Food Network

Yeah, I thought it was mighty peculiar how Alex, who competed against him in the show and made it to the top 4, was allowed to be Geoffrey's sous chef. I did not watch the entire episode, but from what I saw, I got stumped, because I found Alex to be more entertaining to watch than Geoffrey himself. Her struggles with the fish initially as she attempted to hold them down to cut them was pretty dang funny, and it was nice to see her loosen up and have fun.

But ultimately, yeah, did not bode well with me that a sous chef, someone who competed in that same competition and made it far, was allowed as sous chef and still came off as more fun to watch than the actual winner. That and I am still rather bitter that Alex, who was my second favorite, was eliminated from the competition after never having been in the bottom and not given a chance to save herself.

Personally, I was rooting for Elizabeth in NICA.

In this last ep of ICA, Geoffrey would have made some fatal errors had Alex not taken over ("Go plate something!") rather than just staying in her role as sous chef. If he did the competition on his own with the staff sous-chefs, I doubt he'd have won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kip

Earlier in the competition, the judges were debating the merits of two dishes (I forget whose) - one had better flavors, the other more creative - and Symon said taste is what an iron chef wins on.

---

This was told a while ago, but I still get angry over it. Michael Symon's statement is all sorts of wrong, and being an Iron Chef, he should know better than to say something that makes him sound so stupid.

Taste is not what wins in Iron Chef. It's just the highest score one can be given amongst the criterias. Ten points for taste five for plating, and five for originality. How many times have we seen a chef win the battle, and their opponent who lost had the higher score in taste, but the winner clinched the victory with superior scores in plating and originality? It's happened more than once and I still believe it will keep happening.

Again, Geoffrey and Elizabeth were both pretty much neck and neck throughout the competition. Both came out on top when cooking for their lives, both won challenges, both shined a lot. But Geoffrey did not follow judges advice (not playing by the rules in the baseball challenge, the insisting on plating several small dishes in one), and he was not nearly as versatile and creative as Elizabeth (still annoyed at how he made a souffle right after Elizabeth had won with one, talk about unoriginal). I wonder if maybe someday they might have a rematch? I believe Elizabeth twitted that she'd do it.

I admit to being really bummed about how FN treats desserts in general in their line-up. I'm not really much of a fan of Challenge because I'm not into huge edible showpieces, nor am I am fan of "Cupcake Wars", if only because I shudder to think what they do with the 1,000 cupcakes that the loser had to bake. I highly enjoy Anne Thornton's show called "Dessert First", and also quite liked Ron Ben Israel's "Sweet Genius". They hardly get any attention, which bums me out, because desserts and snacks are my favorite culinary art and yet they seem to just get the short end of the stick, as far as Food Network seems to be concerned. Hence why I was so thrilled at the idea of Elizabeth winning Iron Chef.

IIRC Anne Burell was a sous chef several times for various chefs on Iron Chef.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA Snow Bunny

IIRC Anne Burell was a sous chef several times for various chefs on Iron Chef.

---

Yes, she was Mario Batali's sous, but she didn't take over or bark orders at him as Guarnaschelli did with Zakarian.
(...at least not on-camera...)

I doubt anyone barks anything at Batali :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captain

I doubt anyone barks anything at Batali :)

---

That depends--does he have a dog?

I have a question for the Food Network fans. My son-in-law and I got into a "discussion" on Christmas, and he cited foodnetwork.com as the ULTIMATE source for correct information (probably because they agreed with him on the issue we were discussing).

Here's the question: Are filet mignon and beef tenderloin the same thing?

I think not. From what I understand, filet mignon comes from the tenderloin, but is a specific cut - it is not the same thing. The point I was trying to make to him was, "All filet mignon is beef tenderloin. Not all beef tenderloin is filet mignon." However, because someone named Tyler Florence used the term "beef tenderloin (filet mignon)" in the ingredients list for his beef wellington in this recipe, my s-i-l has decided (and cannot be dissuaded) that ALL tenderloin is filet mignon.

Part of the issue, of course, is that he'll never admit to being wrong, even when he is . . . The question is - is he?

All filet mignon is beef tenderloin, so yes they are the same thing in essence. However when left whole and cooked, the tenderloin is called more commonly Chateaubrian then the cuts are filet mignon. Much like in a T-Bone (Porterhouse)the smaller piece is the tenderloin and the larger is a Strip. So given your reasoning, you are correct. All Filets are tenderloin, but NO, not all tenderloin is a Filet.. the name itself means dainty fillet. Not bad for a vegetarian guess all the years working as a waitress in a steak house taught me something lol.

So, what does everyone think about Paula Deen's announcement that she has had Type 2 Diabetes for years and hidden it from the public. She is now going public with it because she is going to endorse some diabetes products.

Does it hurt her cooking show credibility? Is she is hypocrite? Is Anthony Bordain right?

Just curious what everyone is thinking about it all...