Nonetheless, I do get a kick out of the theories swirling around cyberspace about the decision process: There is the ever-popular "producers pick" theory that suggests Bravo's producers told us who should win, with an eye towards creating drama. If that were the case, Ken would have made it much further than he did (the man could single-handedly ignite WWIII), easy-going Harold never would have made it this far (no drama there), and the finale would be down to prickly Tiffani vs. arrogant Stephen. On one occasion that I know of, Bravo's producers were less than thrilled with our choice (OK, I'll spill -- they loved Miguel). But they never interfered with our decision to let him go, or suggested we change the outcome. If they had, I don't think I could have stayed with the show.
There's also the 'Judges-are-biased-towards or against-certain-people' theory which mystifies me. For one thing, Bravo kept us from mixing closely with the chefs in order to keep us as neutral as possible. The funny thing is, I learned most of what I know about our contestants from watching the episodes like everyone else, which was when I got to see those one-on-one interviews and much of the behind-the-scenes drama. If anything I may have grown fond of a few contestants because they struck me as good people -- Andrea and Lisa come to mind. And yet you'll notice I didn't hesitate to vote them off when their work didn't cut it. So much for that theory.
And my favorite theory of all: the "Tiffani-turned-down-her-opponents'-burners-and-that's how-she-got-this-far" theory. I hate to break it to the Tiff-haters, but there was a room full of crew and four cameras shooting simultaneously during the challenges, capturing everything. I seriously doubt anyone would have taken the risk of being caught on film blatantly sabotaging an opponent. The truth is Tiffani never needed to turn down anyone's fire to win a challenge -- when she won it was because she was good. Plain and simple. The same holds true with Harold, but thanks to his popularity, his integrity was never called into question.
Hi I just had the opportunity of watching Top Chef and this is for the second time,but it only season one and two.It has really course me to be motivated and brought me to the realization that i need to know more.I really liked Lee Ann, Harold,Dave,Miguel And even Steven even though at time he can be a pain in all the wrong places.These guys are really great and i really think if there is any possibility I'll like to be like them or even like Chef Tom or more.I have only very little knowledge about Culinary art and i want to learn if the opportunity is given me. I'll like to know what these guys from season one are now doing,As for season two they were too self fish and cause a lot problems forget that even though they were there for $100,000 they were also there to make friends and contact which is very important in the industry. Please I'll be grateful if am contact with help to realize my dream as am from Sierra Leone,West Africa were there is not much done about this wonderful art.you can even Check to make sure am saying the truth.To be plain am soliciting a scholarship to study this art and come back to be a blessing in this sector to my country. thanks and god bless you richly. Dorothy A.L.k. Coker
This is September 2009 - do you ever see Harold Dieterle when you are in NY? It would be great to see him again on one of your special shows when you invite past chefs to compete. i know he has a restuarant so he may be able to compete. jenny
didn't read all of the rest that folks have written, to many words..but I want to say, I am front of house, was a line cook once, but wanted more money..I do very well, have had the pleasure of working with wolf gang, jamie shannon, and now with john besh, I amke my money because i can serve something that they dont send back...it is what it is..and guests love it...Harlod made solid food, with real down to earth flavors..at least by description..he deserved to win..