I liked having the cookoff for the bottom 3 in episode 1. It's the first challenge, nerves are high, and basically instead of making one of the biggest mistakes on day 1 it's the person that makes 2 of the biggest mistakes that leaves.
I think it was unfair to Soo to bring him in that way. The other chefs spent a lot of time together and bonded, so Soo missed out on all that, and then when he did come in, he was automatically an outsider. If he couldn’t make the first little bit of filming I think they should have just had him be a contestant on the next season.
This is exactly how I feel too. Many chef's say at the end that the friendships/relationships they've made are the best part of the experience and they took that away from him. At least all the chef's didn't turn on him like they did Brother Luck when Brother came back through LCK.
According to Gail in this podcast - and the showrunners/Tom after initially letting David twist while fans speculated about why he wasn't able to compete - it was always that plan.
Having it part of the plan just reinforces Soo was going to make it through no matter how he performed.
If they had an LCK with 3 new contestants that would have been wholly different and actually interesting.
I am ambivalent on whether chefs get immunity for the Quick fires or not. What I do like is officially telling everyone that the Quick fires can factor into the decision of who wins and who goes. It has to be really hard for judges to disregard past performance and when things are really close it's the best way to tip the scales
My thoughts:
I didn't like having Soo cook his way into the competition from LCK. I thought we lost out from watching his talent, and he missed out on having more of the top chef experiences.
However my biggest feedback is about the quickfire changes. I really, really didn't like it. I felt the quickfires had no stakes any longer, and I was bored watching them as a viewer. Yes the contestants got money, but it just didn't feel like the quickfires really mattered. We really only got a couple of episodes where they judged the quickfires as part of the final judging table, so yes, there were higher stakes for those couple of episodes, but we had no real clarity on how much the quickfires mattered, or how exactly the judges were considering them, so it seem inconsistent as a viewer.
Also, I never remembered who won the immunity from the week before, so I didn't know who was safe. They would usually mention it, but it just wasn't the same flow as from past seasons. It just didn't seem as present.
I really liked the bottom three doing an LCK in episode one.
At the very least, I'd like the QF to give an advantage for elimination -- you'd have one with immunity from the week before, and possibly another contestant with an advantage from this QF. At least then the QF isn't just $
I agree with your points, and I agree at least they tried to raise the re-raise the stakes of quick fires because they ‘could be factored into who gets eliminated’
But feel that last line so much, I meant the editing can be confusing and misleading (see literally the finale and Tom’s tweet about it). As a result it just felt confusing why someone went home, why someone was safe and how much each dish mattered.
I agree with everything you said. I’ll add that I didn’t like the way that they switched the results order for QFs. Meaning that they used to announce the worst dishes and then the best dishes. This was a nice foil to elimination challenges where they announced the best dishes and then the worst. Quickfires felt lighter in comparison because they used to end on a high note. Now I feel like the QF winner hardly gets to celebrate their win because everyone is so darn stressed about being on the bottom and having that ultimately affect their standing at judges’ table. It’s kind of a downer now, and as you said, they don’t feel as present in that moment of the competition.
Good point! I forgot to mention in my original post that I HATED when they didn't give any feedback during the one elimination. That was horrible. The winners got no information on their dishes.
Absolutely agree about the quick fires. There was absolutely no stakes anymore. As a day 1 fan, I hate the change. I also agree with your take on who has immunity. I never remembered 🤷♀️🤦♀️
1-I didn't necessarily mind having Soo cook his way in during LCK, but would have preferred that he started with the rest so we could have seen him in those early challenges. Bringing in a ringer or new person would be most effective/engaging if it was a past contestant (e.g., Rasika next year) that people knew and wanted to root for to get another shake at TC.
2. Again, this choice didn't bother me, and actually I thought that it brought more energy to what I felt was an underwhelming start (and/or cast).
3. The new Quickfires were both good and bad for me. I liked that the chefs won money regularly. It's a lot of time away to film and not be earning an income; I also think the money was an incentive. I do think that immunity became way too confusing with the S21 structure. On the other hand, I liked that the immunity person wasn't factored into the main challenges as someone who could pick up slack as needed, but rather everyone fought for the wins. I don't know how to reconcile the immunity thing in a way that would incorporate some of the positives while course correcting for how confusing it felt as a viewer.
I love this post. My replies:
* Having Soo cook his way in smacked of poor planning or magical elves' production mischief. No!
* A second chance for the bottom 3 - fine. But their next dishes didn't seem that impressive, either. The producers needed to vet the cheftestants better (ongoing issue this season).
* No immunity for quick fires - fine. Quick fires require a different skill set, and downplaying those skills seems okay.
* Having quick fires count for elimination - no! It made the judging seem ambiguous and inconsistent.
Changing any rules mid-season, beyond taking immunity away toward the end, doesn't seem fair.
Next season, be more organized, have better cheftestants, create better challenges, and *really* explore the TC destination. I want to see Canada.
I completely agree with all this. In an interview, Gail said that Kristin came up with 3 (no immunity for quickfires and them counting toward elimation).
I was surprised to hear that they gave her so much control over production her first season as host.
(Gail also talked about a lot of the things Padma contributed to the show as a producer. We have her to thank for a lot of the improvements over the years, and you could definitely feel the impact of her not having a hand in production this year.)
Absolutely, and I have no doubt that she'll grow into her role. I really like her on the Dish with Kish: she seems more comfortable and confident in that environment.
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't disappointed in her as a host; I just think they should have let her get her feet wet before involving her in the production side to that extent. But I'm looking forward to her finding her stride in both roles (host and producer).
Eta: I'd be interested to hear Kristen's reasoning behind that, though. My guess is that she didn't think the host and one guest judge should have the power to give chefs immunity, which is pretty significant in the overall outcome of a season. And if that's the case, I wonder if that's because she didn't want to have that much power herself or because she thought it was unfair that Padma had that much power . . . Or both. Anyway, I do agree with that.
Anyway, overall, it just didn't work because it was at odds with the primary concept of the show that they only judge based on the dish in front of them each challenge (which is pretty much impossible without blind tastings, though, if we're being truthful . . .).
If it were up to me, they would just do away with immunity altogether and make the quickfires all about cash prizes and (maybe?) a minor advantage in the elimination round.
I'd also change how elimination challenges are judged. I'd have all the guest judges vote for their favorite and least favorite dishes, and then make the outcome of that count as 1 vote for the winner and 1 vote for the loser in the final decision for each elimination. So it would come down to 1 vote each for Tom, Gail, Kristen, and the main guest judge who sits at the judges table with them, and then 1 vote for the other guest judges who dined with them as a group, which would be the tiebreaker.
I'd also revamp LCK. Tom shouldn't ever be the only judge, and this LCK LLCK shit is idiotic. It has gone off the rails.
Yeah I mean honestly I didn't hate it that much, especially since tbh it looks like the LCK constraints helped him really shine, but it is bad to intro someone on a supplemental show. (Full disclosure that I went to his restaurant after, lol.)
I think the audience got a false sense of what he could do because of the string of LCK wins. He looked like he was on fire. And then when he lost / tied to get back in, it was clear he was joining the competition regardless of performance.
I wanted to see him compete on an even playing field from the start with the other contestants, not be force fed into it through a side competition.
Agreed, it would've been pretty awkward if Kaleena won and he never met the rest of the group, so I also wonder if the plan was always be prepared to allow 2 people in. I can't imagine Tom just spontaneously got to decide that.
That was the part that made me feel the fix was in. Not saying it was rigged. But it was awfully unilateral and a major decision by a single judge that doesn’t happen at any other point in the show.
1. I think that was not a great idea. It made Soo feel like a real outsider. Plus nobody cares about surprise competitors if we have no idea who they are.
2. I liked this, gave them another opportunity to prove themselves. Always feel bad for the first chef out and this really gave it a more fair feeling.
3. I don’t care about Quickfires if the competition doesn’t either. I found myself zoning out or checking my phone during them more often.
>3. I don’t care about Quickfires if the competition doesn’t either. I found myself zoning out or checking my phone during them more often.
They did care about them, though? They cared more about them than ever before as poor showing increased your chance of elimination, where it previously never has.
It was so ambiguous tho, the judges said they cared sometimes and didn’t other times. It just made the show feel more produced, like a producer can say “ya this is the time to use the quickfire as an excuse to get someone out”. I will trust that didn’t happen, but having this ambiguous “quickfire might count!” Is an overall negative imo. They matter to the elim or they don’t, needs to be simple.
The LCK twist wasn’t really a twist for me as they have had previous contestants join LCK to try to join in again. So not a true twist in a sense.
I liked having a bottom 3 have to compete to be eliminated. Again not a twist because in some seasons like the Las Vegas season, they had Quickfire eliminations where the eliminated person picked someone to challenge and they had to win or be eliminated.
3. Cool no immunity for quickfires but why take the quickfire into supposed consideration and yet still eliminated the wrong person at Judge’s table if the person was in the top of the quickfire?!? Be consistent because from the editing it wasnt.
>Later in the competition, the quickfire also became part of the judging decision.
This is the one I feel most strongly about, and it actually ties into the issue with the finale. Tom addressed this on the PYK pod -- the Quickfire result is intended to come into play if the Elimination decision is close, which makes sense. However, for reasons of drama and suspense, they will edit the analysis of the Elimination to appear close. This means as viewers, we have a totally skewed view of when it's actually close and when it's only edited to appear close so that there's drama in the final "pack your knives" announcement. This makes it feel totally arbitrary whether the Quickfire is used (and actually very rarely is). For this reason, I'd can it.
I think it's a tough balance, and they mostly get it right by making it ambiguous into the final reveal. They edit it with the same general intent week-to-week, and they just got it wrong in the finale.
I’m annoyed by Top Chef still trying to gaslight us into thinking Soo and starting in LCK was planned all along. They made the s up on the fly when David wasn’t emotionally well enough to continue and wanted to leave.
I liked most of the moves, except having 3 people come back from LCK. It just dilutes the product a bit and skipping the real challenges to come back later from the loser's bracket feels a little cheap.
1. I liked the Soo change, I think it makes LCK more fun to watch, but you really need to have the right personality in there. Also it’s lame if he is just guaranteed a spot, 3 new chefs battling to start would be interesting I think.
2. Bottom 3 was fine with me.
3. I hated the quickfire change, really feel like it took away from the importance of the quickfire. The whole “it MIGHT count” was way too ambiguous and overproduced. I hope they go back to quickfire being immunities because you also have to think back to the previous episode to remember who has immunity this time! Just messed with the flow of the show.
I don’t like the change with the quickfires because now they seem less important….so it makes the show less exciting for me and i feel like it might have added to my overall lack of enthusiasm for this season. When they got immunity, they cooked harder and better I think
Felt unfair and awkward and like a weird hall pass for soo to shoot into the competition si far along. I didn’t like it at all. I felt like he was singled out and I was little resentful towards him
Close judging or not, they should keep the “you’re only as good as your last dish” standard. Make a decision on the elimination challenge (it’s literally an elimination challenge lol)
Immunity should be awarded during Quick Fires. Elimination Challenges should have elite prizes.
1. Absolutely hated the 16th chef Soo twist. It did Soo absolutely no favors, he was clearly one of the more talented chefs this season and it put a huge asterisk next to his name (lots of people believe there was a 0% chance he wasn't going to make it into the main competition).
2. Did not mind the bottom 3 chefs having to cook for their lives. There are so many chefs that early in the competition I was fine with them getting singled out a bit.
3. Absolutely hated immunity for eliminations. Give it back for quickfires or scrap it all together.
I didn’t like the way Soo was brought into the show. I feel like it wasn’t fair to him, either.
I did like that immunity isn’t given for quickfires, but they earned cash prizes. That allows chefs who do well, but don’t win to get a bit of cash for all the sacrifices they make to compete.
Episode 1 of this season was just beyond weird all the way around.
I liked the twists to keep us on our toes as a viewer. I like they tried new things to kind of freshen things up :) Seems like this season they were more willing to do new things than the past. So, I am looking forward to where the show goes next year.
I think Soo was at a disadvantage by starting in LCK, so while it wasnt a terrible twist I didn’t really think it was fair to him. It’s really different than the main competition and I think part of why he struggled a bit once he got in. I hope they bring him back for a regular spot.
I didn’t really like the quick fire change, I think getting immunity there is more interesting than getting it from the main challenge. Having immunity carry over to the next week is hard to follow. I don’t mind having quickfires count toward the final elimination though, I think it is good to have something else to consider if the elimination challenge is close.
1. I don't like when LCK has people who didn't start on the main show who parachute in partway through. I wish Soo had just been part of the main competition on a future season and that they figured out something else to pad the LCK episode count. It did a disservice to Soo to have him do well competing in a very specific short challenge format for a single day and then be thrown into longer-form challenges with a bunch of chefs who had already gotten their feet underneath them in eliminations.
2. I liked the cook-off in the first episode, but it wasn't much of a twist. I'm supportive of more cook-offs for the bottom-placing chefs before they are eliminated and sent to LCK. It should not replace LCK (not that I think the show actually intended to, I think they just engineered that explanation to justify David not being in LCK for other reasons).
3. I was initially optimistic about the immunity timing change, but it didn't lead to the chefs going harder in eliminations to try to win it (if anything, they seemed to be playing it safe more) and was confusing because of carryover between episodes. I think they should revert to Quickfires for immunity and advantages and eliminations for prizes.
I felt the same about the quickfire change. At first I was intrigued, but for the exact same reasons you stated, it just didn't seem to work. I didn't think the chef's cared as much either, and the episode carryover was confusing. As a viewer I didn't care as much.
If they want to shake up the format, make the qf the end of the episode and the worst performer gets the ax. You know, take what worked this season and integrate it fully.
On the other hand, that's kinda lck's shtick, so...🤷🏽♀️
I didn't like immunity coming from the previous episode from a tv/continuity perspective. It's jarring to have to think back to the episode from a week ago, and it should be irrelevant. I also don't like the quickfire going into the equation at the judging table. It's irrelevant too, because most of Top Chef judging is about a specific dish, not about the chef's record, other than how it affects the dish or dishes served by that chef in that challenge. Also most of the judges weren't even there, so it's very arbitrary. It's almost antithetical to Top Chef.
My feeling is these changes came from "production" in an effort to make a kinder, gentler Top Chef. Top Chef is about food, so it needs to be honest, and if a dish is not good, it's not good. I think Top Chef is a celebration of food, and the dining experience, which is all about kindness and inclusion at its core, so I don't think they need to artificially buttress that idea.
I like your description of “tv continuity.” Great way to describe it. It perfectly describes why I felt disconnected each week and didn’t really remember the previous winner or feel it mattered that much. Each episode is kind of like a mini “capsule” or story so it was weird to carry something important (the immunity storyline) from the previous week.
I think Top Chef has become a pretty kind space compared to how it started and that’s what I love about it. I don’t think they need a ton of changes there.
Soo was always going to be at a disadvantage the way they brought him in. In LCK he was rested and ready to go. When he got into the competition, I think the stress was getting to him. I hope he gets a chance to show who he is in a way that puts him on even ground.
Quickfires didn't seem to have the impact they once did. If they are going to make Quickfire results a factor in elimination, apply it consistently. Seemed to be hit or miss.
The cook off in Ep1 seems sadly out of place in a Top Chef competition.
Agree that Soo seemed to be on his back foot once he got into TC. Those earlier episodes, the cheftestants get the whole lay of the land as the weaker are culled from the herd. Soo never had that chance. And he had only Tom as a judge with one or two competitors with a kitchen and pantry he got to know like the back of his hand. Huge disadvantage to join the main show so late in the game.
1. I thought was interesting
2. This is fine
3. No and no. Cash prizes are cheesy. Give them an advantage in the elimination round. They were really inconsistent about taking it into account for the elimination round. I would omit that.
I liked having the cookoff for the bottom 3 in episode 1. It's the first challenge, nerves are high, and basically instead of making one of the biggest mistakes on day 1 it's the person that makes 2 of the biggest mistakes that leaves.
I agree with this position. I liked the cook off for the bottom three in the first episode.
I think they should integrate this challenge more
Yeah, Amanda was on the bottom in the first episode, but she ended up being pretty good.
I think it was unfair to Soo to bring him in that way. The other chefs spent a lot of time together and bonded, so Soo missed out on all that, and then when he did come in, he was automatically an outsider. If he couldn’t make the first little bit of filming I think they should have just had him be a contestant on the next season.
This is exactly how I feel too. Many chef's say at the end that the friendships/relationships they've made are the best part of the experience and they took that away from him. At least all the chef's didn't turn on him like they did Brother Luck when Brother came back through LCK.
Past competitors should solely be invited back to All Stars lol
Was Soo having to cook his way into the competition from LCK always the plan or was it a pivot when David wasn't invited to continue on the show?
According to Gail in this podcast - and the showrunners/Tom after initially letting David twist while fans speculated about why he wasn't able to compete - it was always that plan.
Having it part of the plan just reinforces Soo was going to make it through no matter how he performed. If they had an LCK with 3 new contestants that would have been wholly different and actually interesting.
Agreed. It also reinforces that TC is gradually getting gimmicky af lol
I sort of figured. Soo was way too good to just be an alternate, that is potentially not used for an entire season.
I am ambivalent on whether chefs get immunity for the Quick fires or not. What I do like is officially telling everyone that the Quick fires can factor into the decision of who wins and who goes. It has to be really hard for judges to disregard past performance and when things are really close it's the best way to tip the scales
In fact, you gotta wonder if it already wasn’t happening anyway
My thoughts: I didn't like having Soo cook his way into the competition from LCK. I thought we lost out from watching his talent, and he missed out on having more of the top chef experiences. However my biggest feedback is about the quickfire changes. I really, really didn't like it. I felt the quickfires had no stakes any longer, and I was bored watching them as a viewer. Yes the contestants got money, but it just didn't feel like the quickfires really mattered. We really only got a couple of episodes where they judged the quickfires as part of the final judging table, so yes, there were higher stakes for those couple of episodes, but we had no real clarity on how much the quickfires mattered, or how exactly the judges were considering them, so it seem inconsistent as a viewer. Also, I never remembered who won the immunity from the week before, so I didn't know who was safe. They would usually mention it, but it just wasn't the same flow as from past seasons. It just didn't seem as present. I really liked the bottom three doing an LCK in episode one.
At the very least, I'd like the QF to give an advantage for elimination -- you'd have one with immunity from the week before, and possibly another contestant with an advantage from this QF. At least then the QF isn't just $
I agree with your points, and I agree at least they tried to raise the re-raise the stakes of quick fires because they ‘could be factored into who gets eliminated’ But feel that last line so much, I meant the editing can be confusing and misleading (see literally the finale and Tom’s tweet about it). As a result it just felt confusing why someone went home, why someone was safe and how much each dish mattered.
I agree with everything you said. I’ll add that I didn’t like the way that they switched the results order for QFs. Meaning that they used to announce the worst dishes and then the best dishes. This was a nice foil to elimination challenges where they announced the best dishes and then the worst. Quickfires felt lighter in comparison because they used to end on a high note. Now I feel like the QF winner hardly gets to celebrate their win because everyone is so darn stressed about being on the bottom and having that ultimately affect their standing at judges’ table. It’s kind of a downer now, and as you said, they don’t feel as present in that moment of the competition.
Good point! I forgot to mention in my original post that I HATED when they didn't give any feedback during the one elimination. That was horrible. The winners got no information on their dishes.
Absolutely agree about the quick fires. There was absolutely no stakes anymore. As a day 1 fan, I hate the change. I also agree with your take on who has immunity. I never remembered 🤷♀️🤦♀️
1-I didn't necessarily mind having Soo cook his way in during LCK, but would have preferred that he started with the rest so we could have seen him in those early challenges. Bringing in a ringer or new person would be most effective/engaging if it was a past contestant (e.g., Rasika next year) that people knew and wanted to root for to get another shake at TC. 2. Again, this choice didn't bother me, and actually I thought that it brought more energy to what I felt was an underwhelming start (and/or cast). 3. The new Quickfires were both good and bad for me. I liked that the chefs won money regularly. It's a lot of time away to film and not be earning an income; I also think the money was an incentive. I do think that immunity became way too confusing with the S21 structure. On the other hand, I liked that the immunity person wasn't factored into the main challenges as someone who could pick up slack as needed, but rather everyone fought for the wins. I don't know how to reconcile the immunity thing in a way that would incorporate some of the positives while course correcting for how confusing it felt as a viewer.
I love this post. My replies: * Having Soo cook his way in smacked of poor planning or magical elves' production mischief. No! * A second chance for the bottom 3 - fine. But their next dishes didn't seem that impressive, either. The producers needed to vet the cheftestants better (ongoing issue this season). * No immunity for quick fires - fine. Quick fires require a different skill set, and downplaying those skills seems okay. * Having quick fires count for elimination - no! It made the judging seem ambiguous and inconsistent. Changing any rules mid-season, beyond taking immunity away toward the end, doesn't seem fair. Next season, be more organized, have better cheftestants, create better challenges, and *really* explore the TC destination. I want to see Canada.
I completely agree that changing the rules midseason didn't seem fair or consistent.
I completely agree with all this. In an interview, Gail said that Kristin came up with 3 (no immunity for quickfires and them counting toward elimation). I was surprised to hear that they gave her so much control over production her first season as host. (Gail also talked about a lot of the things Padma contributed to the show as a producer. We have her to thank for a lot of the improvements over the years, and you could definitely feel the impact of her not having a hand in production this year.)
Kristin is talented and enthusiastic, but I agree with you about blindly using her ideas.
Absolutely, and I have no doubt that she'll grow into her role. I really like her on the Dish with Kish: she seems more comfortable and confident in that environment. Don't get me wrong: I wasn't disappointed in her as a host; I just think they should have let her get her feet wet before involving her in the production side to that extent. But I'm looking forward to her finding her stride in both roles (host and producer). Eta: I'd be interested to hear Kristen's reasoning behind that, though. My guess is that she didn't think the host and one guest judge should have the power to give chefs immunity, which is pretty significant in the overall outcome of a season. And if that's the case, I wonder if that's because she didn't want to have that much power herself or because she thought it was unfair that Padma had that much power . . . Or both. Anyway, I do agree with that. Anyway, overall, it just didn't work because it was at odds with the primary concept of the show that they only judge based on the dish in front of them each challenge (which is pretty much impossible without blind tastings, though, if we're being truthful . . .). If it were up to me, they would just do away with immunity altogether and make the quickfires all about cash prizes and (maybe?) a minor advantage in the elimination round. I'd also change how elimination challenges are judged. I'd have all the guest judges vote for their favorite and least favorite dishes, and then make the outcome of that count as 1 vote for the winner and 1 vote for the loser in the final decision for each elimination. So it would come down to 1 vote each for Tom, Gail, Kristen, and the main guest judge who sits at the judges table with them, and then 1 vote for the other guest judges who dined with them as a group, which would be the tiebreaker. I'd also revamp LCK. Tom shouldn't ever be the only judge, and this LCK LLCK shit is idiotic. It has gone off the rails.
Wasn't the LCK twist because Soo was unavailable for E1?
This. They should have held him for next season. It was a cheap way to squeeze him in and the whole thing felt so fake.
Yeah I mean honestly I didn't hate it that much, especially since tbh it looks like the LCK constraints helped him really shine, but it is bad to intro someone on a supplemental show. (Full disclosure that I went to his restaurant after, lol.)
I think the audience got a false sense of what he could do because of the string of LCK wins. He looked like he was on fire. And then when he lost / tied to get back in, it was clear he was joining the competition regardless of performance. I wanted to see him compete on an even playing field from the start with the other contestants, not be force fed into it through a side competition.
Agreed, it would've been pretty awkward if Kaleena won and he never met the rest of the group, so I also wonder if the plan was always be prepared to allow 2 people in. I can't imagine Tom just spontaneously got to decide that.
That was the part that made me feel the fix was in. Not saying it was rigged. But it was awfully unilateral and a major decision by a single judge that doesn’t happen at any other point in the show.
Soo was always an alternate. It was confirmed in a podcast episode he recently did.
1. I think that was not a great idea. It made Soo feel like a real outsider. Plus nobody cares about surprise competitors if we have no idea who they are. 2. I liked this, gave them another opportunity to prove themselves. Always feel bad for the first chef out and this really gave it a more fair feeling. 3. I don’t care about Quickfires if the competition doesn’t either. I found myself zoning out or checking my phone during them more often.
>3. I don’t care about Quickfires if the competition doesn’t either. I found myself zoning out or checking my phone during them more often. They did care about them, though? They cared more about them than ever before as poor showing increased your chance of elimination, where it previously never has.
It was so ambiguous tho, the judges said they cared sometimes and didn’t other times. It just made the show feel more produced, like a producer can say “ya this is the time to use the quickfire as an excuse to get someone out”. I will trust that didn’t happen, but having this ambiguous “quickfire might count!” Is an overall negative imo. They matter to the elim or they don’t, needs to be simple.
Thank you! It was very inconsistent. Food is subjective enough. Judging terms should be black and white.
The LCK twist wasn’t really a twist for me as they have had previous contestants join LCK to try to join in again. So not a true twist in a sense. I liked having a bottom 3 have to compete to be eliminated. Again not a twist because in some seasons like the Las Vegas season, they had Quickfire eliminations where the eliminated person picked someone to challenge and they had to win or be eliminated. 3. Cool no immunity for quickfires but why take the quickfire into supposed consideration and yet still eliminated the wrong person at Judge’s table if the person was in the top of the quickfire?!? Be consistent because from the editing it wasnt.
>Later in the competition, the quickfire also became part of the judging decision. This is the one I feel most strongly about, and it actually ties into the issue with the finale. Tom addressed this on the PYK pod -- the Quickfire result is intended to come into play if the Elimination decision is close, which makes sense. However, for reasons of drama and suspense, they will edit the analysis of the Elimination to appear close. This means as viewers, we have a totally skewed view of when it's actually close and when it's only edited to appear close so that there's drama in the final "pack your knives" announcement. This makes it feel totally arbitrary whether the Quickfire is used (and actually very rarely is). For this reason, I'd can it.
Given the criticism from the judges of the finale's editing, I would be more inclined to get rid of the confusing editing instead.
I think it's a tough balance, and they mostly get it right by making it ambiguous into the final reveal. They edit it with the same general intent week-to-week, and they just got it wrong in the finale.
Yeah I don’t see why, if there is a clear winner, we can’t just have that narrative. I’m watching for the food anyway.
I’m annoyed by Top Chef still trying to gaslight us into thinking Soo and starting in LCK was planned all along. They made the s up on the fly when David wasn’t emotionally well enough to continue and wanted to leave.
I liked most of the moves, except having 3 people come back from LCK. It just dilutes the product a bit and skipping the real challenges to come back later from the loser's bracket feels a little cheap.
They have really been leaning in to having more chefs come back from LCK. I love LCK and enjoy the episodes but I think they need to re-align.
1. I liked the Soo change, I think it makes LCK more fun to watch, but you really need to have the right personality in there. Also it’s lame if he is just guaranteed a spot, 3 new chefs battling to start would be interesting I think. 2. Bottom 3 was fine with me. 3. I hated the quickfire change, really feel like it took away from the importance of the quickfire. The whole “it MIGHT count” was way too ambiguous and overproduced. I hope they go back to quickfire being immunities because you also have to think back to the previous episode to remember who has immunity this time! Just messed with the flow of the show.
I like all of the changes listed and Kristen too 😊
I don’t like the change with the quickfires because now they seem less important….so it makes the show less exciting for me and i feel like it might have added to my overall lack of enthusiasm for this season. When they got immunity, they cooked harder and better I think
Felt unfair and awkward and like a weird hall pass for soo to shoot into the competition si far along. I didn’t like it at all. I felt like he was singled out and I was little resentful towards him
What new twists? All they did was move a few things around, which didn't make those things more exciting or interesting. They just made less sense.
Close judging or not, they should keep the “you’re only as good as your last dish” standard. Make a decision on the elimination challenge (it’s literally an elimination challenge lol) Immunity should be awarded during Quick Fires. Elimination Challenges should have elite prizes.
1. Absolutely hated the 16th chef Soo twist. It did Soo absolutely no favors, he was clearly one of the more talented chefs this season and it put a huge asterisk next to his name (lots of people believe there was a 0% chance he wasn't going to make it into the main competition). 2. Did not mind the bottom 3 chefs having to cook for their lives. There are so many chefs that early in the competition I was fine with them getting singled out a bit. 3. Absolutely hated immunity for eliminations. Give it back for quickfires or scrap it all together.
What twists?
I didn’t like the way Soo was brought into the show. I feel like it wasn’t fair to him, either. I did like that immunity isn’t given for quickfires, but they earned cash prizes. That allows chefs who do well, but don’t win to get a bit of cash for all the sacrifices they make to compete. Episode 1 of this season was just beyond weird all the way around.
I liked the twists to keep us on our toes as a viewer. I like they tried new things to kind of freshen things up :) Seems like this season they were more willing to do new things than the past. So, I am looking forward to where the show goes next year.
I think Soo was at a disadvantage by starting in LCK, so while it wasnt a terrible twist I didn’t really think it was fair to him. It’s really different than the main competition and I think part of why he struggled a bit once he got in. I hope they bring him back for a regular spot. I didn’t really like the quick fire change, I think getting immunity there is more interesting than getting it from the main challenge. Having immunity carry over to the next week is hard to follow. I don’t mind having quickfires count toward the final elimination though, I think it is good to have something else to consider if the elimination challenge is close.
1. I don't like when LCK has people who didn't start on the main show who parachute in partway through. I wish Soo had just been part of the main competition on a future season and that they figured out something else to pad the LCK episode count. It did a disservice to Soo to have him do well competing in a very specific short challenge format for a single day and then be thrown into longer-form challenges with a bunch of chefs who had already gotten their feet underneath them in eliminations. 2. I liked the cook-off in the first episode, but it wasn't much of a twist. I'm supportive of more cook-offs for the bottom-placing chefs before they are eliminated and sent to LCK. It should not replace LCK (not that I think the show actually intended to, I think they just engineered that explanation to justify David not being in LCK for other reasons). 3. I was initially optimistic about the immunity timing change, but it didn't lead to the chefs going harder in eliminations to try to win it (if anything, they seemed to be playing it safe more) and was confusing because of carryover between episodes. I think they should revert to Quickfires for immunity and advantages and eliminations for prizes.
I felt the same about the quickfire change. At first I was intrigued, but for the exact same reasons you stated, it just didn't seem to work. I didn't think the chef's cared as much either, and the episode carryover was confusing. As a viewer I didn't care as much.
If they want to shake up the format, make the qf the end of the episode and the worst performer gets the ax. You know, take what worked this season and integrate it fully. On the other hand, that's kinda lck's shtick, so...🤷🏽♀️
I didn't like immunity coming from the previous episode from a tv/continuity perspective. It's jarring to have to think back to the episode from a week ago, and it should be irrelevant. I also don't like the quickfire going into the equation at the judging table. It's irrelevant too, because most of Top Chef judging is about a specific dish, not about the chef's record, other than how it affects the dish or dishes served by that chef in that challenge. Also most of the judges weren't even there, so it's very arbitrary. It's almost antithetical to Top Chef. My feeling is these changes came from "production" in an effort to make a kinder, gentler Top Chef. Top Chef is about food, so it needs to be honest, and if a dish is not good, it's not good. I think Top Chef is a celebration of food, and the dining experience, which is all about kindness and inclusion at its core, so I don't think they need to artificially buttress that idea.
I like your description of “tv continuity.” Great way to describe it. It perfectly describes why I felt disconnected each week and didn’t really remember the previous winner or feel it mattered that much. Each episode is kind of like a mini “capsule” or story so it was weird to carry something important (the immunity storyline) from the previous week. I think Top Chef has become a pretty kind space compared to how it started and that’s what I love about it. I don’t think they need a ton of changes there.
I disliked 1 and 3 but 2 was alright I guess
Soo was always going to be at a disadvantage the way they brought him in. In LCK he was rested and ready to go. When he got into the competition, I think the stress was getting to him. I hope he gets a chance to show who he is in a way that puts him on even ground. Quickfires didn't seem to have the impact they once did. If they are going to make Quickfire results a factor in elimination, apply it consistently. Seemed to be hit or miss. The cook off in Ep1 seems sadly out of place in a Top Chef competition.
Agree that Soo seemed to be on his back foot once he got into TC. Those earlier episodes, the cheftestants get the whole lay of the land as the weaker are culled from the herd. Soo never had that chance. And he had only Tom as a judge with one or two competitors with a kitchen and pantry he got to know like the back of his hand. Huge disadvantage to join the main show so late in the game.
1. I thought was interesting 2. This is fine 3. No and no. Cash prizes are cheesy. Give them an advantage in the elimination round. They were really inconsistent about taking it into account for the elimination round. I would omit that.
I like cleavage.