Didn't see James today, but thrilled to meet Paul & Mary, albeit briefly, at book signing. Their demo in supertheatre was fab, Paul did the 8 strand plaited loaf, in literally 1 minute. He said he practiced it daily for 6 months!! Wow!!
I see theres Bake Off related progs next Mon-Thurs 7pm BBC2. Three tutorials from Mary and Paul and a catch up. Be interesting to see both of them tackling the technicals.
Didn't see James today, but thrilled to meet Paul & Mary, albeit briefly, at book signing. Their demo in supertheatre was fab, Paul did the 8 strand plaited loaf, in literally 1 minute. He said he practiced it daily for 6 months!! Wow!!
That sounds great good to know that Paul's had to go through the relentless learning and practice process too.
I thought John was the right winner and felt so sad that he felt he had to make his mum proud of him!
I know how that feels as the youngest and always referred to as the stupid one!
For the love of God, he went to Oxford, he worked as a merchant banker while attaining a first in Law from Manchester. No one in his family called him stupid nor referred to him as such. These idiotic posts claiming quasi abuse on his family's part say far far more about the people posting and their own relationships with their parents than John's.
That is quite possibly the most nauseatingly insipid coupling one can imagine. Don't get me wrong I like John, however he is borderline wet at the best of times, add the terminally dreary Grimshaw to the mix and you have have a very very soggy bottom.
My OH just emailed me his application form...I shall show you parts of it..............:rolleyes::D
:D:D Just read this with tears running down my face - my daughter was so disturbed, she stopped watching Scooby Doo to check I was OK! What does your OH do - he should be on the stage!
Well, he's as close to 'flavour of the month' as it gets right now. However if he does head off to Paris to train as a patisserie (and I for one hope he manages to, because it's what he wants to do) he'll be out of fashion just as quickly. That's telly for you. I suspect he won't actually mind if that's what happens.
Speaking of which, anyone thinking of/in the process of applying should probably read Dani's latest blog entry here. I wouldn't necessarily let it put you off but it's wise to know as much as you can about what you're getting into before you sign on the dotted line. The basic takeaway seems to be - it's a competition and a very serious one, so treat it accordingly.
Not sure if this has been mentioned further up the thread but surely when James' cake mixture fell off the stool it was a set up? It was a large enough stool for the tin to be put in the middle of it not precariously on the edge with the camera just waiting for the inevitable to happen. A small point but watched the repeat earlier and it still niggled - the created drama of "will he be able to make another in time" just wasn't necessary. This show is better than that.
As I predicted some weeks ago, John won it. Anyone who is serious about baking can see that he was not the best baker. That person was obviously Brendan yet the editors did such a hatchet job on him that by the end people accepted John as the winner on personality grounds. Even the judges were edited in such a way to justify this bizarre decision. We had Mary saying that Brendan was only good at things he could practice when, in fact, he won two technical challenges while John, as I recall, won only one. On the day of the final Paul and Mary trawled TV studios giving interviews in which they repeated that the judgement was made on who did best on the day. They were clearly anticipating people pointing out that John had done pretty badly on several weeks while the other two had been far more consistent. Brendan was star baker or in the running for star baker in 7 of the 9 preceding rounds and James had been star baker 3 times. Aside from his colosseum from gingerbread, John produced a stodgy stollen, puddings that tasted like cardboard, buns that were bland, a chocolate breezeblock of a torte, etc, etc. But by clever editing we were all led to believe that he is 'Britain's best amateur baker'.
John will make the production company lots of money. Much more than either of the other two would have done (James wants to be a doctor not a baker). End of.
For the love of God, he went to Oxford, he worked as a merchant banker while attaining a first in Law from Manchester. No one in his family called him stupid nor referred to him as such. These idiotic posts claiming quasi abuse on his family's part say far far more about the people posting and their own relationships with their parents than John's.
It was pretty clear he did Law to please his mother (he admitted he didn't even like the subject) and it was equally clear she wasn't overjoyed at the prospect of him giving up a 'respectable' and high prestige profession for (as she must see it) 'lowly' baking. His own words said it all: "I've finally done something that I've wanted to do to please her". There's nothing 'idiotic' in pointing out that John relies (a bit too much) on his mother's approval and that Bake Off appears to have been the first thing he'd done that got her approval but that he actually enjoyed doing. I'm glad it worked out. He could've spent years unhappy and perhaps resentful if he'd ended up in a career in law that would've pleased her but which he clearly had no love for.
As I predicted some weeks ago, John won it. Anyone who is serious about baking can see that he was not the best baker. That person was obviously Brendan yet the editors did such a hatchet job on him that by the end people accepted John as the winner on personality grounds. Even the judges were edited in such a way to justify this bizarre decision. We had Mary saying that Brendan was only good at things he could practice when, in fact, he won two technical challenges while John, as I recall, won only one. On the day of the final Paul and Mary trawled TV studios giving interviews in which they repeated that the judgement was made on who did best on the day. They were clearly anticipating people pointing out that John had done pretty badly on several weeks while the other two had been far more consistent. Brendan was star baker or in the running for star baker in 7 of the 9 preceding rounds and James had been star baker 3 times. Aside from his colosseum from gingerbread, John produced a stodgy stollen, puddings that tasted like cardboard, buns that were bland, a chocolate breezeblock of a torte, etc, etc. But by clever editing we were all led to believe that he is 'Britain's best amateur baker'.
John will make the production company lots of money. Much more than either of the other two would have done (James wants to be a doctor not a baker). End of.
Yes, dear, so Berry and Hollywood aren't serious about baking.
Get a grip. John was the best because unlike the other two he learned from the experience and his mistakes to come out top at the end. He's the most accomplished because he was capable of massive improvement to be best when it mattered.
Brendan and his creepy cakes was mediocre, James simply choked. You really need to reappraise your own criteria by which you judge, as someone said on this forum it's utterly ridiculous to suggest you can tell the taste and quality by watching a programme.
Likewise you could argue that the whole series was "edited" to paint John as the underdog, downplaying how good he actually was for the sake of drama.
BTW what part of a "knock out" competition DON'T you understand? Baker of the week, wow, what an accolade and meaningless in terms of being best on the actual day.
More to the point the only benchmark that the anti John claque are taking as to Brendan having "won" the first round is that he himself and only himself gave a mark of 10 out of 10.
Brendan's self-awarding of 10 out of 10 was a bit odd, as we all saw the judges point out that his pithivier was burned at the edges. We had also seen John realise that was a possibility for his pie and take steps to avoid it, so he didn't have that flaw.
Comments
Like what? They make countless maudlin pity-party posts on internet forums?
You sound pleasant.
I know how that feels as the youngest and always referred to as the stupid one!
For the love of God, he went to Oxford, he worked as a merchant banker while attaining a first in Law from Manchester. No one in his family called him stupid nor referred to him as such. These idiotic posts claiming quasi abuse on his family's part say far far more about the people posting and their own relationships with their parents than John's.
Was Paul also at the GBBO garden party after the final?
That is quite possibly the most nauseatingly insipid coupling one can imagine. Don't get me wrong I like John, however he is borderline wet at the best of times, add the terminally dreary Grimshaw to the mix and you have have a very very soggy bottom.
Speaking of which, anyone thinking of/in the process of applying should probably read Dani's latest blog entry here. I wouldn't necessarily let it put you off but it's wise to know as much as you can about what you're getting into before you sign on the dotted line. The basic takeaway seems to be - it's a competition and a very serious one, so treat it accordingly.
John will make the production company lots of money. Much more than either of the other two would have done (James wants to be a doctor not a baker). End of.
It was pretty clear he did Law to please his mother (he admitted he didn't even like the subject) and it was equally clear she wasn't overjoyed at the prospect of him giving up a 'respectable' and high prestige profession for (as she must see it) 'lowly' baking. His own words said it all: "I've finally done something that I've wanted to do to please her". There's nothing 'idiotic' in pointing out that John relies (a bit too much) on his mother's approval and that Bake Off appears to have been the first thing he'd done that got her approval but that he actually enjoyed doing. I'm glad it worked out. He could've spent years unhappy and perhaps resentful if he'd ended up in a career in law that would've pleased her but which he clearly had no love for.
Yes, dear, so Berry and Hollywood aren't serious about baking.
Get a grip. John was the best because unlike the other two he learned from the experience and his mistakes to come out top at the end. He's the most accomplished because he was capable of massive improvement to be best when it mattered.
Brendan and his creepy cakes was mediocre, James simply choked. You really need to reappraise your own criteria by which you judge, as someone said on this forum it's utterly ridiculous to suggest you can tell the taste and quality by watching a programme.
Likewise you could argue that the whole series was "edited" to paint John as the underdog, downplaying how good he actually was for the sake of drama.
BTW what part of a "knock out" competition DON'T you understand? Baker of the week, wow, what an accolade and meaningless in terms of being best on the actual day.
Get a grip.,