she presented for the party. I'm really hoping that she's able to keep up and that this isn't just an odd mid-season fluke :D

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:32 AM

Jay Littleton wrote:

Tom, first off, thanks for your blog. I appreciate all the insight on the show I can get. I'm not sure if you will reply to this, but I do have a question, and if you have already answered this elsewhere, I apologize ahead of time. My question is, a question that has been swarming the messageboards, is why did Howie not get the chance to withdraw when both Otto and Mia both withdrew last season? We were jut confused, by the statement that it is a "judges decision, not his" but in the past contestants have been allowed. Thanks for your time.
Jay

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:37 AM

SteveK wrote:

Chef Colicchio,
Your baseball metaphor lacks cogency and logic. The ONLY teams that qualify for the playoffs are those that are CUMULATIVELY the best over a long, 162 game season. Even great teams will go thru long, painful slumps and yet still make it to the post-season. Mediocre and poor teams have NO CHANCE of making the playoffs, much less winning the Pennant or the World Series

Also, I understand you've been extremely busy and exhausted with the opening your new restaurants, but that doesn't excuse the arrogant, mean-spirited, and condescending attitude you and your guest-judges have shown toward the cheftestants. Quite frankly, given the parameters of these ridiculous challenges, I think their performances have been quite admirable.

SteveK

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:50 AM

Stan wrote:

Chef C.,
If you're truly seeking the top "Chef", then how exactly do these absurd challenges determine that? And if what you're saying is true, then why not throw them into a realistic situations and see how they perform? For me, last nights episode completely shattered any illusions of this being a legitimate, serious competition. Unfortunately, the producers are undermining and destroying the integrity of this wonderful franchise. I certainly hope Chicago doesn't follow this pattern and from now on, let's just call Top Chef what it really is--a silly game show.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 2:15 AM

Elly wrote:

A thoughtful, intelligent, and eloquent analysis of the show. You don't disappoint, Chef Colicchio.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 2:37 AM

Sara wrote:

I think the decisions the judges (returning and guest) have made this season have been on point. Your blog (and those of the other judges) truly do help "flesh out" things discussed at Judge's Table that the editors, in their wisdom, choose not to show the viewers. Thank you once again for your insightful comments on the recent "controversy" involving Tre's elimination last week.

I've been a loyal fan of this show since it first aired and am pleased that it continues to be entertaining. It still amazes me that I have enjoyed a show about cooking when I can only see the food, not taste it!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:29 AM

Bert wrote:

You can't quit... you're fired
So what was different from Howie wanting to resign and Mia from last season? Are there new rules in place now? Don't get me wrong, it was his time to go but why not let him resign and save a little face?

Oh, and good luck with you new restaurant.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:51 AM

Nilo wrote:

Tom,

Great to see you back.

Maybe it's me, but I find myself a bit confused by what appears to be a very basic conflicting message.

You often tell the cheftestants, "If you knew it wasn't good, why did you serve it?"

Yet then, when they don't, it's held against them.

It just seems like this is a fluctuating bar and I'm not really sure what it is they're supposed to do.

Maybe this is due to editing and us viewers not getting the whole picture?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:23 AM

Phong wrote:

Hung was working on another level. His QuickFire dish was a not meant to be taken seriously. The guest judge didn't seem to be in on the joke. I think Hung felt slighted for not getting compliments for his creativity. So for the Elimination Challenge, he produced a dish that required no creativity on his part. He was sticking it to the guest judge as if saying, "If you can't appreciate creativity, then this is what you get."

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:38 AM

Bobbi wrote:

Welcome back, Tom!
Personally, I thought this episode was one of the better challenges. In a real world, most of us have to watch our spending and budget constraints and I know of no business with a carte blanche type of plan. Bottom line, this challenge called for creativity and obviously only a few had what it takes. I also thought that another great challenge happened in season 2 with the campers watching their diets. Healthy menus do not have to be tasteless but are not easy to achieve. At this stage in the game, we viewers are seeing those chefs who are creative (Casey and Sara) and those who just can't seem to get past the sausage(foam!). The right decision was made and I look forward to the rest of the season. Congrats on the opening!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:15 AM

Dana wrote:

Sorry Tom, I just don't agree with your assessment of Brian, if this was an audition or interview for a restaurant/management position, great he passed! However this show is a cooking competition and the fact remains that over the last 4 episodes of this season, he has "cooked" nothing. By his own admission, he had the "money" dish for this episode yet the best he could do was a tuna tartare?? 4 episodes ago, he ran a raw oyster bar, during restaurant wars he cooked absolutely NOTHING, and this episode we saw raw tuna/poke. Sorry I just don't see "Top Chef" material here. Great motivator and time conscious man that he is, can he really cook and cook well?? Well enough to be graced with the TC title? From my perspective, I am not convinced. I can only hope in the upcoming episodes, Brian will show more diversity as well as cook!! If not, I hope his will be the next exit interview we get to watch.

Thanks, good luck with LA endeavours!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:21 AM

Kokoroko wrote:

Hi . Great show . I have one question. At the end of the last show I think I saw some kind of disclaimer saying that producers took part in decision making process ( I guess one about who would go home?). It was so fast I couldn’t really read. How big role the producers play in decision making process? By the way last year a contestant was allowed to quit by her own. Seems that rules changed this season. Also im starting to understand why come chefs are getting angry at the judges. Some of the judges comments really shouldn’t be there. last guest judge Michael Schwartz is a good example. I think he used F word at least twice and some other of his comments just weren’t in professional tone ( by the way none of chefs seemed to know him, I guess he’s not an authority in cooking world?)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:30 AM

Linz wrote:

I'm excited you're back and blogging Tom, I really enjoy your insight on the show. I thought Brian did a really great job in making the whole work process a very smooth one; he even got Howie to enjoy the team experience! I found his democratic method refreshing and particularly suited to the atypical TV competition conditions. Although I do agree that he could have done more to steer the team towards a more creative menu, I think his ability to make people respect his leadership is very admirable.
All the best with Craft!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:32 AM

Jill wrote:

I couldn't pass up the chance to be first!

Welcome back, Chef. You have been missed. Best of luck with your newest location.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:02 AM

Pam Phillips wrote:

After viewing last night's episode, I believe the decision to send Howie home was valid. I think I would personally like to see Hung gone before the finals. It's probably a personal thing with me. I do believe he is probably a very good chef, however, his continued whining and passive remarks when critized, just drives me crazy. It is good to have confidence. I just don't know if Hung has confidence or just thinks he is more than he really is. I loved, loved the episode when Gayle said,"he thinks his dishes are so perfect, it makes me want to tell him how unperfect they really are." I believe what annoys me most is that he is very arrogant. For me, that is a turn-off. If my memory serves me correctly, I don't remember Hung ever winning a quick-fire challenge or a final challange. I may be mistaken. Anyway, Tom, love watching the show each week, and I am thrilled there is not alot of arguing or bickering, as we saw last season. Take Care, Pam Phillips

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:28 AM

Nanci Buhlman wrote:

Tom,
We, my friends, husband, and I totally understand the decision to send Tre packing his knives.....but, what we all have difficulty with is, not one word was said to Brian, not much is, and believe me, we're not that impressed with him. He and C.J. are both egomaniacs. Not much was said to C.J. the week before when Sara, (she is a baby), was let go. That was indeed C.J.'s fault. This, my friend, leads us to believe, with good reason, that you are favoring C.J. and Brian to face off in the final challenge. We feel we are being set up for this. You will surely deny this, but you must see how it all appears to the viewing audience. I'd love to see Casey,(my favorite), and Sara,(good personality), go head to head in the final challenge. That would be different, two women.
We love Top Chef, but if the above happens as we think it will, you've lost several viewers. Thank you for letting me give you our thoughts and feelings.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:29 AM

marianne wrote:

Hi Tom,
You said that you applaud Tre's decision to "take on the role of leadership..." Unfortunately, it wasn't his decision to make. CJ decided who would be leader and he took a back seat. I think CJ should have been held more accountable for what went wrong in restaurant wars.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:56 AM

d wrote:

Is it me or does the Top Chef season 3 crop of talent seem weaker than prior seasons?

Top Chef 1: Harold, Tiff, Dave LeeAnne was very strong.
Top Chef 2: Sam, Illan, Marcel, Elia AND Cliff was debatably an even deeper pool.
Top Chef 3: early potential exposed later by wild inconsistancy and lack of imagination.

Hung = talented but arrogant and full of big judgement errors.
Tre = same (*but without arrogance)
Brian = only seafood (*save for his Spam)
Howie = only pork
CJ, Kasey, Dale = solid but unspectacular

Oddly enough, Sara may be the most interesting of the bunch if she gets it together. If you look at past challenges she's usually done rather well and adds some personal indentity to her food. Kinda like Elia, a 4th place contestent prior, making the field seem all the weaker..

PS: one error on Tom's rather astute blog. Tre's scallop dish was considered a success. He went 1 for 3 not 0 for 3.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Rick wrote:

Chef Colicchio, you’re taking a beating out here. In your defense, I want to point out something to all the winey butts, naysayers, hypocisry criers, etc., the name of the this show Top Chef not Pampered Chef!

Top Chef is a great show. Be glad it’s on TV. Realize that we don’t live in a perfect world. So relax and enjoy. Break out the munchies. Have a beer. Get laid. It’s all good.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:26 AM

Moses wrote:

Tom, I get the challenge, but I'm getting tired of these overly-sadistic challenges. I want to see chefs being able to bring it, not being forced to make the cocktail party equivenent of Cheese-Whiz on crackers. I cannot imagine any caterer working on food budget of $0.83 a person and, frankly, I wouldn't do that for one of my daughter's 4th-grade class parties and they think twinkies and ho-ho's are livin' large.

But, if you're going to make challenges that way, don't be such a jerk at the judge's table. It's one thing to cricize the prep, but so-what if Hung served some "traditional" (cliche' even) appetizer? You gave him $0.83. You're lucky you didn't get sliced ho-ho's.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:43 AM

Bette B wrote:

There are NO comments here for Tom? Is he SO easily forgotten?

Mr. C, I am deeply sorry that everyone has taken their snarky comments to other blogs. I'VE missed you dreadfully. Things haven't been the same without you. Welcome back! If you were HERE, I'd kiss that shiny, bald head! ;-)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Michael wrote:

Chef Tom,

First, I started getting disappointed in the show during Season 2 and so far Season 3 has been even worse. There seem to be a series of conflicting decisions from the Judges Table.

You can say it's about the food before you each week but the decisions this season have shown otherwise. Last season one of the chef's, knowing they were more than likely going to be voted out, stepped down. The judges allowed this person to step down with no attitude given towards the chef in question.

This past week Howie, knowing he was on the chopping block and was deserving to leave, also wanted to step down. However, Padma snarled it was not his decision. Where was the graciousness from last season?

I am no longer as fond of this show as i was during Season 1. Season 2 was part of the reason and this season has enhanced those feelings as well. I will watch next week only because Anthony Bourdain is the Guest Judge. After that, I may (and that's a big may) watch the reruns on the weekend but I will no longer plan on making it a priority to be home on Wednesday nights by 10pm to watch as I have in the past.

Good luck with your restaurant.

A former fan of the show

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Nashville wrote:

Clearly one appetizer was better than two given the time and budget, that is evident because the two girls who failed to even get the dessert out there were the two best because of one solid dish.
I was surprised that you didn't add a little ode to Howie since after all, he probably went out on a higher personality note than he displayed throughout the entire competition.
Hung really became more endearing to me in the Quickfire but once confronted at the Judges Table, he just seems to lose all control of his manner and words.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:06 AM

drab wrote:

Chef Colicchio,

It seems to me that you are a bit crankier with this seasons contestants? If so, is this as a result of the immaturity shown by season 2? Or is it because you see this seasons contestants as too focused on competition and not enough on making the best food they can? Or some other reason?

Basically, I see this group as too focused on trying to stay in the competition so mediocrity seems to often rule the day. If they could just get past that and try to make the best food they can everyone involved would be better served, literally and figuratively.

I didn't have a problem with Howie getting the bums rush this time. But as with Mia last season when she threw herself on the sword to save Ilia, why wouldn't the judges allow Howie to do the same for Brian? It seems as if you guys were trying to make a point with Howie, by having him "pack his knives and go". By the way, if he had truly wanted to walk, he would have done so despite Padma's declaration that it wasn't his decision to make.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Karin wrote:

Wow - I have to say this week was the worst show so far. The "cheftestants" did not have an even playing field in the aisle quickfire so that was rediculous. Brian should have been let go this week cause he was for all his bluster running the show for the elimination challenge. He talked people into changing their ingredients in the market to save a buck and did not tell them to create 1 good dish instead of 2. This was a team challenge and for the good of the team that was his decision to make and he failed.

For good or bad Howie spoke his mind ever week and he may not have been the most talented chef on the show but he was by no means the worst and at least even with the remaining ones. I applaud his decision to say he would be the master of his own destiny and feel that Padma does not have the qualifications to be a judge let alone tell Howie it was not his decision to make to withdraw. I was saddened at the way she spoke to Howie. She was lucky he did not have a few "choice" words for her.

I hope the rediculous challenges are over and that money and time restrictions will be eased so we may actually see some cooking out of the remaining chefs (dont think I have seen Brian cook anything in weeks).

Bye Bye Howie - I will miss you but wish you only the best.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Kat wrote:

So glad you're back. Living in L.A. I definitely can forgive your absence here in exchange for your new culinary presence THERE.

But, ITA with the poster who called out the backhanded pseudo-compliment for Tre "volunteering" two weeks in a row. CJ chose Tre and Tre stepped up while CJ bowed out (and was REWARDED for this strategy). I really can't see any other way to look at it honestly, sorry.

If Hung suffers a similar fate, the Wrath of the Internet will surely descend. His "zealotry" for cooking is fantastic to see, as are his skills and his ability to put ego aside for his team. Or to simply have fun with a ridiculous challenge that is so obviously going to favor some of the fortunate ("Canned Meat Aisle") v. the damned ("Breakfast Cereals"). Given the disparity of ingredients, I'm surprised the pet food aisle didn't make the final cut.

And, yes, cucumber rounds with salmon may be dated, but was a much better choice for a ship of fashionistas than endless bread-y dishes. "Fresh and salty" and "cucumber" are a lot more appetizing to many than "doughy and greasy".

And your ambivalence over Brian's leadership style is puzzling. Yes, being a nice guy and giving people the opportunity for self-expression is...yeah, NICE. But....he wasn't effective in planning and GUIDING them. I would have been more impressed to see him follow the process described in Rocco's blog and show he had some grasp of the difficulties involved.

You don't mention the loser, which is surprising. I liked Howie--what a great tv character and I'm sure he's a good chef in more ideal circumstances. But the whole "I don't serve food I'm not proud of" thing shouldn't be tolerated in a GAME SHOW format (too easy to just become an excuse for refusing to do any challenge that won't showcase your talent). You guys were right to say, "Not up to you, pal."

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:20 AM

rbovaboy wrote:

Throughout the entire Elimination Challenge I kept asking how they could throw a party for 60 spending only $350 -- or $6 a person. That WAS the biggest challenge. By allowing Howie to prepare two items, and spend more money on his cheese, Dale played the good guy by altering his dish, returning the goat cheese to substitute the yogurt. And that hurt both of them in the end.

I appreciate your re-take on Brian's performance, which was defined differently than would normally be expected. It's what I like about you - you're perceptive yet willing to reevaluate as you see necessary. TC has the best group of judges on any competition show.

And Hung's Smurf village combined his playful and creative side which should come out more. The salmon mousse on cucumber may have been a dated item, but it seemed to fit the location and the weight-conscious guests -- and work within the constraints of the budget. I've resisted Hung's ways but he just may be a knife-weilding contender to the end.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Beth Heiser wrote:

I thought this episode ranked at the very bottom. I didn't like the challenge and most especially the judges comments, especially Michael Schwartz - so snide and full of himself. One can accept criticizm more from Dana Cowan because of her reputation and experience as a food writer but, we haven't seen her that much, if at all as a pannel judge. Tom, you are always just yourself which helps me accept your comments about the food without actually tasting. Do we actually know who some of these judges are? No, we just accept the fact that TC and F&W have chosen chefs and persons that know their "food" stuff. Even Padma seemed to be having a rough day.
I'm probably the only fan that was sorry to see Howie go. He definitely had some misses but, he had quite a few successes. He spoke up for himself, maybe sometimes too much and definitely didn't play well with others at times but, afterall it is a competition. In the end, it was his unsuccessful quickfire and those horrible mushroom tarts. Ugh.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Erica wrote:

Tom, I was really disappointed with the chefs in this challenge. If you have a limited budget, why dink around with stuff like asparagus and yogurt? The nice thing about finger foods is that you don't have to worry about making a cohesive dish, just a little burst of flavor. Nothing deep-fried? Nothing bacon-wrapped? No shrimp? Nothing cheesy, pickled, spicy, or soy-glazed? And for all the talk of "classic" hors d'oeuvres, if you're going to do classic, why not do crowd pleasers? Stuffed mushrooms, mini crabcakes, satay, pot stickers, vegetarian sushi, and so forth. Even mini-pizzas for crying out loud, just throw some chevre and prosciutto on them or something. A poke AND a carpaccio? I mean REALLY. I'm just agog at the choices that were made.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:44 AM

linda wrote:

What happeend to you.

Season one you we very likable, even considered sexy.

Season two- still likable, but stern,sometimes downright mean, losing some of your sex appeal.

Season three.not likeable -extremely mean, and most times a pompous a__.Not sexy at all.

So Tom...what's up with that??

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Wade wrote:

"Having a great season record doesn't mean you get handed the pennant -- you still need to win the World Series."

I'm totally going to nitpick your baseball analogy, but actually a great season record DOES get you the pennant. The two teams that win the two league pennants (American League and National League) then play in the World Series for the championship (Well, there's playoffs, but in olden days it was just the best team in each league). Maybe closer: "Having a great season record doesn't mean you get handed the championship -- you still need to win the World Series." I'm a total jerk I know. I understood your point and all.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:05 AM

trish wrote:

How in the world can you play with words the way you do? You must think we're not watching the show. CJ was the leader of that team and he failed miserably at that especially the second time. He assigned Tre the executive cook position and Tre had no choice but to take it since the others had no experience.
CJ didn't take it to save his own butt.
This other person with all the name calling can just put a plug in that right now. What happened with Tre was wrong. We've all got a right to our opinions. Tre was not a pampered chef. He pulled his load and more from day one. I'm sure you can tell that by all the responses you got upon his elimination. I work with a variety of chefs everyday (executive chefs, sous chefs, catering chefs, line cooks etc.), who thought Tre was outstanding as a chef. These people all have culinary backgrounds and work for large companies. Some even have their own restaurants.

You'd better take another look and see who all the passes are given to, and come back and tell us who the pampered chefs really are.
I thought chefs were supposed to cook. One of them rarely does that and manages to stay in the game. Casey has screwed up more than once, never really pulls a heavy load and manages to stay in the game. CJ ducks responsibility.
This is twice the leader has not been sent home and it was more than evident this second time. As much as I despise Howie, Brian should have been sent home as the leader of his team.
Brian copped out and you accepted that, just as you did when CJ ducked his responsibility.

Howie wanted to bow out but you thought it better to strip him of his dignity. This after allowing another chef to bow out last season.
I've heard it twice implicated in these blogs that the uproar about Sam and Tre had to do with the fact they were hunks. Please, you can do better than that. You know what the uproar is about. You screwed up. Just say it.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Vijay wrote:

I agree with several others who posted elsewhere, that the criteria for sending someone home seems to be inconsistent from season to season and even from episode to episode. There were couple of participants earlier who chose to bow out and were let go(like Mia and another contestant early last season). But Howie was rejected. Also, when some participants put out a bad dish in earlier episodes, they were advised not to put out a dish like that at all. Yet when Howie did the same he was criticized.
Sometimes certain chefs are retained even after bad outings based on their past record, sometimes they are sent home just based on what happened that night.
(On this personally, I feel that after the first eight episodes or so, some weightage to past record should be given. Otherwise there is a chance that someone who was middle of the pack throughout the competition but not bad enough to get eliminated, might make it to the final two and get lucky on the final challenge.Atleast when you get down to the final 2 or 3 elimination challenges, please consider giving some incentives to those contestants who had won more elimination/quickfire challenges earlier. Like they good have an extra souf chef in the final challenge or something like that. I also feel that given the long journey the runner up of Top Chef should get something in terms of a prize)

Also winners of elimination challenges are given prizes that vary widely in terms of value. Sometimes all you get is a cookbook and sometimes you get a computer or a trip to Italy? Please try to make the winnings comparable in value to each other

I dont know if this inconsistency is intentional to generate artificial excitement and create an atmopshere of unpredicability. If so, it isnt working well.

WILL YOU GUYS SIT TOGETHER, FORMULATE AN UNIFORM SET OF CRITERIA/RULES FOR ELIMINATION AND THEN STICK TO THEM?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Loretta wrote:

The QuickFire challenge was one of the most interesting ones since this show started. It definitely showcased the chefs creativity especially Hung's. I though Hung's "smurf village" was the most interesting item utilizing the worst items in a supermarket. (Sorry Michale Schwartz but canned meat is disgusting and no matter how you disguise Spam, it's still SPAM) Makes me wonder if this "chef" likes it, maybe I won't visit his restaurant........
Tom, you wanted them to create upscale appetizers on a $350 budget. However, if the chefs would have "created" 2 upscale items and served them, you would have commented that they should have made more. This year you have been a bit inconsistent with your statements. I am surprised! (Case in point, the Elks Lodge challenge-you stated the chefs are taking this challenge literally and you would like to see them take the old classic dishes and rework them into something wow. Sara Mair did that with her Chicken a la King-however, you and Alfred Portelli said it looks "nothing like Chicken a la King". - well, my dear Tom, you were the one to say rework the dish into something different and Sara did. She did have the components of the dish and made it her own! Tom, this is where you showed your inconsistency in judging)
Sure some of the items were visually unappealing; however, the "beautiful boat people" scarved them up like they haven't eaten in 3 years (and looking at some of those people, they haven't!) When I taste something and don't like it, hell if I go back for more. This challenge just proved free food is good!
I was upset that the judges did not let Howie resign with dignity. He had a hell of time on this show (not saying some of it was not of his own doing) but when Padma wigged off on Howie, well, let's just say, it was uncalled for and rude. Howie showed restraint when she said that. (I, on the other hand, would have politely told Padma where she could put my asparagus cigars!)
Remember one thing Tom, you guys were not born chefs....you learned by your mistakes and improved your skills.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Gayle wrote:

I don't understand. I thought this was a Cooking Show. Yet Casey's food won out over Sara's bread pudding last night. It also seems that the most requested recipe on the web site is the bread pudding. Why is Casey always allowed to slide. Most people are saying that she was picked to win from day one and now I am beginning to believe that.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Kevin S. wrote:

Hi Chef, I'd just like to say that I had the good fortune to eat at Craftsteak in LasVegas a couple of weeks ago and loved it. You have a great staff and the food was excellent. That being said, I agree with most of the comments being said about this weeks show. Why didn't you let Howie quit? Mia, the self proclaimed queen and expert on everything, did, although I don't see how she made it as far as she did either. This years contestants just don't excite me. Maybe I'm still remembering Joey's comments from the beginning about being better than season one and two. Joey, what a joke. Sorry, I but he was a typical New Yorker. Hung and CJ are hanging on by their fingertips. I was thankful that we didn't have to hear about CJ's testicles again but Hung, dude, you've got to shut up man. Your mouth gets you in trouble every time. Be quiet, take the criticism and move on. Learn from it or don't, but stop bitching about it. Sara and Dale and Casey, I feel, will be there till the end. Brian is one cold seafood dish away from elimination. This guy can't be a good cook. I'm not a even going to give him the benefit of being a chef. You all do need to stop the "team" thing. Let them compete head to head and let the food speak for it's chef. Anyway, I'm a fan, love the show and now understand why you are a judge. Your restaurant rocks!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Lynn K. wrote:

First off I would like to say how great it is to have you back. I think it is unfair the beating you and the other judges have been taking.

I think that the judges made the right decision to send Howie home ( although I do think it was a toss up between him and Brian ). I also think it was right not to allow him to cop out on his own ( just because others have in the past does not mean it should be allowed, and I think that it was the correct decision).

I for one do not see where people are getting the idea that the judges are any harsher then before. Some of the people commenting seem to have forgotten that this is still a show for entertainment and also the fact that the challenges are meant to find the chef's who have the most talent. Would they really still watch if the challenges were the same as a normal scenario one would find in the real world, such as giving them a normal budget and regular kitchen? How do you find any talent in that? I thought the show was about finding a top chef who under any condition is still able to shine and make good food.

I think that the judges are doing a great job given the often difficult choices they have to make, and Top Chef will always remain one of my favorite shows.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Andy B. wrote:

Hi Tom, good to see ya blogging again. You are a good influence on T.C. We bloggers question your choices(winners and losers), but overall I think you're good for the show. Hope you continue blogging till tthe end this year. I like to see you back for Top Chef 4, along with Gail. Padma- not so much. Till next week.
Andy B.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Kat wrote:

So if a budget is not to your liking, you refuse to cater the event? How low is too low? Six dollars a person? And how much time do you have to plan? Half an hour, or more? I found it sickly amusing how you stomped on Hung for not producing a better dish and chose to overlook the constraints. I also seem to remember in seasons past at least referencing the overall approval of a dish; why are the judges so all mighty this season? The "beautiful people" reacted fairly positively to the dishes, and that was never mentioned.

No mention of Howie's coup? The only consistency at the judge's table is the contestants' desire to quit.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM

devil_dawg_wife wrote:

I am rather disappointed that Howie was let go. I think it took a lot for him to realize and admit that he needed to work as a team. Maybe he's a different chef in his own kitchen, but this is a competition and maybe he kind of let that get the best of him at first. I thought it was awesome when he and Joey made up and then after his blow up with Sara M., he worked well with her in the Restaurant Wars because he knew he had to. It was rather sad how in the past few episodes that were team competitions that the minute the others found out that Howie was on their team they moaned and groaned. I don't think it's fair that he was not allowed to leave on his own terms and the way that Padma turned up her lip and said, "It is not your decision, it is the judge's decision" was totally RUDE! I think she just wanted to personal satisfaction to tell him to "pack his knives and go". I understand that during the time that this was filmed, she was having personal difficulties with her marriage, but that does not excuse the way she has been this season. She has made snide comments both last season and this season. It appears that she shows her personal feelings about certain people (ie Marcel and Howie) and makes snotty comments sometimes even to their faces. You, on the other hand, are very professional in your treatment of the contestants and I applaud that. Some of these conditions are not the best and are very stressful in some of the competitions. I am hoping that Bravo will replace Padma next year. She's the exotic, pretty factor for the show, but honestly, I don't see where she truly belongs. Have LeeAnn replace her! Also, I wish you could find some better guest judges. What was up with that guy this week? He was rude and used the "F" word twice to the contestants, who knows how many times he used it and it didn't show up on the tape. There is no excuse for that, especially since they really didn't know who this guy was so it wasn't like he was a big "A" lister chef coming in there. Anthony Bourdain would be a great addition. He can be crass, but he does it with a note of humor and sarcasm like when, I think it was Howie, called him out early in the season. Looking forward to Season 4, hopefully you will get some better competitors who can put aside the fact that it is a contest and just put out there the best that they have!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Southpaw wrote:

Tom! So glad you are back! I'm still not sure who deserves the Top Chef title so I'll sit back and wait. Glad Howie's gone, though, because his attitude truly rots. He needs to lose that.
Hung is stepping up on the attitude...we'll see about him. My guess is Hung, Casey and Sara will be the last 3 standing. I will tell you what I told Tony ("60 of the most beautiful people in Florida(?) ) .... I think not (why even refer to people in that way in the first place?). Bunch of average-looking (maybe) joes. As I told Tony, I think I spotted Miss Piggy in the crowd. I would refrain from ever using that phrase....not a good idea. Looking forward to next week. '-)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Jeff wrote:

Let's all just hope that this is Top Chef's "mid-season slump" and they turn it around and win the World Series.

Go Top Chef Go!!! :)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Alex wrote:

You guys have no consistency whatsoever, youve made this season into more of a farce then second season. Which i would have thought was impossible. But after this challenge its readily apparent you arent qualified to be a Judge, You bash the hell out of these guys for not making more innovative dishes with such a skimp budget. And in your blog prattle on from on high about how easy it should have been. Well this coming from someone who charges $12 for lettuce in his restaurant seems a bit ludicrous. I very much doubt, that you could at all do better than any of the contestants on any of the challenges, therefore having you judge them seems a bit silly. Lets get judges whose restaurants arent getting lukewarm reviews. Boulud or Zakarian, Ripert, i can understand as a permanent judges, but not Tom. Oh yea those guys are busy actually running their restaurants.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Adam wrote:

Instead of you and Gail being so defensive about your judging criteria, why not just come out and say "Yes fans, we hear you and we have made mistakes. We'll do everything in our power to correct these mistakes and restore Top Chef to it's former glory".

A little humility goes a long way.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

bCollins wrote:

I love this show and a large part of the pleasure is the interaction between the judges and the participants. This week's show seemed mean and I'll bet there was a lot more tension at the judges table than was shown. It seemed to me that the judges were attacking the contestants unfairly and more pointedly than usual.

Out here in audience-land we root for the contestants first and foremost. I think it is great when the judges are firm, realistic, and honest. But this week I think they crossed over into attack-mode and it was unpleasant to watch...particularly Padma and Tom.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Peg Gugliotta wrote:

I have been thoroughly enjoying this show since season 1. I think the judging both regular and guest are great! I just don't get what makes Padma an authority on the subject of food without any classical training or restuarant experience. I don't mean to ask this in a disrespectful way but rather in earnest wonderment.

P.S. Chef Tom, you're hot!!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Joshua wrote:

Is it just me or do all the challenges seem designed to crush the spirit of the cheftestants? Why not once in a while give these talented and plucky young chefs the opportunity to spread their wings and fly?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 2:41 PM

julia wrote:

You are always ready to come down harshly on Hung, yet Casey's chopping onion you explained by a bad knife. She never said that any she completed the challange. You have your obvious favorites and it's unfortunate but you bias towards Hung is loud and clear.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Kate wrote:

Good to have your blog back, Chec C, but last night's episode was pretty rank. I was glad to see Howie and his big sweaty head hit the skids, but did you guys really not see anything else redeeming in the evening besides the bread pudding and the carpaccio? I don't have Taste-O-Vision, so I couldn't sample the carpaccio myself, but it didn't look that spectacular. I agree with previous posters who wonder about Casey's ability to keep her head afloat when she really hasn't done anything all that special yet. I hope it isn't because she's fairly cute and perky. Certainly cuter and perkier than CJ (does he ever smile?) I, for one, thought that Hung's trippy breakfast aisle creation was hilarious! The guest judge needs an enema, stat, if he can't find humor in that. This show isn't on the surgery channel, it's supposed to be ENTERTAINING, lighten up and have fun! More food, more frivolity, less frowning! Thanks.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Nate wrote:

Revenge of the Fans? Tom, you're getting your arse kicked out here! This is some serious "blowback".

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Diane A wrote:

Hi Chef
I've really enjoyed the last two Quick Fire Challenges. With the relay, we saw a different side of Sara and learned about Dale's knife skills, or lack thereof. This week, we saw Hung's whimsy and I really felt we saw Howie had pack it in. It was the luck of the draw which aisle the Chefs picked and a Top Chef should be able to whip up something, whatever aisle they land in. Alot of people are squawking about this year's group of Chefs and while I agree they don't seem as good as Season 1, they are more affable than Season 2's lot and I prefer that to the constant bashing of each other. I know it's a competition, but let the food do the talking. Love the show, think you're great, don't let the wayyyyy too serious baseball fans and armchair foodies get you down.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Kim wrote:

Chef Tom I'm sorry I have to disagree with your comments regarding Tre and Sam. Ifeel like some of the eliminations were not justified. I think some are based on trying to made good TV.Past wins should play some kind of part in the decision as well as putting out good food and how they handle themselves in a team setting. I could have fell on the floor when Sam was eliminated. He was consistantly good as well as acted like an adult. He was in my opinion Top Chef. I say this not because he is cute but because I felt like he was consistant like Harold.Tre was eliminated too soon. He had the makings of a Top Chef.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM

christina wrote:

Tom, I think people are appealing to you because you because you are the most reasonable judge at the table, and you are always at the table. Let's be honest; the rules when kept to are making a less interesting show. We want to see the best two chefs go mano a mano (or womano) at the end because that's cool. Every great chef makes an error and we, the fans, would like to see great ingenious cooking. Iron Chef gives points for originality, why not top chef? Hung showed this episode that begin playful and original in the face of adversity gets you a slap down, and playing it safe gets you whining but not eliminated.

If it's judging episode by episode, why *ever* take the head chef job when you can only get punished for it, never see any real gains from it? We're losing talent and mediocrity is surviving to the final rounds. I can't imagine that's good for anyone.

Finally the whole "don't serve it if you don't believe in it "inconsistency people have mentioned is true. If you give people advice, like take a risk, don't serve it if it's inconsistent etc then you gotta judge that way also.

You may have to play by the rules, as you said this episode, but maybe it's time to reconsider the rules. I hope you take the fans' complaints to Bravo, and we see some changes in season 4

* points for originality!
* points for risk taking!
* points for acting like a team member (I'm talking dessert here)
* consideration of a chef's qualities over multiple episodes
* points for having standards

thanks for listening.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Jim wrote:

I am still surprised how people are making assumptions without facts. Take a look at wikipedia for the results of this season. If it was based on overall performance of elimination challenges and the top chefs were to be decided today the final 4 would be Brian, Dale, Hung, and Tre (even after being eliminated). Because they have been the most consistent. It's obvious some viewers dislike the attitude/arrogance/personality of some of the chefs...fortunately it's about the food.

And is there a problem with chefs having certain specializations? (examples: Brian being only seafood, Hung being mainly french/asian fusion) . Let's be real, if you go to a restaurant that could end up being $100 a person, do you want a bunch of average stuff from vending machines and items from the frozen food section or do you want top notch food from the chef's forte? Just as I would not go to French Laundry expecting world class Korean food, I don't expect to go to Hung or Lia's restaurant to eat Latin food, or Brian's restaurant to eat frozen Bertoli. My assumption would be that the winner of Top Chef, in addition to the fame and money, would eventually open up a successful and respected restaurant (i.e like Harold with Perilla). Well that success is based on what the chef does really really well. Not on the quantity of food a chef can do average or slightly above average at best.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM

cruelty_free wrote:

When I think of Chef Tom, I think of a child with his fingers in his ears going "NA NA NA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". Top Chef has gone over a cliff, and instead of pulling the rip-cord, you've decided to just take your parachute off. You are always correct, everybody else is always wrong, and Chef Tom has the pretzel logic to prove it. Whatever ! You must have gone to the Karl Rove school of reality. You shape reality to fit your needs. And it changes week to week, day to day.

The best Chef of Season Three (the appropriately named "Tre") will not even be in the finals. You can't explain that away... period.

Howie made nothing for QuickFire, and two crappy dishes for elimination. We all knew he was gone. The judges knew he was gone. He knew he was gone. When Mia stepped down to save Elia (which saved the judges from making a Tre sized blunder) Padma tearfully accepts it. But when Howie tries the SAME THING, the rules suddenly change and you smack Howie down so you can humiliate him some more. You can't step down?? Really?? Is this "Top Prisoner"?

So now the show has evolved from misguided, to bogus, to cruel. Congratulations! Way to show your true colors.

If I was in charge, I would hurry up and end this train wreck season of "Top Fraud". FIRE EVERYBODY!! Then hand the show to new host Lee Anne Wong and permanent judge Ted Allen. Hopefully these two could rebuild the trust and legitimacy of a once interesting show. Congrats Casey! Those of you still watching are kidding yourselves if you don't think she has already been pre-ordained as Top Chef.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Ben wrote:

Can you please limit the length of these posts to 400 words or less? Some of the posters are extremely loquacious!! Ugggh.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Rosemary wrote:

This show would be SO much better if the judges could taste the food anonymously. If the dishes were served by waiters instead of by the contestants, and Tom stayed out of the kitchen, it would certainly seem more fair and balanced. It seems like personal favorites play too much into the judging these days.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:20 PM

astrid wrote:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have to agree with my fellow bloggers about the judges attitude toward the contestants and total lack of consistency in judging their performances- Howie staying after leaving off a dish- yet Dave Martin thrown off for the same thing. Mia can withdraw- Howie can't. CJ passes buck to Tre to fly under radar and play it safe-Tre voted off. Other contestants told by Colicchio "playing it safe" wrong just before he votes them off (usually WOMEN chefs by the way.) I could go on and on but after a while the inconsistences are so long that You yes YOU Colicchio lose credibility as ajudge of anything. I KNOW if the contestants had produced fewer hor d oerve choices you would have criticised them for that too. You want it both ways. And yes you retracted somewhat your groundless attack on Brian, but why does it take a public outpouring to get you to budge your stubborn self. Tre was not 0 for 3 he was 1 for 3, shrimp does not raise cholesterol, etc. also on your changing facts that aren't true. And who is next to you playing expert, when neither of you could do any of the challenges yourself -Padma? Padma whose presence is so annoying to most of us we don't want to watch the show. Her gagging like a 5 year old on Dale's spicy dish reminded me of like a 5 year old last season when she acted like her throat was being affected by the Taro leaves. I was impressed by the guest Hawaiian judge who managed not to roll his eyes when he assured her the leaves were cooked too well to do that. And as for the blogs you and Padma are sort of you know HOSTING THIS SHOW. Whether you are opening a restaurant, Padma's getting a divorce or whatever, your supposed to blog -Oh so TOUGH! She can't even seem to write so now were subjected to more videos of her posing in her "video blog". I would love to see what you two would say to the cheftestants if they didn't fulfill THEIR duties on the show for whiny reasons like yours! I am sure there are more qualified, articulate and up to date judges we could have on this show that would love to fulfill their duties of keeping up their blog properly.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:20 PM

stella wrote:

While I am glad that you let Howie go, I have to disagree with the judges' harsh criticisms with the cheftestants during the elimination challenge.

Maybe your budget challenge fits better with the late night partygoing episode. Cheap food on a luxury sailing just doesn't seem to go together - most think of champagne and caviar, not ala Rachael Ray $40 or under a day type.

First off, just because the guests were fashionistas doesn't mean that they are foodie or gourmets, and have a good palate. They are into fashion, not necessarily food.

I found it odd that the judges kept slamming tuna tartare (or poke), but let yet another seafood sausage/patty appearance go without a single comment. It wasn't the first time that beef carpaccio made an appearance this season either. I suggest that the judges should been given a book that contains all the recipes that the contestant smade so far so that they can refresh their memories a little better.

The judges also complained that most appetizers are bread based, yet you don't give credits to those which were not.

I agree that Hung's salmon mousse on cucumber was not very inspiring, and probably not the best he can whip up, but it fits within the criteria - pretty (greens and pinks), portable, small, light (no carb - for those who want to watch their figure), and within budget. I don't think he should be praised, but not necessarily slammed.

I think some are playing the game like it is the reality show that it is. It's not necessary to win every challenge upfront. It's better to be safe and stick around until the final 4, then it's time to give it your all. So when you whittle down to the final 4 and they still can't do innovative dishes, then it's trouble.

If you are disappointed that the dishes so far are uninspiring, which they are, YOU need to change the rule of the game. I have to say at this point that I am really surprised that season 2's dishes were more innovative than this season, even though the caliber of the chefs are higher on the whole this season.

Lastly, I think your judges were really too much into trendy food. I don't see why tuna tartare is slammed. If it's extremely fresh tuna, well prepared, it's a classic that will endure. How's that different than hamburgers, steaks, caesar salad? Good food is good food, whether it's trendy or overplayed or old fashioned.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Ira wrote:

As a religious fan of top chef, I do believe that some serious changes need to go into effect for season 4 in order for it to retain the same strong following and fresh appeal it has had since season 1. Maybe a new permanent fixture to the show (Bourdain, Ted Allen, etc.), challenges where more than 1 contestant can go home, more input from fans, more input from fellow contestants or contestants from earlier seasons (great cameos from stephen as sommelier and joey paulino as none other than himself), just something to liven things up because even you seem to be getting bored and frustrated with the show and thats a shame considering you were an awesome guy on seasons 1 and 2 and this show is my favorite but headed downhill. And I have heard Chicago is the last season, are you really going to end without doing NYC (i hope the answer is no)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Kay wrote:

Chef, As I am a chef also though certainly not of your calliber I do have some opinions about how this show is run. I realize it is a realty show however many chefs watch it and I know we are shaking our heads collectively by some of the challenges and the judging. I am a caterer and this last bit was a joke. First of all 350 dollars to feed a high profile group was just plain stupid. With that budget I believe Hung and Howies choices were par for the budget. Yes a few of the Chefs came up with some different ideas but when you run a kitchen and your budget is limitless and then you are thrown into no money the hor d'Ouevres that were presented are the ones you rely on. I just think that when these challenges are set up the thought process is goofy. I appreciated the 2nd chance at the rest. wars and that seemed appropriate but please to be a Top Chef the goofyness has to go. I look forward to next year I just hope your producers get real!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for judging, Padma is a joke she may be EYE CANDY but some of her statements border on stupid. Aren't there truely qualified culinary women out there that could do the job - PLEASE.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:42 PM

PeachPie wrote:

Why did you accept Mia's resignation but not Howies??

WHY?

Because Padma didn't want the power to decide their fate taken away?

EXPLAIN to us why the decisions change from season to season.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Becky wrote:

Hi Tom - welcome back! I love the show and part of the experience is learning things about the chef/cooking world that I would never otherwise know. Dated appetizers - who knew? Then again, my family is still serving green bean casserole adorned with funions at Thanksgiving, so you can't go by me...

Looking forward to next week!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 5:22 PM

LindaR wrote:

I am SICK of people comparing Howie's attempt to knife himself with Mia. There is a very big difference between the two; Mia was safe and quit to save someone else, Howie was on the block and attempting to save himself the indignity of a knifing.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Erin wrote:

I have to say that I am disappointed in the downward spiral that this show seems to be taking. I don't know if I can completely blame the judges...I'm sure that they aren't completely in charge of the challenges, budgets and time constraints. However, they are aware of them and also, of how ridiculously unreasonable they are.

You ask seven chefs to make something innovative with a small budget. Fine. Then give them time. Or vice versa...bottom line, you are asking for the practically impossible. Only if the chef has already made the dish and is 100% familiar with how it is going to taste and look, will this budget/time constraint work. Otherwise it is just plain old dumb luck. When you take chances with food, more often than not you don't get it right the first time. Did not one of the chef's notice that CJ had already made that seafood sausage for them and they liked it, but he also admitted to having made it several times prior to the show, of course it will be good. Also, Casey's carpaccio was uber-traditional/safe yet she was selected as the winner while Hung was slighted for his uninspired salmon dish.

I just feel that the judges are not consistent with their judging approving one and criticizing another for the same things. And the producers seem to be trying to make a circus out of this show in order to get ratings. I don't think it's working and if the lame challenges continue, I feel it will be to the show's detriment. It's too bad because I would like to see what these chefs could do under appropriate circumstances.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Deborah R wrote:

Now I remember why I've missed you. I especially appreciate your thoughts on Brian as manager/motivator. As you point out, he accomplished his mission as he understood it. Tre, on the other hand, had a deeper understanding of the leadership role--which is why he understood his failure to execute and why he accepted his elimination with a level of grace that's beyond most of his fans.

As for Howie/Mia: Mia would not have been sent home in that episode and her withdrawal clearly saved Elia. But it was obvious that Mia was burned out on the competition and wanted to return to her life. She saw a chance to spare a worthy competitor while removing herself from an unhappy situation, and the judges obliged. By contrast, Howie saw the writing on the wall. His head was on the block and he was looking for a way to quit before being fired. Am I to buy the falling-on-my-sword bit from a guy who's declared throughout that he'd toss anyone overboard to save himself? Please. Both the judges and his fellow cheftestants seemed to question his motives, and his "sacrifice" was handled appropriately.

It's a mystery to me why some viewers can't figure out that this is a contest and a reality show, with elements of both in play. All the contestants are chosen as much for their dramatic potential as for their culinary skills. The judges' decisions aren't based on hard-and-fast rules, but on their own subjective reasoning. Even when I've disagreed, I've been able to see the rationale behind the decisions. After all, my disagreement--and everyone else's--is based on reasoning much more subjective than yours considering that we didn't taste the food. I get the feeling some viewers would like to declare their favorite at the start of the season and just hang around until the coronation--but where's the fun or suspense in that?

You've got a winning formula. Keep up the good work. Most of us (including those who swear they won't) will be back for TC4.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Jose wrote:

Chef Tom,

From reading these posts, it's obvious that all these fans out here are passionate foodies that truly care about the success of the show. Take your beating like a man and then go back and rip the producers a new one! It's YOUR reputation that's on the line and YOU need to get more involved in both the challenge design process as well as codifying the judging criteria!

I'm confident that next season will come back better than ever! :)

Jose

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Brian wrote:

Attention garrulous posters...paragraphs are your friend :)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Caroleann wrote:

In past competitions, 2 people were allowed to withdraw themselves from the competition. But it was so important to Padma to tell Howie to "pack his knives."

Had I been Howie when Padma told him it was not his decision, and knowing past history, I would have said, "Sorry, Padma, I'm in charge of my own destiny and I'm out of here. Now you can do what you want when I'm gone."

posted on September 7, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Ruby wrote:

hi tom: thanks so much for making every wednesday night a top chef treat! diverting from the cheftestant comments for a moment... would you say that some guest judges are better suited for the top chef world than others? now and then a guest judge will appear on the show that doesn't seem particularly telegenic or even knowledgeable about food. Michael Schwartz? who the heck is this guy that has never even exposed his palate to spam and who won't try hung's smurfland diorama? i welcome the knowledgeable food judge like food and wine editor Dana Cowen who can comment constructively? Michael Schwartz--what the f*** was that?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:12 PM

TweetyBird wrote:

I have enjoyed all 2 seasons of Top Chef, and Top Chef 3 until the last episode - the one on catering on some silly yacht.

Sad to say, my respect for all those judges (not to mention, that awful judge who looked like a goat imported straight from the hills of Ubezkistan - whom I don't even care to remember or know his name) merely melted away on Wednesday night, and all that was left was a feeling of utter disgust and total lack of respect for all those judges.
Judge Goatie, from Ubezkistan, seemed to have a personal vendetta against Howie. Mr. Goatie must have taken it as a slap on his face, when Howie did not, or rather, failed to present a dish, during the Quick-Fire Challenge.
Tom, (whom all of us loved before), Padma, (whom we all were highly in awe of), Gail (we thought well of you), and even Ted Allen, whom we thought always could be depended on to have some sympathy for the contestants and who is humble and down-to-earth enough to read all our comments, and best of all, respond to our comments - all of you have thoroughly disappointed us.
To use the words of Sara, the one episode, where the women were made to run around, some bra-less, in high heels, - you made all of us female audience cringe in disgust and made us all feel demoralized!!!!
Tell 'teddy-bear Tom' (or to be as mean as Tom, I will use the word -Fat Tom) or Ted Allen to run around in high heels for 5 minutes, like your life depended on it, and your male breasts juggling around in mid-air, on national TV - then tell us how you felt!!!!!
I am amazed, that tubby LeAnne Wong, didnt say anything, being a fellow-woman. She being part of the production team!!Well, what can you expect out of the 'blue-eyed person' in the group, who seems to have insider connections to have been able to land such a cushy job!! LeAnne, want to confess now???

Top Chef, you need to pack your knives and go where the sun don't shine!!! We don't like you anymore.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:18 PM

loyal viewer wrote:

Tom,

You clearly seem jaded and petulant this season. Possibly too preoccupied with other things on your mind such as your growing restaurant empire. If you can't devote the time and energy that Top Chef demands/requires, maybe it's time for you to step down.

Sincerely,
Loyal viewer

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:46 PM

B. J. Wells wrote:

Please, let's be for real. How is the judging being done????? There are so many inconsistencies. Tre was sent home because he was considered the executive chef and was told that it was the reason why he was sent home. Now how was this possible. Tre had won more challenges than anyone to that point. Your explanations for why he was sent home didn't fit. If you go by one challenge then the show really isn't about finding the "TOP CHEF" but about who can hang on longer. Think about it. If you are always in the middle and you are not the best and not the worst you could probably win the show!! There could be a time when someone possibly could win 7 or 8 challenges in a row, and by your logic, if they mess up and are on the bottom the next challenge, then they go home. This would not be fair because that person would have already shown you that he was deserving of being Top Chef. Tre showed on many occasions that he had what it took to be Top Chef. He allowed C. J. to put him in a position to fail. Brian too. By your own logic, Brian should have gone home since he was the leader or "Exeuctive Chef." You are allowing some persons to stay for the same reasons you ousted someone else. I loved watching TOP CHEF. Since Tre is gone, who else has what he had. He was a very kind person and did not put anyone down. I'm assuming that his personality wasn's suitable for the show. Any time you show respect for your fellow contestants, you end up on the bottom. Persons who are continuously rude and ugly stay on the show. Tom, please anwer this one question for me. In all honesty don't you think that you all made a mistake in sending Tre home. Don't you think that he indeed could be Top Chef. Please be honest.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Corinne wrote:

Chef Tom,
How many times have you admonished the cheftestants for serving bad food? The one time someone knew his food was bad & chose not to serve it, it does him no favors. When you ask someone why they served something that they knew was bad, what do you really want them to do?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Dahlia wrote:

Chef TOM,

Aloha! it's funny how much the fans love to hate and hate to love..shows you're doing a good job!
Bottom line, you can't please everyone and no matter what you do or not do, you'll have some disgruntled fans not happy about one decision or another.
As long as YOU (who were at the judging, testing the food and listening to contestants) not US ( who watch 50 mins of what probably is a long long day) feel you're okay with your decision, that's all that matters and you'll always have viewers. Top Chef is a great show! Original, fun and and oh so yummy! Don't you worry about the haters..
WIth that said.....snif, snif, I miss Tre. Why did you send him home? ( I kid I kid)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Suzanne wrote:

Tom!! Great show, couldn't agree with you more.

Okay, so I have a great idea for a season of Top Chef: Why not take celebrity chefs from TV and see how the fare against each other?? I've made a list of who you should ask, and the winner should give the money to his/her favorite charity or a scholarship for chef school or something. Here are a few options for chef candidates:

Curtis Stone (Take Home Chef)
Robert Irvine (Dinner Impossible)
Bobby Flay
Ina Garten (Barefoot Contessa)
Rachael Ray
Emeril Lagasse
Paula Deen
Mario Batali
Giada De Laurentiis
Masaharu Morimoto
Alton Brown
Guy Fieri
Elie Krieger

I think it would FANTASTIC to see how these guys face some of your challenges, like the relay a few weeks back. Even if you picked half these guys and did a little mini-series, I think it would be great. C'mon, you gotta admit, it's a great idea! And to make it REALLY interesting, you could have Chef Tom Collichio as a contestant as well! I KNOW people would love to watch that! :)

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:23 PM

CheekyMonkey wrote:

Would it be possible to invite Cynthia from Season 1 back as a cheftestant in a future season? She seemed as talented as many of the current contestants and was certainly entertaining. It was so sad when she had to leave due to her father's illness. Any chance of seeing her in an upcoming season?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:03 PM

jeff wrote:

Sadly enough, the contestants and fans seem aligned...we're sick of the gimmicks and cheesy challenges...Chef Colicchio gripes about unexciting appetizers ..I agree with Howie and Hung...why are we still doing asinine quick fire challenges at the round of 7? If you want a stop to the mediocrity, why not start with better challenges?? Am I going to spend $$$ on some cheesy spam hash dish at a resaurant? Of course not..not anymore than on some technicolor cereal-inspired art piece

Uninspired challenges beget uninspired dishes

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Craig wrote:

I know i'm not saying anything new, but maybe ANOTHER e-mail saying the same things will drive home the point.

Not letting Howie pull himself out of the competition was insulting to him and to the viewers. And as for his withdrawl being against the rules of the show? Sometimes it seems the rules are made up as they go along.

The judging this show made me want to never watch again. The judges just seemed mean! The comments that were aired showed no compassion or understanding of the silly challenge they just were up against.

Lastly, Tom your re-evaluation of Brian's leadership is much appreciated. He clearly stated that he wanted to "provide everyone the opportunity to fail or to succeed", and he did just that. It was starting to look like the judges were starting to hold the leader responsible for ANY bad dish that was put out.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Amy wrote:

Tom,
Love having you back!
Have you all ever thought about explaining more of the terms you all use?? I don't do much cooking, so I have to look things up online to understand what they are actually cooking.

ps - You're a gorgeous man! !

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:29 PM

T.L. wrote:

I think Howie was selfish and not a team player. We already know he is a quitter based on the quick fire. Try learning how to budget dum ass. How do you function in real life and run your household? Example: How are you going to feed a family of four on a modest weekly budget? Single mothers do it all the time. Buy a clue, Columbo. During the round table the chefs all discuss the dishes to be made and are told they each get $50.00 total to spend on their dish. Howie states in the car ride he will spend less than $50.00 yet he makes sure to cover his ass as he runs first to the register checkout with half his groceries and is already at $55.00? Brian should have sent him packing back to the aisles and rethink his purchases or dish altogether. Howie wants to have the other chefs put their ingredients back so he can have the rest for his two (quite frankly turds on a plate) dishes, so their dishes will be less than spectacular. The one guy shouldn't have sacrificed the goat cheese for yogurt (no flavor), and should have told him forget it. So Howie managed to almost take him down. (by throwing him over and under the bus, backing up, and running him over again.) Oh and how noble to offer to pull himself out of the competition after putting himself first the entire time. Guess it hurts to hear "Howie pack your knives, and take your sorry ass home". Howie, you are a one trick pony. Boring and predictable. Got pork?

posted on September 7, 2007 at 9:42 PM

missy wrote:

One thing for sure and two things for certain. Every chef I know can prepare more than seafood. I'm sure they have their specialties but being that limited is ridiculous.

As far as Brian getting everyone to cooperate, that was no big feat. He criticized absolutely nothing. He took the easy road. You tell people when what they're working on isn't right. Maybe he wanted Howie to go, who the heck knows. I'm sure he saw exactly what the judges saw in what Howie prepared. He didn't have the nerve to speak up or he didn't want to. I would say he's a piss poor leader but WTH. Obviously you didn't and still don't see it in that light.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Kari wrote:

I had the great fortune of dining at Craft LA and meeting Tom. He is more gracious, knowledgeable, passionate and, quite frankly, adorable in person. We did a pretty exhaustive tasting menu and absolutely everything was executed perfectly. I have no idea where or how he retains the talent in his kitchens, but the skill level is over the top. Every dish was absolutely perfectly cooked and seasoned and that place takes every advantage of the fresh local ingredients. Thank you again, Tom, for a great post-lunch conversation - better than Clooney.

Although I didn't discuss TC with him, I will say that none of the remaining competitors are inspiring. Last season, I was completely dazzled by Tiffany, even though I knew she wasn't good reality TV and not a desirable heroine. Tre was the only contestant remaining that had that elusive quality, as Hung seems almost castrated these days. Casey is appealing, but not inspiring. In short, it is hard to care who gets the ultimate title, as, perhaps due to poor editing, there remains no one to root for of the caliber of prior seasons' contestants. The smart money is on Hung, as he seems to have the most chef talent, but I suspect Bravo wants to crown a woman this time around.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:47 PM

george wrote:

i ultimately understood your decision to off tre last week because as much as it was dissapointing, it seemed to fit within the parameters you had set up. but this week...frankly you drove me crazy. a few points:

folks keep mindlessly reiterating the idea that if you are the executive chef for the week, you get all the glory but set yourself up for the potential fall. not only by this logic should brian have gone--really, he didn't do as much as you described or he seems to think.

my dissapointment in brian aside, where's the supposed glory in being team leader? when teams win they get the check by their name for that week, but then what? as you also always say, judgements are based on that week's work only. sometimes they win a prize, more often they don't. so who cares? what's to stop mid-level contestants from skating by to this point when the producers *keep putting together back to back group challenges*!

at first i also liked the sports metaphor. i've even used it to defend the tre decision. but i don't feel like you can really use that comparison when the field of play (particularly individual vs. group challenges) keeps changing or ends up so heavy on the group side that it renders the challenges a matter of who's willing to step up with no reward.

btw- on a more personal note, finally checked out 'wichcraft here in SF. i enjoyed the great mozzerella sandwich. my partner wasn't as impressed with the chicken/bacon/avacado sandwich. besides the fact that it was given to her as a mistake (we ordered the steak sandwich) even after it was supposedly corrected, she said the flavors were too overwhelmingly smoky. i guess less is sometimes more as you would no doubt tell a contestant at the judges table.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Manon wrote:

Sara was not given a prize for winning the last challenge (restaurant wars)... Why??? This is bugging me.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 12:25 AM

ceejay wrote:

Hey, Tom:
A few questions:
1) Why are the judges so mean-spirited this season? With a few notable exceptions (surprisingly, Rocco!) the guest judges have been harsh and nasty egomaniacs.
2) Why are the challenges so mean-spirited? It feels a lot like you guys are setting the cheftestants up for failure -- wanting them to fall on their faces. The twists are nasty twists.
3) These chefs were pretty smug and boastful and judgmental when they were the "judges" for the Season 1 & 2 smackdown. I would love to hear them comment (repent?) right about now. They look generally lackluster and talentless and I am frankly disappointed in the quality of candidates chosen. Season 1 was really good. Season 2 was whining babies and too much reality show drama. Season 3 is a mean, ugly failure as far as this viewer is concerned.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Shannon wrote:

Forgive me for being obtuse, but I am having a difficult time discerning which quality trump another from season to season and episode to episode. Is it cooking ability or leadership qualities that are more important? I know that both are crucial, but the weight each carries seems to change with the breeze. In this blog you stated that

"Ultimately I think tonight's episode underscored a basic tenet of the restaurant world; there are plenty of great cooks out there who can make beautiful food but will never be great chefs because they can't run a kitchen. It involves hiring well and delegating appropriately."

When I think back to Episode 2, I just keep wondering why Ilan and Marcel were picked to be the final two, but neither seemed to possess the maturity and interpersonal skills required to run a kitchen. Marcel couldn't get along with anyone, and Ilan couldn't put aside his personal differences enough to stop picking at a colleague that he perceived to be weaker.

If your aforementioned quote held true, wouldn't Sam have been in the final instead? Or was last season really about being "Top Cook" and this season will be "Top Chef"?

posted on September 8, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Sheryll wrote:

"It was hard to send Tre packing after the Restaurant Wars -- he was a good guy and, despite his share of missteps, an able competitor. But it brought to mind the same sports metaphor we used when hunky favorite Sam was sent packing in Season Two: Having a great season record doesn't mean you get handed the pennant -- you still need to win the World Series"

Wait a minute...Sam went out in the FINALS..yet, this is the same Sam that made just as many errors during Restaurant Wars last year (Sam messed up both his pasta dish AND he presented watermelon and cheese). Tell me that Tre made anything as bad as the watermelon and cheese...yet Mikey got sent home that episode, not Sam.

Chef, you have violated the judging guidelines established in the previous two seasons. How many times have we heard over the years "this is not Top Sous Chef" or "this is not Top Sommelier" or "this is not Top Line Cook"? Yet, this year, you are rewarding mediocrity and playing it safe like never before.

Mark me as GROSSLY disappointed, more with the judging than the cheftestants.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 3:00 AM

Misty wrote:

Tom,

I fear that the core judging criteria for this entire season has changed, and I don't understand why. What really disturbs me is that you allowed Otto to withdraw in Season One, and Mia in Season Two (when admittedly you had decided to send Elia home), but this time you did not accept Howie's forfeiture. Why? To me, this is utter hypocrisy and signifies a complete double standard with no visible explanation. Consistency with the judging is grossly lacking. I feel as though you've become quite jaded and are operating based upon your own agenda, which is clearly not in the best interest of the show, or the chefs. If you truly read the message boards as you suggest, then perhaps you might address some of the things we've been saying. We WANT to like the show, but it's becoming progressively more difficult to do so. Would you consider bringing up the subject of inconsistent judging in the next WWH special? Thank you.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 3:41 AM

T wrote:

Chef Tom,
While I am fine with Howie being sent home (it seemed long overdue), it appeared that the judges pulled a, "You can't quit because you're fired," stunt. The judges accepted the "resignations," of a chef or two in the past seasons. Why not this time?

posted on September 8, 2007 at 3:42 AM

Joelle wrote:

In regards to some of the posts, I think the reason why the judges didn't allow Howie to withdraw was because in their minds they knew Howie was going to be elimated. Tom, am I right? Howie has produced some great dishes, but his attitude needed some serious changes. I can't imagine Howie running a successful resturant with his "bulldog" attitude. I was very disappointed to see Tre go. He was a very strong and consistent chef. I thought he would have been in the finals. As for Hung, his "smurf village" was a joke! Who in their right mind would serve let alone eat that dish?! I've been waiting for him to be elimated. He should have gone, not Tre! Casey and CJ are great and I hope they are in the finals. I also feel that this season is a disappointment. Season One and Two were much better and I felt the dynamics were there. I hope Season Four is better. I do love the show but I am having a hard time getting into this season.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Janice wrote:

I'm sad to see Howie gone. He was one of my favorites. I wish him all the best in his new endeavor. I just want to say that I do have a problem with you telling the chefs not to serve something you aren't proud of and then when they do, they get ripped for it.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Louis wrote:

I can't believe we had to wait two weeks for the most BORING episode in Top Chef history. Just name a winner, end this season, and move on to the next group of contestants. Not sure I will be watching next season, but please just put this season out of its misery.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Rick wrote:

Tom: I know you are strictly a judge and don't have much sway in the way each episode is constructed. I can't be alone in wanting to hear from the judges post-season how they felt about the nature of the challenges in each episode.
It's becoming increasingly clear as the season wears on that the producers are looking for crazy descriptives rather than sensible and realistic cooking challenges. And let's be honest here: how can the contests be fair when the playing field isn't level? On the face of it, it's fine to be limited to one aisle in a grocery store, but everyone should be assigned the same aisle. For one constestant to be restricted to the cereal aisle while another gets to use canned fish seems patently unfair. I think Hung recognized the idiocy of this particular Quickfire and just had fun.
I never have heard of the guest judge and am happy I won't ever have to encounter him again, in any fashion. He looked like he'd been kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to stand next to Padma. He was sullen and unhelpful. His misanthropic demeanor sucked the energy out of the Quickfire challenge and ruined the episode for me.
Lately, we're seeing more sizzle and less steak. How about pushing the producers to allow the audience to see more of the the food prep? The way the shows are edited now, we see almost no kitchen skills being displayed. It looks like cooking is beside the point.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Louis wrote:

I also agree with StevenK's remarks about the flaws in your baseball analogy. The playoffs are not one shot deals - a team can suck for the first couple of games and still win the series because they are the better team and were able to pull it together. Stop trying so hard to rationalize your flawed judging decisions because your rationalizations just make the judging system appear even more flawed.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Jana B. wrote:

Everyone here is being so nice about last weeks show! Well, sorry, I can't be. WHO THE HECK CARES ABOUT ANY MORE ELIMINATIONS...All of my friends and co-watchers have stopped watchng this stupid show because both last season and this season the judges, you especially Calicho, were so freaking concerned about ratings rather than staying true to the show's title "Top Chef"...Calichio, you and those fools that you call quialifed judges, have ruined this show completely....I hope the show is canceled because last season and this season are JOKES!! The remaining "Cooks" and that's what they are "Cooks" are talentless and a bunch of losers. You kicked off the "True Top Chef" last week, YOU STUPID FOOLS!!!!

posted on September 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Kim Jenio wrote:

I do applaude the judges for seeing through Howie this week. Howie knew he was going home and was trying to go the hero route instead of allowing the judges to tell him to pack his knives. I read in an earlier blog and am sad to agree but this season lost me with Tre being sent home. There are some other chefs that are starting to grow on me but you just sent home your " Top Chef" or at least the chef that was going to give the rest of them a run for thier money. It's been a dissapointing season overall with some small exceptions. Season 1 was by far the best, talented and entertaining, with season 2 not much better that season 3 with all of the imature goings on. I hope next year manages to really pick up the pace or i may have to pack my own knives and go home.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 1:08 PM

nece wrote:

Hi chef,
It has come to my attention that Sara did not receive a prize for her big elimination challenge win in restaurant wars! It was a huge accomplishment and all she got was a good job and a pat on the back, where as Casey who won a small elimination challenge got this awesome computer!! Sara really didnt get the attention she deserved because everyone was so pissed off about Tre's elimination, including the judges, that Sara's win got no recognition...Now I probably wouldnt have said anything until I seen what Casey got for her small win...R we missing something? DId you guys just not show the part where you gave Sara a prize? Was it editing or were u guys just too upset about Tre to give Sara a reward?!? Im not even a big fan of Sara's but this is really bothering me, can you please address this chef!

posted on September 8, 2007 at 1:20 PM

nece wrote:

Well since you addressed the issue of Tre's elimination and since everyone still seems to be upset about it, I would just like to say that contrary to everyone's belief, I believe Tre deserved to go home. He not only failed to lead his team to victory twice, but his dishes were the worst of the bunch. His dishes were bad at the soft and hard opening. I believe Tre and his teammates were overly confident and thought they had it in the bag. Instead of Tre extending his workout to eavesdrop on the other team, he should have been more worried and focused on himself and his own team. I dont know if anyone recalls that Tre said he can do bread pudding in his sleep when apparently he cant even do it while he's wide awake and full of energy after a purposely prolonged workout. Yeah Tre seemed like a nice guy but this isnt a popularity contest! I mean c'mon people, r u guys going to actually stop watching the show because of his elimination. Its a competition, that means someone gets eliminated every week and yes it might be your favorite chef but thats what a competion is all about. I think a lot of viewers are getting too emotionally involved and r forgetting that its a competition. You guys need to lay off the judges, it was a hard decision for them and you can tell that they all like and respect Tre, but that goes to show you that this show is not about favortism which is good to know. All you die hard Tre fans that r saying he was a great chef and made great food, you guys didnt even taste his food but the judges did, so they have a right to judge and you guys have no right to criticize them for their decision. And might I say that since everyone is preaching how classy Tre is, I dont think it was very classy to eavesdrop on the other team while they were discussing their menu and then criticize them for what they were planning on making. Its ironic isnt it? Tre ended up on the losing end after all his criticism about the other team.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM

MaryEllen wrote:

I've been stewing over this episode since it aired and have finally calmed down enough to post a comment. I think this week's episode reached a new low for Top Chef. The 2 challenges were clearly designed for the chefs to fail and (once again) to be subjected to what has become the most hypocritical and condescending judging panel I've ever seen.

So many times throughout the 3 seasons the judges have chanted their mantra of "if a dish isn't up to snuff then it shouldn't be served." Howie seemed to follow this line of thinking during the Quickfire as his dish clearly wasn't working and there was no time left to start over, so he chose to not let it be served. And, of course, he was ridiculed for it. Quite hypocritical in my opinion.

The only word I can come up with for the Elimnination Challenge is ridiculous. $350 budget for 60 people for 2 hours and they're supposed to be wowed? I'd like to see what the judging panel would have been able to pull off under those constraints, especially Padma (thoughts on her to follow). Granted, the chefs made a few poor choices but to force a budget on them that put one chef in the position of having to to give up goat cheese for his dish is just plain stupid. Please point me to a high-end caterer that wouldn't laugh in my face if I gave them the same type of budget constraints for a high-end cocktail party.

And please, for the love of all things culinary, get rid of Padma. She does not belong on this show and certainly not in any capacity as a judge. Its obvious she knows very little about food and her transparent attempts to display any sort of knowledge by parroting things she hears her fellow judges say are laughable. She brings nothing to the show except a snotty, condescending attitude, a pretty face and a nice figure in skimpy clothes.

I was also appaled by Padma's treatment of Howie at the judge's table. She was completely out of line. Why force a contestant to stay if he wants to leave? Just so you can get some kind of satisfaction by telling him to go? Pretty childish. I do not think Howie should have been asked to leave this week, though I did respect his wish to withdraw and wish it had been honored. There are several chefs still remaining who have no business being there anymore. Hung comes to mind immediately. In fact, why air the rest of the season? Just crown him Top Chef & be done with it as all signs seem to be pointing that way. He's been in the bottom time after time and has put forth more than his share of disastrous dishes, yet he's still there for some reason.

I apologize for the tone of my comments, but I appreciate being given a forum in which to voice them. I'm dishearetened at seeing what this show has become. Season 1 is still by far my favorite season of Top Chef. I can only hope that the quality of this show will return to that level in future seasons.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 3:11 PM

elijah wrote:

yeah tom...

your baseball analogy makes no sense! if this is the "regular season" and the TC final 4 is the "playoffs" (or rather "cookoffs"), then you MUST take into account the cheftestants overall record to see who gets into the "cookoffs". there's exists a record of performance that should not be discounted so capriciously!...and that's what makes baseball and football so fair. from the final 4 onward, THEN previous performance should be totally disregarded as this is the "cookoffs" and the cheftestants have A LOT more flexibility to show off their true skills in the clutch! so tre had a lousy regular season game but was still atop the leaderboard and yet he doesn't get to compete in the playoffs? that makes NO sense to me whatsoever!

please get your judging criteria straightened out!

posted on September 8, 2007 at 3:28 PM

jake wrote:

Chef,
You state here that in your own professional life you turn down catering jobs that offer unrealistically low budgets. Need I point out the obvious fact that the contestants on the show do not have the same luxury? I understand that there is a sharp distinction between this show and how chefs would act in the real world, but that is precisely