Surprised with that judging.
Pete didn't hit the brief. He just had a plain refined piece of fish.
The other two hit the brief better and I thought that Emily was going to come out on top this round.
Once again I liked Emily's dish best, not warming to Peter and thought Chris's dish looked ridiculous.
Not impressed with fish and chips without chips, too clever by half , he's just trying to be controversial
I don't think it was controversial, just pretentious. The judges called him up on it.
He named it seaside memories and said it was fish & chips.
But not a battered deep fried fish and no chips That would be what most people would have memories of when thniking about fish & chips.
That and the spray are supposed to be fun and fit the brief?
"Great British Menu is back and the nation's greatest chefs are competing to cook at a special banquet at the Royal Albert Hall to celebrate 25 years of Comic Relief's Red Nose Day and celebrate the unsung heroes of charity work. Not only do they have to deliver a performance on a plate to win, they will also have to put a smile on everyone's face. "
Whilst I think some of the dishes are stunning and look delicious - I just can't quite see the humour side - performance on a plate? Putting a smile on the diner's face? I'm just thinking that there is great scope with this brief to take a play on the funny side of life and incorporate it into the dish. From everything to kitsch jokes, classic humour, comedy shows and I like the fact that some chefs have incorporated a dish to show the work done by comic relief.
I thought the green eggs and ham was quite clever - if it had been served under a striped red hat cloche that would have been visually brilliant. I also thought the dish was well conceived and everyone seemed to like it. I felt it was closest to the brief and under-marked.
Today, I thought that the fish dishes were part of the wrong show - they skipped the humour and performance part of the brief. No-one really shone for me - but I again thought Emily was undermarked.
I'm not sure the chefs who are judging really know what they're doing in terms of the brief. I'm wondering whether any of them are really confident with what this brief requires and so are playing it safe, going for the dishes that taste and look most impressive and letting the judges sort it out.
Emily is doing by far the best in the direction of the brief but seems to be missing somewhat from a cooking perspective. Peter's either misread the brief as "Nostalgia" or he had one hell of a hilarious childhood! His food looks beautifully cooked to be fair but it isn't even making crack a smile, let alone laugh and Chris looks to be missing marks all ends up. Not impressed thus far. Again.
I'm not sure the chefs who are judging really know what they're doing in terms of the brief. I'm wondering whether any of them are really confident with what this brief requires and so are playing it safe, going for the dishes that taste and look most impressive and letting the judges sort it out.
Emily is doing by far the best in the direction of the brief but seems to be missing somewhat from a cooking perspective. Peter's either misread the brief as "Nostalgia" or he had one hell of a hilarious childhood! His food looks beautifully cooked to be fair but it isn't even making crack a smile, let alone laugh and Chris looks to be missing marks all ends up. Not impressed thus far. Again.
That sums it up perfectly! :cool:
I can only hope that when it comes to the final, the judges at least consider the original brief!
We have chefs (described as "mentors") judging chefs, but if the theme is Comedy, did nobody think to have some comedians as mentors/advisers at an early stage in the process ... preferably when the chefs were coming up with ideas for their dishes? I'm assuming there will be a bunch of comedians at the banquet, so wouldn't it have been a good idea to pair them up with the chefs so they'd also be involved in the whole process? At least we might have had some comedy element to all the dishes!
If nothing else, I'm fairly sure any comedian worthy of the name would have pointed out to Peter that a picnic isn't funny, and that describing poached fish as "fish and chips" is just sad! :rolleyes:
I'm not sure the chefs who are judging really know what they're doing in terms of the brief. I'm wondering whether any of them are really confident with what this brief requires and so are playing it safe, going for the dishes that taste and look most impressive and letting the judges sort it out.
Emily is doing by far the best in the direction of the brief but seems to be missing somewhat from a cooking perspective. Peter's either misread the brief as "Nostalgia" or he had one hell of a hilarious childhood! His food looks beautifully cooked to be fair but it isn't even making crack a smile, let alone laugh and Chris looks to be missing marks all ends up. Not impressed thus far. Again.
Indeed, even his descriptions don't seem to take into account the actual brief, he just witters on about childhood memories To be honest I'm going to be mildly disappointed if he doesn't serve up butterscotch Angel's Delight as his pud (or was that just my childhood memory )
"Great British Menu is back and the nation's greatest chefs are competing to cook at a special banquet at the Royal Albert Hall to celebrate 25 years of Comic Relief's Red Nose Day and celebrate the unsung heroes of charity work. Not only do they have to deliver a performance on a plate to win, they will also have to put a smile on everyone's face. "
Whilst I think some of the dishes are stunning and look delicious - I just can't quite see the humour side - performance on a plate? Putting a smile on the diner's face? I'm just thinking that there is great scope with this brief to take a play on the funny side of life and incorporate it into the dish. From everything to kitsch jokes, classic humour, comedy shows and I like the fact that some chefs have incorporated a dish to show the work done by comic relief.
I thought the green eggs and ham was quite clever - if it had been served under a striped red hat cloche that would have been visually brilliant. I also thought the dish was well conceived and everyone seemed to like it. I felt it was closest to the brief and under-marked.
Today, I thought that the fish dishes were part of the wrong show - they skipped the humour and performance part of the brief. No-one really shone for me - but I again thought Emily was undermarked.
Nice interview with the 3 judges on Loose Women today, Oliver came over really well hes a lovely man. They filmed the actual banquet yesterday but no details were revealed, not that I expected them to be.
Another point about the guest judges is that who knows if they have any humour at all. Kerridge seems to going by some of his previous dishes in the series. Not LOL funny but creative and pots a smile on the diners faces. (The potato sack and other stuff he's done).
Another I think would do well is Glyn Purnell. He seems to like to have a laugh and a joke.
Alot of the others are serious restaurant chefs and i'm not quite sure if they can let go of that enough to judge properly on humour/comedy/wittyness etc.
"Young Gun" Peter is going for nostalgia again. Surely previously chefs have been criticised for doing something as traditional as a roast. I'm not really sure where the humour is coming from.
Comments
Pete didn't hit the brief. He just had a plain refined piece of fish.
The other two hit the brief better and I thought that Emily was going to come out on top this round.
Just a pity there wasn't any caviar, truffle or quail's egg in it! :rolleyes:
Not impressed with fish and chips without chips, too clever by half , he's just trying to be controversial
He named it seaside memories and said it was fish & chips.
But not a battered deep fried fish and no chips
That and the spray are supposed to be fun and fit the brief?
Whilst I think some of the dishes are stunning and look delicious - I just can't quite see the humour side - performance on a plate? Putting a smile on the diner's face? I'm just thinking that there is great scope with this brief to take a play on the funny side of life and incorporate it into the dish. From everything to kitsch jokes, classic humour, comedy shows and I like the fact that some chefs have incorporated a dish to show the work done by comic relief.
I thought the green eggs and ham was quite clever - if it had been served under a striped red hat cloche that would have been visually brilliant. I also thought the dish was well conceived and everyone seemed to like it. I felt it was closest to the brief and under-marked.
Today, I thought that the fish dishes were part of the wrong show - they skipped the humour and performance part of the brief. No-one really shone for me - but I again thought Emily was undermarked.
Emily is doing by far the best in the direction of the brief but seems to be missing somewhat from a cooking perspective. Peter's either misread the brief as "Nostalgia" or he had one hell of a hilarious childhood! His food looks beautifully cooked to be fair but it isn't even making crack a smile, let alone laugh and Chris looks to be missing marks all ends up. Not impressed thus far. Again.
That sums it up perfectly! :cool:
I can only hope that when it comes to the final, the judges at least consider the original brief!
We have chefs (described as "mentors") judging chefs, but if the theme is Comedy, did nobody think to have some comedians as mentors/advisers at an early stage in the process ... preferably when the chefs were coming up with ideas for their dishes? I'm assuming there will be a bunch of comedians at the banquet, so wouldn't it have been a good idea to pair them up with the chefs so they'd also be involved in the whole process? At least we might have had some comedy element to all the dishes!
If nothing else, I'm fairly sure any comedian worthy of the name would have pointed out to Peter that a picnic isn't funny, and that describing poached fish as "fish and chips" is just sad! :rolleyes:
Indeed, even his descriptions don't seem to take into account the actual brief, he just witters on about childhood memories
Oooh, good idea! She should have done that!
Particualrly with Tom in the room.
A Picnic is not funny, a Fish & Chip dish without the Chips isn't funny either....disappointing, but not funny!
I like Emily - and feel a bit sorry for her really.
Agree about Tom - nostalgia does not equal humour!
Another I think would do well is Glyn Purnell. He seems to like to have a laugh and a joke.
Alot of the others are serious restaurant chefs and i'm not quite sure if they can let go of that enough to judge properly on humour/comedy/wittyness etc.
are they copying each others ideas this week? they are all using booze today!!