I've decided I don't want any of these chefs to get to the banquet: Aiden (nasty), Ray (strange), Daniel (up himself but better than be used to be) and Richard (keeps commenting that other people's dishes don't meet the brief yet he thinks crockery is funny!)
Did anyone else love seeing Richard practically leap into Daniel's arms after finishing his dish?
To me it's been quite clear that Daniel has been the big brother figure in this years show.
There are people there who are full of confidence, such as Aikens and Michael, but also those who seem to need support such as Aiden and others who are out of their depth slightly.
Daniel has been the mouthpiece and support for all of them.
It's quite a change to how he came across the first time he was on the show.
To me it's been quite clear that Daniel has been the big brother figure in this years show.
There are people there who are full of confidence, such as Aikens and Michael, but also those who seem to need support such as Aiden and others who are out of their depth slightly.
Daniel has been the mouthpiece and support for all of them.
It's quite a change to how he came across the first time he was on the show.
Yup, really warmed to Daniel over the last couple of years, he's calmed down a tad and although still highly competitive and very confident in his own abilities (not a bad thing at all) is very supportive and general seems a good bloke.
Absolutely agree about Daniel. I started watching this series with every intention of disliking him, but I very quickly warmed to him. It's fairly clear that the other chefs respect him, and I was delighted to see that they pushed through his fish course after the judges had marked it down for no apparent reason (other than the fact that they'd already picked their three favourites!).
I don't see Aiden as "nasty". I think he had every right to be a bit pee'd off when the judges basically said that there were only two of the original finalists going through for the main course. It was obvious that the bladder would go through, no matter what! Prue said it must be one of the top three if he did it like last time ... but he didn't! Strangely, when Matthew was tucking into undercooked rice, I didn't hear him whingeing about how it wasn't as good as he remembered it! :rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, it was a stand-out dish, but the judges eliminated it in the heats, so all it proved to me was that they're incapable of actually judging and just make up the rules as they go along. I fear it's going to be the same again tonight!
I just thought it funny that in one programme a flaw that has been present (and talked about here since then) since series one, and the scoring issues of brief v food was 'solved' with a repechage for the highest loser and a bit of thought from the comedy-judge.
Problems solved in one fell swoop.in half a hour :cool:
Now, if only we can turn back time and have a re-run of the series 2 pud from Marcus
Can I just say that Ade's scoring for gastronomy and the brief separately, and then averaging the two scores, was a stroke of genius: and should be the model they use for future series
Shocked at the alleged culling of the panel :eek: If Prue's staying, I wonder who they have in mind?
Lisa Faulkner, Giles Coren and one of the food critics from Masterchef?
This will keep us guessing till he next series lands!
I just thought it funny that in one programme a flaw that has been present (and talked about here since then) since series one, and the scoring issues of brief v food was 'solved' with a repechage for the highest loser and a bit of thought from the comedy-judge.
Problems solved in one fell swoop.in half a hour :cool:
So true (desperately searching for a "thumbs up" smilie!)
When Ade asked the judges if they were looking for funny, or looking for good food, and Matthew's reply was "That's a very good question because it's proving quite a problem for the chefs", I assume they edited out the bit where Ade said "Well, if it's a very good question, why don't you answer it! Are you looking for funny, or are you looking for good food?"
No doubt Prue then had to explain that they couldn't mark each separately, if only because they wouldn't then be able to justify their claim that a box for the "box of frogs" dish was just a prop, but a plastic diver on the side of Tom's plate was part of the dish! :rolleyes:
Can I just say that Ade's scoring for gastronomy and the brief separately, and then averaging the two scores, was a stroke of genius: and should be the model they use for future series
Shocked at the alleged culling of the panel :eek: If Prue's staying, I wonder who they have in mind?
Lisa Faulkner, Giles Coren and one of the food critics from Masterchef?
This will keep us guessing till he next series lands!
God I hope not. I can't stand the presenter/personality Faulkner has turned into.
Also think Coren could get rather grating. He's basically a younger version of Fort.
A constant chef judge may be good. Also a restauranteur.
That's what made the judges pan out overall. One is a critic, another a restauranteur and the other in the food industry.
So true (desperately searching for a "thumbs up" smilie!)
When Ade asked the judges if they were looking for funny, or looking for good food, and Matthew's reply was "That's a very good question because it's proving quite a problem for the chefs", I assume they edited out the bit where Ade said "Well, if it's a very good question, why don't you answer it! Are you looking for funny, or are you looking for good food?"
No doubt Prue then had to explain that they couldn't mark each separately, if only because they wouldn't then be able to justify their claim that a box for the "box of frogs" dish was just a prop, but a plastic diver on the side of Tom's plate was part of the dish! :rolleyes:
And a comedy bowler hat with flower was just a clown prop but a single fez the height of hilarity
Has anyone else noticed that when the chefs drop their scores into the box that the 6 and 9 look exactly the same.
There isn't a line drawn on them to differentiate.
This thread has given me much more amusement than watching the actual show. I don't think I've laughed once at the 'comedy' food but I've spent many a long lunch hour snorting with laughter at comments about Speckled Jim, dry ice and play mobile figures.
I'm becoming disenchanted with the show - the brief seems incredibly difficult. Some things just aren't naturally funny - it's like trying to make folk dancing erotic. Chefs are chefs because they're good at cooking, not because they're natural entertainers and I think at best all it's done is made them reliant on gimmicks and puns. I think some of the presentation (the Titanic being the obvious one) detracts from how tasty the food probably is. I don't to eat food out of piggy banks or bright red bladders - I just want food to taste nice.
I think the judges know the brief is flawed. The marking is inconsistant and biased. I also think the judges have deliberatly put through weaker players because it makes for good TV.
Watching the 10 fastest men in the world run the 100m sprint is exciting. Watching the 10 best chefs cook 4 perfect courses, and have each and every dish awarded a 10 by the ecstatic judges would be a waste of several days of your life. There has to be someone who doesn't make the grade, and sometimes it's easier to have some obvious losers than watch the judges pick minute faults to justify sending someone home.
I'm also wary of judging chefs on their on-screen personalities, because I know how editing can be used to achieve all sorts of trickery. When I appeared on a BBC show I was amazed at how a 3-minute light-hearted bit of banter had been edited seemlessly to me being brow-beaten for 30 seconds. It wouldn't surprise me if the judges didn't have to film two or three different sets of comments for each plate, or if substantial parts of the commentary were missing. In the heats there would be shots where you wouldn't see the judge chef's face, and there would be a pause of a few seconds which sounded very edited (added for dramatic tension). I noticed it first with Angela - I'd be willing to bet that she gave much more detailed feedback, but the silence was dubbed in to make a tidy, 'tense' marking segment.
It would be interesting to talk to someone on the show and find out actually what the kitchen was really like and how much of what we saw was actually contrived.
I wasn't proud to be Welsh this year. How do they select the contestants, because it seemed to me that they had chosen someone inexperienced and someone below-parr just to ensure Richard would get in - and he didn't meet the brief. There are MUCH better chefs in Wales, I could name some restaurants right now. Why the hell did we end up with Mary Ann and Luke?
I wanted to cheer Luke on because he's a local boy, but neither of them deserved to be in the competition. Sorry Richard, but I've discounted Wales from the final this year. We won't get a dish to the banquet, but hey, we got the six nations.
Daniel has been a revelation this year. He seems humble and decent - but not a stand-out competitior.
I don't find Tom's food looks that appealing. It must taste very good. Ditto Aidan. Pot noodle and Flintstone-style beef on the same dish?!
Peter Iglezias-Sanchez should never have made it through. None of Richard's dishes stand out for me either.
The people I want at the banquet this year are Colin and Michael.
The goat main course is the one dish I really want to try. (I know it's available online but I took one look at the ingredients list and gave up. I'm really, really bad at following instructions and tend just to throw things into a pan, guess at the quantities and hope for the best.) Plus I think that he was robbed last year.
Thinking Ray's food in poor taste (a real WTF moment when they wheeled the Titanic out), I am disinclined to cheer for him, so I'll back my Celtic brethren and back Scotland all the way. It's a shame they couldn't bring Tony back too with more oven glove puppetry.
Has this "culling" of the judging panel been confirmed anywhere?
I've only seen it on Wiki, and there's no citation. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but if I believed everything I read on Wiki, I'd probably think "gullible" was a made-up word!
Has anyone else noticed that when the chefs drop their scores into the box that the 6 and 9 look exactly the same.
There isn't a line drawn on them to differentiate.
:eek:
Don't they have Great British Menu + logo printed on the reverse?
Comments
There are people there who are full of confidence, such as Aikens and Michael, but also those who seem to need support such as Aiden and others who are out of their depth slightly.
Daniel has been the mouthpiece and support for all of them.
It's quite a change to how he came across the first time he was on the show.
Yup, really warmed to Daniel over the last couple of years, he's calmed down a tad and although still highly competitive and very confident in his own abilities (not a bad thing at all) is very supportive and general seems a good bloke.
I don't see Aiden as "nasty". I think he had every right to be a bit pee'd off when the judges basically said that there were only two of the original finalists going through for the main course. It was obvious that the bladder would go through, no matter what! Prue said it must be one of the top three if he did it like last time ... but he didn't! Strangely, when Matthew was tucking into undercooked rice, I didn't hear him whingeing about how it wasn't as good as he remembered it! :rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, it was a stand-out dish, but the judges eliminated it in the heats, so all it proved to me was that they're incapable of actually judging and just make up the rules as they go along. I fear it's going to be the same again tonight!
Problems solved in one fell swoop.in half a hour :cool:
Now, if only we can turn back time and have a re-run of the series 2 pud from Marcus
Does anyone know if Michael Smiths main course (I love kids but I couldn't eat a whole one) recipe is available online?
Yup http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/tv/greatbritishmenu/michael_smith_GBM_week2.pdf
(you can see how to make a farting pudding
Many, many thanks for the linky.
Farting pudding? Now that's bound to make me
Do you know where I can find a list of the other chefs menus to download in pdf like this one?
Can I just say that Ade's scoring for gastronomy and the brief separately, and then averaging the two scores, was a stroke of genius: and should be the model they use for future series
Shocked at the alleged culling of the panel :eek: If Prue's staying, I wonder who they have in mind?
Lisa Faulkner, Giles Coren and one of the food critics from Masterchef?
This will keep us guessing till he next series lands!
So true (desperately searching for a "thumbs up" smilie!)
When Ade asked the judges if they were looking for funny, or looking for good food, and Matthew's reply was "That's a very good question because it's proving quite a problem for the chefs", I assume they edited out the bit where Ade said "Well, if it's a very good question, why don't you answer it! Are you looking for funny, or are you looking for good food?"
No doubt Prue then had to explain that they couldn't mark each separately, if only because they wouldn't then be able to justify their claim that a box for the "box of frogs" dish was just a prop, but a plastic diver on the side of Tom's plate was part of the dish! :rolleyes:
The winners are all here (original dishes) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0071y6r/features/recipes - sadly I've no idea where to find the epic 'dog turd on a plate' starter
Also think Coren could get rather grating. He's basically a younger version of Fort.
A constant chef judge may be good. Also a restauranteur.
That's what made the judges pan out overall. One is a critic, another a restauranteur and the other in the food industry.
And a comedy bowler hat with flower was just a clown prop but a single fez the height of hilarity
Ah thank you. Shame about the dog turd but I'll just have to make do with these
There isn't a line drawn on them to differentiate.
:eek:
I'm becoming disenchanted with the show - the brief seems incredibly difficult. Some things just aren't naturally funny - it's like trying to make folk dancing erotic. Chefs are chefs because they're good at cooking, not because they're natural entertainers and I think at best all it's done is made them reliant on gimmicks and puns. I think some of the presentation (the Titanic being the obvious one) detracts from how tasty the food probably is. I don't to eat food out of piggy banks or bright red bladders - I just want food to taste nice.
I think the judges know the brief is flawed. The marking is inconsistant and biased. I also think the judges have deliberatly put through weaker players because it makes for good TV.
Watching the 10 fastest men in the world run the 100m sprint is exciting. Watching the 10 best chefs cook 4 perfect courses, and have each and every dish awarded a 10 by the ecstatic judges would be a waste of several days of your life. There has to be someone who doesn't make the grade, and sometimes it's easier to have some obvious losers than watch the judges pick minute faults to justify sending someone home.
I'm also wary of judging chefs on their on-screen personalities, because I know how editing can be used to achieve all sorts of trickery. When I appeared on a BBC show I was amazed at how a 3-minute light-hearted bit of banter had been edited seemlessly to me being brow-beaten for 30 seconds. It wouldn't surprise me if the judges didn't have to film two or three different sets of comments for each plate, or if substantial parts of the commentary were missing. In the heats there would be shots where you wouldn't see the judge chef's face, and there would be a pause of a few seconds which sounded very edited (added for dramatic tension). I noticed it first with Angela - I'd be willing to bet that she gave much more detailed feedback, but the silence was dubbed in to make a tidy, 'tense' marking segment.
It would be interesting to talk to someone on the show and find out actually what the kitchen was really like and how much of what we saw was actually contrived.
I wasn't proud to be Welsh this year. How do they select the contestants, because it seemed to me that they had chosen someone inexperienced and someone below-parr just to ensure Richard would get in - and he didn't meet the brief. There are MUCH better chefs in Wales, I could name some restaurants right now. Why the hell did we end up with Mary Ann and Luke?
I wanted to cheer Luke on because he's a local boy, but neither of them deserved to be in the competition. Sorry Richard, but I've discounted Wales from the final this year. We won't get a dish to the banquet, but hey, we got the six nations.
Daniel has been a revelation this year. He seems humble and decent - but not a stand-out competitior.
I don't find Tom's food looks that appealing. It must taste very good. Ditto Aidan. Pot noodle and Flintstone-style beef on the same dish?!
Peter Iglezias-Sanchez should never have made it through. None of Richard's dishes stand out for me either.
The people I want at the banquet this year are Colin and Michael.
The goat main course is the one dish I really want to try. (I know it's available online but I took one look at the ingredients list and gave up. I'm really, really bad at following instructions and tend just to throw things into a pan, guess at the quantities and hope for the best.) Plus I think that he was robbed last year.
Thinking Ray's food in poor taste (a real WTF moment when they wheeled the Titanic out), I am disinclined to cheer for him, so I'll back my Celtic brethren and back Scotland all the way. It's a shame they couldn't bring Tony back too with more oven glove puppetry.
To summarise: boo hiss boo judges. Go Michael!
I think Michael's main was better than Richard B's and Aidans. I'd love Tom to get on there though.
I just generally have a great big crush on Daniel now.
Also - if the culling of the judging panel is true and Faulker does come in as a judge - that's it for me with the show. I cannot stand the woman.
I've only seen it on Wiki, and there's no citation. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but if I believed everything I read on Wiki, I'd probably think "gullible" was a made-up word!
I do hope he does make it to the banquet, but know he'll not throw a hissy fit if he doesn't, unlike some of them.
Or toss the lot on a serving plate and call it Comic Relief Mess.