I agree and disagree.
Yes, anyone clicking on the link without having watched is being foolish BUT in the broader scheme, “this type of site” is ostensibly global (at least, how many of you seem to fancy it being) and as such we work on different time tables for viewing, which is why titles and spoilery statements outwith a thread that cannot be ignored should be avoided.
Always welcome, or always welcome to you?
I agree about people and am furious if what you say is the case about LCK.
1 Like
Well, to me certainly! And the lines at The Sausage Guy outside Fenway Park suggest many others as well. Not everyone though 
Right. It’s interesting how Top Chef might challenge some of the US-centrism that characterises “everyone” 
(No challenging the tastiness of this, or even the popularity in Boston, but this is a specific dish, not a universal one.)
1 Like
Traveling and missed it Thursday night!
3 Likes
I really enjoyed this episode.
1 Like
Although a bit distracted, I watched, casting from my tablet to the hotel television screen.
I liked the way the guest host gave feedback to Victoire. was a little put of by the plate licking and the emojis, but I’d watch it again…and again…and again.
I think Amar is a “good sport”, and Buddha, not so much. Buddha is pretty intense for someone who has already one a Top Chef season.
1 Like
I really enjoyed tonight’s episode, it’s been a while since we’ve seen a mise en place relay, and they’re always fun. I liked that the script was flipped and the team that allegedly had the least to work with met the challenge best.
Charbel seemed galvanized by his experience, and is definitely a stronger chef than Dale.
4 Likes
And I am back in a hotel on a Thursday so I missed it again. I hope to watch on the train today.
Great recap.
3 Likes
A good recap.
And I do wish they had shown more clearly how Sara frenched those lamb bones.
1 Like
I’m so glad she’s still there. I’ve always liked her.
I found the movie tie-in painful to watch. Seems a stretch to think that the audience for top chef and for that particular movie franchise intersects very much. Why do they need to do this? Don’t the commercials we are subjected to every 10 minutes pay for their overhead costs?
Not a big fan of the who’s a better prep cook part of the competition. Feel like they keep trying to come up with new twists to keep their viewers engaged when this viewer at least just wants to see good inventive cooking and get to know the chefs. Watching head chefs chop up red peppers was not that interesting.
1 Like
I did too. And to see the chefs excited about it is ridiculous. But, I like the miss en place race.
1 Like
I hâte the product placements, but I’d much rather have a dumb and tenuous movie tie in than haven forced to cook with some kind of mediocre prepared or convenience food. I’m sure they’re instructed by the producers to act suitably excited, given that every time they’ve had a movie tie-in the contestants have the same reaction.
Why do they need the tie-ins? Comes off as pretty tacky. I’m assuming a popular show gets bigger ad revenue. Series tv doesn’t have the actor holding up a product or extolling its virtues in the middle of their episode. Maybe it’s a bravo thing? Do the real housewives push product on their shows?
Yes.
Product placement takes place in fiction and reality TV programming. Bravo is well known for this sort of thing:
Of course, they also hawk their own product
I could be here all day to provide details on the world of product placement, but I know none of you want that.
Well I do watch some network series show (Ghosts and Abbot Elementary) and they’re definitely not doing product placement. I guess cable like Bravo needs the money?
I don’t want to make this too much of a discussion, since this takes us well off topic (although many times that product is food). But it’s more complicated, and can be even more subtle than you think, but having recognisable brands in a programme is itself a matter of negotiation (why sometimes things in reality shows are blurred, where the association can’t be helped).
Abbott Elementary has placement (which, by the way, excellent taste-- I love that show) and it would be interesting to think about the relationship between virtual assistants and television programmes (Siri or Alexa?) such as in Ghosts. (I’ve only seen the first series of the US version, and it was charming and Jay benefits from a longer arc. I was leery because the UK version is so beloved to me.)
Just writing about this made me reflect on the ways advertising in the US can be subtle simply by virtue of how much there is that surrounds people. I remember a visit I made some years ago and I was overwhelmed by the amount. It’s so much, it’s easy to become inured to it and not see it at play when simply used as prop.
OK. I promise I’ll try not to info dump any more.
ETA: To make this kind of relevant to a food site-- Food is a constant. When do they invent a brand and when is a real brand used? And how? (Rhetorical/ prompt-- not expecting an answer.)
1 Like
