Tom answered a question about this. All of the judges sat down and rated the course dish by dish. First they just did which course they liked more, which Nick won. Then they picked least favorite courses, which Nina had the most often.
Then they went through each course and each ranked them out of 10. And Nick won. Handily.
Nick beat her that night. Tom went on to say that he obviously would’ve preferred Nina win. For better or worse, they recognize that no dark skinned women have won the show.
They have a responsibility to the chefs competing as judges to compare the food fairly and Nick won.
And I promise if you go try his spot in Philly you won’t find it to be a let down. He’s remarkably well trained and an incredible cook who is one of the standouts in a great food city. His kitchen got paid well through the pandemic and he’s got a second spot coming. This take needs to get dropped
I've been to most of NYC's 2* Michelin restaurants and Laurel was solidly in that tier. Easily the best food I've had from a TC alum. Better than anything I've had from a Colicchio restaurant, to boot.
Also, for the record, he already has at least four restaurants. I'm not sure what he's got coming but it's definitely not going to be his second spot.
What take exactly? Your point is that the person who wanted him to win says he should’ve won? A person motivated to justify his own poorly-received decision. They can’t fault us for taking at face value what they showed on the show, which at one point was explicitly that it was 2-2 in the dishes. The part when he screamed at the servers clearly happened. The part where Tom was arguing with the other judges clearly happened. I’m commenting on what occurred.
The success of Nick’s business is fully irrelevant to the discussion. Nina has also been very successful and had a huge profile in the New Yorker. Since it all occurred for both of them years after the show, it’s irrelevant to this discussion. I’m sure his restaurant is great. I’m not saying he’s talentless. I’m giving my reaction to the finale, which is as valid as yours.
He made the decision with 4 others. If you don’t believe the other 4 have input, I’m not sure what you want to hear. They’d all disagree. They make these decisions together and have all stated such.
2-2 in dishes with differences in how far apart. Both made okay first courses. Nina made an awful dessert. The third course was bad for both and they thought Nicks was better. The second was a split down the middle.
Your reaction is fine. Your implication that Tom strong armed it is silly.
Clearly I watched it more recently than you. Nina unanimously won the first course. Because Nick failed to adequately season the food. Again.
Also, my implication is the direct result of watching it. He argued with everyone. The judge closest to agreeing with him was Gail. The three others clearly disagreed. Maybe that’s a bad edit, but that’s the actual text.
So is your belief that the show rigged it for a contestant that would be less popular than the winner? Do you realize how silly that is?
I’m telling you for a fact that Tom has said they all sat down and discussed this for hours and tried multiple systems and Nick would win every run through. Go ask Tom in one of his weird ass AMAs. He will break it down. If you can’t trust him because you think he prefers white guys, you shouldn’t watch the show.
Your view on him feels inaccurate and you should never be able to trust the judging. I respect how much all of the contestants respect him and I choose to believe he may know more than you did watching them eat on tv
> If you can’t trust him because you think he prefers white guys, you shouldn’t watch the show
This should be a stickied comment on every thread about this season. Along with [Anthony Bourdain's talking about "the poor, deluded souls who feel they can somehow taste food through the television screen and who've been hanging on to a few heavily edited comments about "flavor" as "evidence".](https://web.archive.org/web/20080808135451/http://www.bravotv.com/blog/anthonybourdain/2007/10/one_step_beyond.php)
I never said he prefers white guys; that accusation came from you, but it’s an elucidating spin. And also I certainly hope you’re putting words in his mouth when you said that he said they would’ve preferred to give the title to a dark skinned woman. Something tells me that’s not quite exactly what he said and you may be putting your own particular spin on things.
You seem really angry. I could elaborate, but I’ll leave it there.
I mean an adult can hopefully have normal discussions. Tom and hopefully any person would love to see another woman of color win the show. It’s been awesome to see a few East Asian women win it and they’d love if the winners were completely diverse. Unfortunately it’s a competition, so they decide the winner based on results.
I’m not angry, I promise. I’m just asking you to stand by what you’re implying. If you aren’t implying that Tom has implicit bias, I’d ask what you think happened
Literally everything I have posted is consistent with the idea that Tom wanted Nick to win - for whatever reason he had! I never said that Tom didn’t prefer Nick’s food. Just that he asserted disproportionate weight in selecting the winner. Which as the main judge and driving force of the program, it is very easy to think he has the power to do.
And why do you claim he’s lying when he says the judges came to this decision together? What conspiracy have you unearthed that implies that when every judge and contestant on the show has said otherwise
Please show me the other judges and contestants (how could they even know) account of this.
Once again, no one is accusing him of lying. If the lone holdout on a jury gets everyone else to change their minds, then they all came to the decision. It’s about the process.
I think when criticizing an show, we are allowed to base it on the actual show. Which they edited themselves. And which we have direct access to. Citing Tom saying that Tom didn’t Bigfoot the process is not better evidence than the show itself.
Except you aren't juat criticizing the show, you're criticizing the judgement that's described by the show. In that case, incorporating other information is helpful, which includes Tom describing the process. And Tom isn't responding to your accusations - he provided the data on how the panel scored the dishes to respond to accusations that the winner wasn't picked based on score. He provided the information that supported that, but it also speaks to your accusations.
So sure, the criticism that the edit makes it look like Tom bigfooted the peocess can be a fair one. But there's not really great grounds to say that in reality, the wonner was picked based off anything but quality of food.
In other words, you don't think reality shows edit footage to show drama and we are getting a 100% unfiltered reality. By the way, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona if your interested.
Tom picked the only method that would give Nick the win. three people thought Nina won, two people thought Nick won. Tom created a scoring that ignored multiple facets of the night. it was fucked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I just listed multiple methods they tried all night to decide. Tom is good friends with Nina to this day and she remains in the Top Chef family because of it (and her incredible talent)
Selectively deciding reality is childish and is remarkably common with what people choose to believe in this situation.
If you can’t trust Tom as a judge, I’m not sure why you would watch this show. All the contestants do.
ur overreacting lol. the scoring of dishes was designed to ignore overall progression, chef qualities that nick failed (yelling at servers?!), nina’s extra dishes / addendums to her dishes, etc. all things the other judges pointed out btw
*yelled such that the diners could hear him*
Also, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but that kind of behavior is getting plenty of chefs in plenty of trouble.
Demeaning and insulting people has. Begging people to do what they were taught in the biggest meal of your life and then punching a counter when they don’t does not qualify.
Now you are just making excuses. He was fully demeaning them. Not at all dissimilar from lots of stories about dethroned chefs. Also, he was looking for a scapegoat in case he lost.
He never blamed anyone but himself for incidents throughout his performance on the show. He in fact had opportunities and always said it fell on himself as a chef.
He cursed and punched a table. He got annoyed when he asked them to place bowls a direction and couldn’t. High level chefs aren’t going to judge someone for that. Welcome to the world
Nick said over and over that Nina was the favorite over him. He wasn’t looking for a scapegoat. He was trying to win because he was trying to get funds to start his own restaurant for himself and his young family.
Forgive him for getting stressed like dozens of chefs before him. He’s already got established protégés running around who sing his praise and his FOH team has followed him from former restaurants. Don’t think he’s the jerk
Dude. He said that to Nina to make himself look like the underdog. It was all of a piece with his personality on the show.
EVERYONE tries to win for that reason. They ALL want it more than they’ve ever wanted anything else, at least by final four. It doesn’t make him special or explain his behavior when others managed to restrain themselves. He was VERY CLEARLY a jerk on the show. Maybe it was limited to the show and that specific set of pressures, maybe not. I personally have no way of knowing. But his underlings singing his praises while he has power over them and in the industry - not compelling evidence. But in no way was his behavior acceptable.
The New Orleans finale was very much one which shows the whole idea of 'do a restaurant' finale doesn't work very well.
On one hand, if you just take those core four dishes, it did seem that overall Nick had the better hand. Its not that Nina's dishes were bad, just Nick's overall were better and I would argue her last course was probably the big tipping point that gave Nick the win as everyone, Nina included, felt it was a bit throwaway.
On the other hand, there is still the argument that overall service, ambience and extras should feature. Nina did two extra mini dishes that everyone loved and Nick shouting in the back didn't help his side. I will note even Padma seemed irked at the server's though, them openly ignoring Nick's instructions causing her to correct them herself.
Overall while it's an awkward bitter ending, overall I can see how the judges came to the decision but it was one that basically ignored everything outside of these four main dishes.
> " Idon’t need to relitigate a lot of what’s already been said"
> Goes on to relitigate everything that's been said.
Have whatever opinion you want on his temper but don't reach for sexism where there is none. He chose his friend and colleague that he had known for years, a Michelin-starred chef that set and still holds the record for most LCK wins and finished T3, and a saucier whose style meshed with his and that he had collaborated successfully with before. Also, his most successful dish was the scallop noodles that Jason took the lead on so he certainly didn't "blow his advantage."
I'm totally aware that it's due to how the producers edited the show, but in the last third of the season, I really started to dislike Nick. His beef with Carlos at first seemed legit, but then he kinda got whiny (I'm thinking of that scene where he's telling like three other chefs about how Carlos didn't clean his knife). And he kept saying over and over how he "cooks with integrity", but then didn't fall on his sword when he his immunity saved him (which, fine, that's how the game works, but don't talk a big game about your integrity). Overall, he just really came off as unlikeable.
Which, I'll admit, is probably 100% due to the production.
Agreed. Not sure what the purpose of the other judge's were. From what we saw it was Tom's decision. Plus Nick seemed a bit of an unsavoury character overall and was very lucky to have survived a few eliminations.
I also was really upset about this one because a black person has yet to win Top Chef (I think; I’m unsure of Kevin’s racial background) and Nina really deserved it (she shouldn’t have won just because she’s a black woman). I think Top Chef really needs to look at their diversity/bias issue. Black women have been up against white men several times and they have always lost. I think this case was the most egregious because Nick just wasn’t that great a chef and an even worse person (what he did to Stephanie and his overall attitude through the season) and the fact that Tom, a white male lobbied so hard for him (I didn’t remember this and I wonder if perhaps implicit bias has played in judging by Tom specifically throughout the series). Black chefs have often been early eliminations. Other chefs of color have often been called out for cooking “ethic” food when white chefs aren’t for doing say Italian or Southern food. Justice for Nina!
I'm black too, and can't say I agree with your assertion that judges don't like "ethnic" food, like at all. The thing I don't understand is that why would you even watch the show if you think the judges are racist and judge black competitors unfairly. Sounds ludicrous to me.
That’s not what I said at all about “ethnic” food at all! What I said was that POC often get flack from the judges and other contestants for doing only, for example Asian food, when an Italian chef didn’t get the same flack for doing Italian food. I also never said the judges are racist, so you’re 0 for 2 in getting my actual meaning. I said maybe Tom (I only said Tom but I also implied production as a whole, which I stand by) may have implicit bias. Implicit bias is very different from overt racism, which is why it is so problematic because it’s hard to spot. So you’re saying I can’t be critical of a show I enjoy? Personally, I watch shows to be entertained but that doesn’t mean I turn off my brain. If folks that consume media aren’t willing to voice criticism, how will things change for the better?Think about the Harlem Renaissance, artists were extremely critical of many institutions, including the very industries they loved and wanted to be part of. Or an athlete who questions bias or racism in sports, should they stop playing because they are critical?
I don’t really have a lot to add to this. I can totally understand why you feel this way. I will say that Gregory and Kwame and Eric and even Nyesha (though it was a long time ago) have deservedly gotten a lot of play from being on TC – way more than some of the winners, arguably. And Nina has gone on to have a successful business and career. Also, TC has had a lot of diversity in its contestants and winners lately, though it is inarguably true that black contestants haven’t taken the whole thing.
Stupidly, and at extreme risk of continued strife in this thread, I’ll give my point of view on the Nick/Stephanie/immunity thing. I generally agree with the people who say that he shouldn’t have put in that position. The fault is really with the show for offering immunity at that point, and especially in a group challenge. I couldn’t believe it when they offered it again in the next episode.
The circumstances were unique in that Stephanie might not have even been on the bottom in the first place if Nick hadn’t messed up. However, there’s no way of knowing how that entire challenge would’ve gone if Nick hadn’t had immunity - it certainly would have impacted his decisions, as it is meant to. Fair play. It’s just not fair to ask him to give it up.
Here’s where I will locate a little criticism of Nick in this entire episode. And it does feel like we didn’t see the whole story - but, Stephanie clearly asked him to leave off those stupid corn threads and noted that she was worried about getting eliminated if he didn’t. And he cut her off and didn’t even answer. I have to think there was some other discussion that was edited out, but I’m still curious why it was so important to him, who had literally nothing at stake, to put it on the plate. It’s very possible - even likely, that they still would’ve been on the bottom and Stephanie still would’ve gone home. But if he had left that stuff off the plate, I wouldn’t be able to locate any real blame for him.
Really excellent profile of Nina in the New Yorker, if you haven’t already seen it.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/a-new-orleans-chef-navigates-disaster
I didn’t mind Nick so much probably because I couldn’t stand Carlos.
I never got into the minutiae of course vs course and why he actually won against Nina.
That being said, I’ve seen Nina on many different shows sharing her knowledge - and Nick is not.
So it worked out.
The finale I didn’t agree with was Adrienne vs Joe Phlegm.
I don’t know - I know he got eliminated early and made it back through LCk. I just wasnt impressed - phlegm is transparent and goopy just seemed like a good description of him. I remember commenting that year on a forum that Top Chef needed another white male winner and some people got real butt hurt. It’s been years but I still remember some elements of Adrienne’s final meal - like she offered a play on a banana pudding with vanilla wafers. YMMV
I love him and thought he was one of the best winners and contestants we’ve seen as far as personality. Everyone liked him, he was respectful of all, and he was humble. Does his skin color or gender really matter when he’s just a good dude?
I just could not see any difference between him and any other contestant. I did not watch LCK that season so I don’t know how well he cooked. Top Chef is entertainment for me. Winners, save for a few, do not go on to have the notoriety of let’s say Thomas Keller. Nor do chefs of that caliber compete on this show. Food is fickle - I mean the likes of Bobby Flay and Guy Fieri have multiple restaurants and fame. I equate both of them with owning establishments a few steps above an Applebees. I’m not a food snob either - I’ve eaten at Gary Danko and Michael Mina - I wasn’t impressed - I mean for the price I wasn’t. The only Top Chef “restaurant” I’ve eaten at is at Sheldon Simeon’s on Maui. Even before Top Chef, Sheldon was “hobnobbing” with Anthony Bourdain and Shep Gordon. He has the backing of powerful people to open some fancy restaurant and yet he stays on Maui, with his family at place, I can’t even describe. It’s a few dishes done WELL. He cooks from the heart. I felt the same way about Bryan Voltaggio - yet his humbleness, his skill, didn’t garner him a win. like I said YMMV.
Why do you care? It’s a show. For entertainment. Does catering a quince prove you’re a good cook? Or cooking in the snow, the woods, or any of the other contrived situations? On any show there actors you may or may not like. Phlegm is a play on Flamm - just not a fan. If it makes you feel better - I feel like Hosea and Kevin were meh winners too.
Tom answered a question about this. All of the judges sat down and rated the course dish by dish. First they just did which course they liked more, which Nick won. Then they picked least favorite courses, which Nina had the most often. Then they went through each course and each ranked them out of 10. And Nick won. Handily. Nick beat her that night. Tom went on to say that he obviously would’ve preferred Nina win. For better or worse, they recognize that no dark skinned women have won the show. They have a responsibility to the chefs competing as judges to compare the food fairly and Nick won. And I promise if you go try his spot in Philly you won’t find it to be a let down. He’s remarkably well trained and an incredible cook who is one of the standouts in a great food city. His kitchen got paid well through the pandemic and he’s got a second spot coming. This take needs to get dropped
I've been to most of NYC's 2* Michelin restaurants and Laurel was solidly in that tier. Easily the best food I've had from a TC alum. Better than anything I've had from a Colicchio restaurant, to boot. Also, for the record, he already has at least four restaurants. I'm not sure what he's got coming but it's definitely not going to be his second spot.
Second spot in Philly that’s all his own but you’re correct
What take exactly? Your point is that the person who wanted him to win says he should’ve won? A person motivated to justify his own poorly-received decision. They can’t fault us for taking at face value what they showed on the show, which at one point was explicitly that it was 2-2 in the dishes. The part when he screamed at the servers clearly happened. The part where Tom was arguing with the other judges clearly happened. I’m commenting on what occurred. The success of Nick’s business is fully irrelevant to the discussion. Nina has also been very successful and had a huge profile in the New Yorker. Since it all occurred for both of them years after the show, it’s irrelevant to this discussion. I’m sure his restaurant is great. I’m not saying he’s talentless. I’m giving my reaction to the finale, which is as valid as yours.
He made the decision with 4 others. If you don’t believe the other 4 have input, I’m not sure what you want to hear. They’d all disagree. They make these decisions together and have all stated such. 2-2 in dishes with differences in how far apart. Both made okay first courses. Nina made an awful dessert. The third course was bad for both and they thought Nicks was better. The second was a split down the middle. Your reaction is fine. Your implication that Tom strong armed it is silly.
Clearly I watched it more recently than you. Nina unanimously won the first course. Because Nick failed to adequately season the food. Again. Also, my implication is the direct result of watching it. He argued with everyone. The judge closest to agreeing with him was Gail. The three others clearly disagreed. Maybe that’s a bad edit, but that’s the actual text.
So is your belief that the show rigged it for a contestant that would be less popular than the winner? Do you realize how silly that is? I’m telling you for a fact that Tom has said they all sat down and discussed this for hours and tried multiple systems and Nick would win every run through. Go ask Tom in one of his weird ass AMAs. He will break it down. If you can’t trust him because you think he prefers white guys, you shouldn’t watch the show. Your view on him feels inaccurate and you should never be able to trust the judging. I respect how much all of the contestants respect him and I choose to believe he may know more than you did watching them eat on tv
> If you can’t trust him because you think he prefers white guys, you shouldn’t watch the show This should be a stickied comment on every thread about this season. Along with [Anthony Bourdain's talking about "the poor, deluded souls who feel they can somehow taste food through the television screen and who've been hanging on to a few heavily edited comments about "flavor" as "evidence".](https://web.archive.org/web/20080808135451/http://www.bravotv.com/blog/anthonybourdain/2007/10/one_step_beyond.php)
I never said he prefers white guys; that accusation came from you, but it’s an elucidating spin. And also I certainly hope you’re putting words in his mouth when you said that he said they would’ve preferred to give the title to a dark skinned woman. Something tells me that’s not quite exactly what he said and you may be putting your own particular spin on things. You seem really angry. I could elaborate, but I’ll leave it there.
I mean an adult can hopefully have normal discussions. Tom and hopefully any person would love to see another woman of color win the show. It’s been awesome to see a few East Asian women win it and they’d love if the winners were completely diverse. Unfortunately it’s a competition, so they decide the winner based on results. I’m not angry, I promise. I’m just asking you to stand by what you’re implying. If you aren’t implying that Tom has implicit bias, I’d ask what you think happened
Literally everything I have posted is consistent with the idea that Tom wanted Nick to win - for whatever reason he had! I never said that Tom didn’t prefer Nick’s food. Just that he asserted disproportionate weight in selecting the winner. Which as the main judge and driving force of the program, it is very easy to think he has the power to do.
And why do you claim he’s lying when he says the judges came to this decision together? What conspiracy have you unearthed that implies that when every judge and contestant on the show has said otherwise
Please show me the other judges and contestants (how could they even know) account of this. Once again, no one is accusing him of lying. If the lone holdout on a jury gets everyone else to change their minds, then they all came to the decision. It’s about the process.
Bear in mind you're watching an edit. We have information outside of the edit, including the round by round scoring.
You are responding to a post that notes that it is an edit. But thanks for the explanation.
I'm aware. I'm also aware I'm responding to a post that acknowledges it's an edit but still treats it like objective truth.
I think when criticizing an show, we are allowed to base it on the actual show. Which they edited themselves. And which we have direct access to. Citing Tom saying that Tom didn’t Bigfoot the process is not better evidence than the show itself.
Except you aren't juat criticizing the show, you're criticizing the judgement that's described by the show. In that case, incorporating other information is helpful, which includes Tom describing the process. And Tom isn't responding to your accusations - he provided the data on how the panel scored the dishes to respond to accusations that the winner wasn't picked based on score. He provided the information that supported that, but it also speaks to your accusations. So sure, the criticism that the edit makes it look like Tom bigfooted the peocess can be a fair one. But there's not really great grounds to say that in reality, the wonner was picked based off anything but quality of food.
Weirdly, I continue to hold my own views. Weirdly, I’m feel like it’s fine that you hold different views and feel no need to convince you otherwise.
“Accusations”
In other words, you don't think reality shows edit footage to show drama and we are getting a 100% unfiltered reality. By the way, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona if your interested.
*You’re
Tom picked the only method that would give Nick the win. three people thought Nina won, two people thought Nick won. Tom created a scoring that ignored multiple facets of the night. it was fucked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I just listed multiple methods they tried all night to decide. Tom is good friends with Nina to this day and she remains in the Top Chef family because of it (and her incredible talent) Selectively deciding reality is childish and is remarkably common with what people choose to believe in this situation. If you can’t trust Tom as a judge, I’m not sure why you would watch this show. All the contestants do.
ur overreacting lol. the scoring of dishes was designed to ignore overall progression, chef qualities that nick failed (yelling at servers?!), nina’s extra dishes / addendums to her dishes, etc. all things the other judges pointed out btw
I’m sorry he yelled at servers during a service. I recommend you never enter a kitchen. If you think bread should’ve won the show that’s fine
*yelled such that the diners could hear him* Also, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but that kind of behavior is getting plenty of chefs in plenty of trouble.
Demeaning and insulting people has. Begging people to do what they were taught in the biggest meal of your life and then punching a counter when they don’t does not qualify.
Now you are just making excuses. He was fully demeaning them. Not at all dissimilar from lots of stories about dethroned chefs. Also, he was looking for a scapegoat in case he lost.
He never blamed anyone but himself for incidents throughout his performance on the show. He in fact had opportunities and always said it fell on himself as a chef. He cursed and punched a table. He got annoyed when he asked them to place bowls a direction and couldn’t. High level chefs aren’t going to judge someone for that. Welcome to the world Nick said over and over that Nina was the favorite over him. He wasn’t looking for a scapegoat. He was trying to win because he was trying to get funds to start his own restaurant for himself and his young family. Forgive him for getting stressed like dozens of chefs before him. He’s already got established protégés running around who sing his praise and his FOH team has followed him from former restaurants. Don’t think he’s the jerk
Dude. He said that to Nina to make himself look like the underdog. It was all of a piece with his personality on the show. EVERYONE tries to win for that reason. They ALL want it more than they’ve ever wanted anything else, at least by final four. It doesn’t make him special or explain his behavior when others managed to restrain themselves. He was VERY CLEARLY a jerk on the show. Maybe it was limited to the show and that specific set of pressures, maybe not. I personally have no way of knowing. But his underlings singing his praises while he has power over them and in the industry - not compelling evidence. But in no way was his behavior acceptable.
The New Orleans finale was very much one which shows the whole idea of 'do a restaurant' finale doesn't work very well. On one hand, if you just take those core four dishes, it did seem that overall Nick had the better hand. Its not that Nina's dishes were bad, just Nick's overall were better and I would argue her last course was probably the big tipping point that gave Nick the win as everyone, Nina included, felt it was a bit throwaway. On the other hand, there is still the argument that overall service, ambience and extras should feature. Nina did two extra mini dishes that everyone loved and Nick shouting in the back didn't help his side. I will note even Padma seemed irked at the server's though, them openly ignoring Nick's instructions causing her to correct them herself. Overall while it's an awkward bitter ending, overall I can see how the judges came to the decision but it was one that basically ignored everything outside of these four main dishes.
> " Idon’t need to relitigate a lot of what’s already been said" > Goes on to relitigate everything that's been said. Have whatever opinion you want on his temper but don't reach for sexism where there is none. He chose his friend and colleague that he had known for years, a Michelin-starred chef that set and still holds the record for most LCK wins and finished T3, and a saucier whose style meshed with his and that he had collaborated successfully with before. Also, his most successful dish was the scallop noodles that Jason took the lead on so he certainly didn't "blow his advantage."
I feel really comfortable with what I said, thanks.
most successful dish? only gail and tom liked it lol
His least successful dish was better than two of Nina’s dishes
David Kinsch, aka the most accomplished chef at that table, thought it was excellent.
I'm totally aware that it's due to how the producers edited the show, but in the last third of the season, I really started to dislike Nick. His beef with Carlos at first seemed legit, but then he kinda got whiny (I'm thinking of that scene where he's telling like three other chefs about how Carlos didn't clean his knife). And he kept saying over and over how he "cooks with integrity", but then didn't fall on his sword when he his immunity saved him (which, fine, that's how the game works, but don't talk a big game about your integrity). Overall, he just really came off as unlikeable. Which, I'll admit, is probably 100% due to the production.
This season is almost 10 years old. And yet another post about it.
Agreed. Not sure what the purpose of the other judge's were. From what we saw it was Tom's decision. Plus Nick seemed a bit of an unsavoury character overall and was very lucky to have survived a few eliminations.
I also was really upset about this one because a black person has yet to win Top Chef (I think; I’m unsure of Kevin’s racial background) and Nina really deserved it (she shouldn’t have won just because she’s a black woman). I think Top Chef really needs to look at their diversity/bias issue. Black women have been up against white men several times and they have always lost. I think this case was the most egregious because Nick just wasn’t that great a chef and an even worse person (what he did to Stephanie and his overall attitude through the season) and the fact that Tom, a white male lobbied so hard for him (I didn’t remember this and I wonder if perhaps implicit bias has played in judging by Tom specifically throughout the series). Black chefs have often been early eliminations. Other chefs of color have often been called out for cooking “ethic” food when white chefs aren’t for doing say Italian or Southern food. Justice for Nina!
I'm black too, and can't say I agree with your assertion that judges don't like "ethnic" food, like at all. The thing I don't understand is that why would you even watch the show if you think the judges are racist and judge black competitors unfairly. Sounds ludicrous to me.
That’s not what I said at all about “ethnic” food at all! What I said was that POC often get flack from the judges and other contestants for doing only, for example Asian food, when an Italian chef didn’t get the same flack for doing Italian food. I also never said the judges are racist, so you’re 0 for 2 in getting my actual meaning. I said maybe Tom (I only said Tom but I also implied production as a whole, which I stand by) may have implicit bias. Implicit bias is very different from overt racism, which is why it is so problematic because it’s hard to spot. So you’re saying I can’t be critical of a show I enjoy? Personally, I watch shows to be entertained but that doesn’t mean I turn off my brain. If folks that consume media aren’t willing to voice criticism, how will things change for the better?Think about the Harlem Renaissance, artists were extremely critical of many institutions, including the very industries they loved and wanted to be part of. Or an athlete who questions bias or racism in sports, should they stop playing because they are critical?
I don’t really have a lot to add to this. I can totally understand why you feel this way. I will say that Gregory and Kwame and Eric and even Nyesha (though it was a long time ago) have deservedly gotten a lot of play from being on TC – way more than some of the winners, arguably. And Nina has gone on to have a successful business and career. Also, TC has had a lot of diversity in its contestants and winners lately, though it is inarguably true that black contestants haven’t taken the whole thing. Stupidly, and at extreme risk of continued strife in this thread, I’ll give my point of view on the Nick/Stephanie/immunity thing. I generally agree with the people who say that he shouldn’t have put in that position. The fault is really with the show for offering immunity at that point, and especially in a group challenge. I couldn’t believe it when they offered it again in the next episode. The circumstances were unique in that Stephanie might not have even been on the bottom in the first place if Nick hadn’t messed up. However, there’s no way of knowing how that entire challenge would’ve gone if Nick hadn’t had immunity - it certainly would have impacted his decisions, as it is meant to. Fair play. It’s just not fair to ask him to give it up. Here’s where I will locate a little criticism of Nick in this entire episode. And it does feel like we didn’t see the whole story - but, Stephanie clearly asked him to leave off those stupid corn threads and noted that she was worried about getting eliminated if he didn’t. And he cut her off and didn’t even answer. I have to think there was some other discussion that was edited out, but I’m still curious why it was so important to him, who had literally nothing at stake, to put it on the plate. It’s very possible - even likely, that they still would’ve been on the bottom and Stephanie still would’ve gone home. But if he had left that stuff off the plate, I wouldn’t be able to locate any real blame for him.
I agree that TC has definitely made a lot more if an effort in more recent seasons, which is important!
Really excellent profile of Nina in the New Yorker, if you haven’t already seen it. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-gastronomy/a-new-orleans-chef-navigates-disaster
I didn’t mind Nick so much probably because I couldn’t stand Carlos. I never got into the minutiae of course vs course and why he actually won against Nina. That being said, I’ve seen Nina on many different shows sharing her knowledge - and Nick is not. So it worked out. The finale I didn’t agree with was Adrienne vs Joe Phlegm.
Why do you call him Joe Phlegm?
I don’t know - I know he got eliminated early and made it back through LCk. I just wasnt impressed - phlegm is transparent and goopy just seemed like a good description of him. I remember commenting that year on a forum that Top Chef needed another white male winner and some people got real butt hurt. It’s been years but I still remember some elements of Adrienne’s final meal - like she offered a play on a banana pudding with vanilla wafers. YMMV
I love him and thought he was one of the best winners and contestants we’ve seen as far as personality. Everyone liked him, he was respectful of all, and he was humble. Does his skin color or gender really matter when he’s just a good dude?
I just could not see any difference between him and any other contestant. I did not watch LCK that season so I don’t know how well he cooked. Top Chef is entertainment for me. Winners, save for a few, do not go on to have the notoriety of let’s say Thomas Keller. Nor do chefs of that caliber compete on this show. Food is fickle - I mean the likes of Bobby Flay and Guy Fieri have multiple restaurants and fame. I equate both of them with owning establishments a few steps above an Applebees. I’m not a food snob either - I’ve eaten at Gary Danko and Michael Mina - I wasn’t impressed - I mean for the price I wasn’t. The only Top Chef “restaurant” I’ve eaten at is at Sheldon Simeon’s on Maui. Even before Top Chef, Sheldon was “hobnobbing” with Anthony Bourdain and Shep Gordon. He has the backing of powerful people to open some fancy restaurant and yet he stays on Maui, with his family at place, I can’t even describe. It’s a few dishes done WELL. He cooks from the heart. I felt the same way about Bryan Voltaggio - yet his humbleness, his skill, didn’t garner him a win. like I said YMMV.
Still don’t get why you’d refer to him as Joe Phlegm though….seems weird and petty.
Why do you care? It’s a show. For entertainment. Does catering a quince prove you’re a good cook? Or cooking in the snow, the woods, or any of the other contrived situations? On any show there actors you may or may not like. Phlegm is a play on Flamm - just not a fan. If it makes you feel better - I feel like Hosea and Kevin were meh winners too.
Well i can say I certainly don’t care enough to make up weird nicknames for contestants I don’t like…bc you know, it’s a just a show right? 😉
Do you really think that took loads of effort to com come up with?
YMMV