01-29-2007, 07:44 PM #321
1) Immunity only makes slackers like Mike take advantage. The others know that they must always be "on" and no legitimate contestant wants to be in the bottom 3 EVER. These chefs are human and inevitably they will have to face a challenge that they don't do well at despite trying their best. If this happens on the first challenge, they're burnt, but after that they should be able to have this offset by previous efforts, if better. Since the judging in this show is completely subjective, charges of "favoritism" are unavoidable no matter how they justify their decisions.
Originally Posted by pg13;2219476;
The longer a contestant remains on the show the higher the pressure/stress builds in them. Being consistantly good through the majority of the competition should get you to the finals sooner than just coasting along and doing well in the F4 challenge. By putting Marcel in the finals the judges are sending a message to future contestants that only the F4 challenge really matters and if you just avoid elimination by staying in the middle of the pack until then, you can win TC over the chefs that bust their butts every challenge.
Having a (non-judge) monitor in the team challenges to give feedback to the judges would help to more fairly assess the team process rather than guess based on the end result.
01-29-2007, 08:43 PM #322
According to Wikipedia, the breakdown of the F4 is as follows:
Quickfire Challenge Wins:
Elimination Challenge Wins:
Close to winning the Elimination Challenge:
I'm assuming by this that they were praised at the judges table and/or on the winning team. Also, keep in mind that according to Wikipedia there wasn't a elimination challenge 'winner' announced for the last 3 weeks, since week 9 (at least according to their lovely color-coded chart there wasn't one). I have the worst memory in the world, so can anyone remember who was praised at the judges table for that week?
What does all this mean? Well, if we're going by past performance then certainly Sam deserved to be in the final. But Marcel has performed well also, he certainly hasn't 'skated' through. Yes, according to them he hasn't officially won an EC but he came close 3 times, so certainly in the top tier and certainly deserving of being there.
01-29-2007, 09:23 PM #323
I thought "close" only counted in horseshoes and hand granades. I guess ACTUALLY winning shows a chef in a bad light in this bogus category. I understand the need to stretch reality to justify the outrageous inclusion of Marcel in the finals, but this is just ridiculous and only proves that he has just seldom been good enough.
Originally Posted by sweetpea;2220040;
01-29-2007, 09:48 PM #324
Well, in a season where most people have accused the chefs of just sliding by and trying not to get eliminated rather than trying to win, I guess that is good enough to make it to the finale. I too thought it was funny to show how many times someone has almost won, but when you think about it as showing those who were more often than not in the top of the group, then it makes sense that they are in the finale.
Basically, Sam played it safe at the end and he got the boot. Elia as well, with her snow peas, carrots and bell peppers...three vegetables most restaurants showcase together because the colors work so darn well together. Ilan took a risk and so did Marcel. The judges felt Marcel hands down won that last competition, and deserved a place in the finale. The other three were up in the air, not him. Like it or not, they felt he knocked it out of the park and sent him through.
I truly believe Sam should have been there over Ilan. They tasted the food though and saw it differently. C'est la vie. We could argue this till the cows come home but the judges are the ones tasting the food and the judges are the ones sending Marcel to the finale. He must be doing something right. I see nothing outrageous in his inclusion.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.