I like the Food Network show Chopped. I find it interesting beause
like to see what I would come up with given the basket of ingredients.

Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.

The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
Chopped show.

On Mar 14, 3:20*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> I like the Food Network show Chopped. * I find it interesting beause
> like to see what I would come up with given the basket of ingredients.
>
> Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
> Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.
>
> The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
> Chopped show.

It's not a bad show, although the other day I thought it was a bit
unfair. There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
main course contained game hens of all things. They were given 20
minutes to finish their dishes. None of the dishes were very good.
The one guy, his hens were still raw. It was terrible. I think they
should have gotten more time; say an hour.

On Mar 14, 3:07*pm, Portland > wrote:
> On Mar 14, 3:20*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > I like the Food Network show Chopped. * I find it interesting beause
> > like to see what I would come up with given the basket of ingredients.
>
> > Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
> > Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.
>
> > The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
> > Chopped show.
>
> It's not a bad show, although the other day I thought it was a bit
> unfair. *There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> main course contained game hens of all things. *They were given 20
> minutes to finish their dishes. *None of the dishes were very good.
> The one guy, his hens were still raw. *It was terrible. *I think they
> should have gotten more time; say an hour.

They don't have enough time for any of the dishes, IMO. I hate that
"rule" of the show.

N.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:
>
> They don't have enough time for any of the dishes, IMO. I hate that
> "rule" of the show.
>
Do the judges then rant at the contestant about how undercooked the
dish is?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> > wrote:
>>
>> They don't have enough time for any of the dishes, IMO. I hate that
>> "rule" of the show.
>>
> Do the judges then rant at the contestant about how undercooked the
> dish is?

Of course!

On Mar 14, 4:33*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:14:39 -0700 (PDT), > wrote:
>
> > They don't have enough time for any of the dishes, IMO. *I hate that
> > "rule" of the show.
>
> Do the judges then rant at the contestant about how undercooked the
> dish is?
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Many times, mostly for the proteins - they're often given poultry
which needs time, or some kind of protein that should have long, slow
cooking. It's a tossup sometimes whether the contestants will go for
quick and barely cooked, or try and fail. Of course, there are
entrees that can be done in 20 minutes or 30 minutes, but that time
limit also includes prep, gathering any other ingredients available
that they might want to use, and plating.

N.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> On Mar 14, 4:33*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:14:39 -0700 (PDT), > wrote:
> >
> > > They don't have enough time for any of the dishes, IMO. *I hate that
> > > "rule" of the show.
> >
> > Do the judges then rant at the contestant about how undercooked the
> > dish is?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
>
> Many times, mostly for the proteins - they're often given poultry
> which needs time, or some kind of protein that should have long, slow
> cooking. It's a tossup sometimes whether the contestants will go for
> quick and barely cooked, or try and fail. Of course, there are
> entrees that can be done in 20 minutes or 30 minutes, but that time
> limit also includes prep, gathering any other ingredients available
> that they might want to use, and plating.
>
Okay, thanks. That's boring. Put it in the "reasons why I don't
watch" column then.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mar 14, 1:07*pm, Portland > wrote:
> On Mar 14, 3:20*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > I like the Food Network show Chopped. * I find it interesting beause
> > like to see what I would come up with given the basket of ingredients.
>
> > Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
> > Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.
>
> > The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
> > Chopped show.
>
> It's not a bad show, although the other day I thought it was a bit
> unfair. *There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> main course contained game hens of all things. *They were given 20
> minutes to finish their dishes. *None of the dishes were very good.
> The one guy, his hens were still raw. *It was terrible. *I think they
> should have gotten more time; say an hour.

The Chopped Champions show has the same time limit rules......and the
Food Network chefs managed to do really good stuff in the time
allotted. Quite impressive, actually.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Portland
> wrote:

> There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> main course contained game hens of all things. They were given 20
> minutes to finish their dishes. None of the dishes were very good.
> The one guy, his hens were still raw. It was terrible. I think they
> should have gotten more time; say an hour.

I guess he should have cut the game hens into pieces. They would have
cooked through in 20 minutes.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Portland
> > wrote:
>
> > There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> > main course contained game hens of all things. They were given 20
> > minutes to finish their dishes. None of the dishes were very good.
> > The one guy, his hens were still raw. It was terrible. I think they
> > should have gotten more time; say an hour.
>
> I guess he should have cut the game hens into pieces. They would have
> cooked through in 20 minutes.

The 20 minute time frame sort of makes a little sense in that 20 minutes
is about the time a customer in a restaurant is willing to wait for
their food to come out of the kitchen. What does not make any sense is
that the contestant is surprised by mystery ingredients at the start of
that 20 minutes and has no pre-prep time as would exist in a real
restaurant.

What would be much more reasonable would be something like:

- Introduce the mystery ingredients
- Allow 10 minutes to formulate a plan for the dish(es) to make from the
ingredients
- Allow 30 minutes to do the pre-prep for the day which would be normal
in a restaurant with the dish(es) on the menu
- Allow 20 minutes to produce the finished dish(es) to order for the
judges using the pre-prepped components

But these programs have been Hollyweirded by lame producers who value
"drama" over content.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:01:58 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> The 20 minute time frame sort of makes a little sense in that 20 minutes
> is about the time a customer in a restaurant is willing to wait for
> their food to come out of the kitchen. What does not make any sense is
> that the contestant is surprised by mystery ingredients at the start of
> that 20 minutes and has no pre-prep time as would exist in a real
> restaurant.

Right. Even when a chef buys unusual specials for today's menu, they
have more time to think about what they're going to do with it.

> But these programs have been Hollyweirded by lame producers who value
> "drama" over content.

Honestly, I thought they had a day or two to come up with recipes and
to request certain ingredients to be stocked in the
pantry/refrigerator and I thought the surprise was feigned. Call me
cynical.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:01:58 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>> The 20 minute time frame sort of makes a little sense in that 20 minutes
>> is about the time a customer in a restaurant is willing to wait for
>> their food to come out of the kitchen. What does not make any sense is
>> that the contestant is surprised by mystery ingredients at the start of
>> that 20 minutes and has no pre-prep time as would exist in a real
>> restaurant.
>
> Right. Even when a chef buys unusual specials for today's menu, they
> have more time to think about what they're going to do with it.
>
>> But these programs have been Hollyweirded by lame producers who value
>> "drama" over content.
>
> Honestly, I thought they had a day or two to come up with recipes and
> to request certain ingredients to be stocked in the
> pantry/refrigerator and I thought the surprise was feigned. Call me
> cynical.

I don't think so. I was actually very astounded that none of them knew what
dulse was. But oh it tastes terrible! I did buy some and tried it. My
friend's mom keeps it on the coffee table for snacks. They live in an area
of Canada where it is harvested.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:01:58 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > The 20 minute time frame sort of makes a little sense in that 20 minutes
> > is about the time a customer in a restaurant is willing to wait for
> > their food to come out of the kitchen. What does not make any sense is
> > that the contestant is surprised by mystery ingredients at the start of
> > that 20 minutes and has no pre-prep time as would exist in a real
> > restaurant.
>
> Right. Even when a chef buys unusual specials for today's menu, they
> have more time to think about what they're going to do with it.
>
> > But these programs have been Hollyweirded by lame producers who value
> > "drama" over content.
>
> Honestly, I thought they had a day or two to come up with recipes and
> to request certain ingredients to be stocked in the
> pantry/refrigerator and I thought the surprise was feigned. Call me
> cynical.

You're pretty cynical, but perhaps not as much as me.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

sf wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
>> But these programs have been Hollyweirded by lame producers who value
>> "drama" over content.
>
> Honestly, I thought they had a day or two to come up with recipes and
> to request certain ingredients to be stocked in the
> pantry/refrigerator and I thought the surprise was feigned. Call me
> cynical.

That's how it worked on Iron Chef Japan and probably how it works on
Iron Chef America. We often see them start cooking with no discussion
at all so clearly there is time to prepare off camera.

On Chopped it does look like the ingredients are a surpise. Whether
that look is the magic of television editted or genuine I don't know.

On Mar 14, 5:35*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Portland
>
> > wrote:
> > *There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> > main course contained game hens of all things. *They were given 20
> > minutes to finish their dishes. *None of the dishes were very good.
> > The one guy, his hens were still raw. *It was terrible. *I think they
> > should have gotten more time; say an hour.
>
> I guess he should have cut the game hens into pieces. *They would have
> cooked through in 20 minutes.
>

Well there are other ingredients as well. He had them cut in pieces.
He browned them off, except that they were not really brown, then put
them in the oven. Result: raw inside. Not very nice looking.

> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 14/03/2011 4:07 PM, Portland wrote:

>
> It's not a bad show, although the other day I thought it was a bit
> unfair. There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> main course contained game hens of all things. They were given 20
> minutes to finish their dishes. None of the dishes were very good.
> The one guy, his hens were still raw. It was terrible. I think they
> should have gotten more time; say an hour.

Was that one where one of the contenders had recently lost a sister? I
was impressed with the way she could turn on the tears at the right time
and try to get some sympathy points.

On Mar 15, 1:22*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 14/03/2011 4:07 PM, Portland wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's not a bad show, although the other day I thought it was a bit
> > unfair. *There were 3 cooks left, and their basket ingredients for the
> > main course contained game hens of all things. *They were given 20
> > minutes to finish their dishes. *None of the dishes were very good.
> > The one guy, his hens were still raw. *It was terrible. *I think they
> > should have gotten more time; say an hour.
>
> Was that one where one of the contenders had recently lost a sister? *I
> was impressed with the way she could turn on the tears at the right time
> and try to get some sympathy points.

That's right. One contender had lost a sister. I wasn't turned on by
her. She was trying to get the sympathy vote.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Portland
> wrote:

> That's right. One contender had lost a sister. I wasn't turned on by
> her. She was trying to get the sympathy vote.

Sister? I saw one that lost a brother.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Portland
> > wrote:
>
>> That's right. One contender had lost a sister. I wasn't turned on by
>> her. She was trying to get the sympathy vote.
>
> Sister? I saw one that lost a brother.
>

Half the contestants have a hard luck story of some sort. Lost a close
relative, have a disease, I'm doing this for dearly departed mom, it will
fund my kids new crutches, etc. Sometimes I think instead of a cash prize,
the winner should get psychiatric counseling. We all have problems but
don't wear them on our sleeve.

On 15/03/2011 7:04 PM, Portland wrote:

>> Was that one where one of the contenders had recently lost a sister? I
>> was impressed with the way she could turn on the tears at the right time
>> and try to get some sympathy points.
>
> That's right. One contender had lost a sister. I wasn't turned on by
> her. She was trying to get the sympathy vote.

I tuned in part way through the program and she was displaying all kinds
of nasty game attitude. Then when the judges were trying one of her
dishes and faulted her about something she whined that the had just lost
her sister and turned on the tears.

ImStillMags wrote:
> I like the Food Network show Chopped. I find it interesting beause
> like to see what I would come up with given the basket of ingredients.
>
> Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
> Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.
>
> The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
> Chopped show.

Rumor has it that several different highly ranked BBQ teams will be
participating in a future championship series. I don't expect to see
anything BBQ presented to the contestants.

Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.

The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
Chopped show.Do the judges then rant at the contestant about how undercooked the
dish is?
that several different highly ranked BBQ teams will be
participating in a future championship series. I don't expect to see
anything BBQ presented to the contestants.

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
>I like the Food Network show Chopped. I find it interesting beause
> like to see what I would come up with given the basket of ingredients.
>
> Usually the show is fun but this new Chopped Champions featuring Food
> Network chefs is a really interesting and fun series.
>
> The level of innovation and technique far outweighs the regular
> Chopped show.

I liked the one last night but I didn't want Anne Burrell to win. I like
Robert Ervine soooo much better! However the show the week before was
boring to me. They all seemed to do pretty much the same thing.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> I liked the one last night but I didn't want Anne Burrell to win. I like
> Robert Ervine soooo much better!

I like that he commented that it was harder then Iron Chef. Knowing
that Anne Burrel got her TV start is one of Mario Batalli's sous chefs
on Iron Chef America.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:49:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

> Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> > I liked the one last night but I didn't want Anne Burrell to win. I like
> > Robert Ervine soooo much better!
>
> I like that he commented that it was harder then Iron Chef. Knowing
> that Anne Burrel got her TV start is one of Mario Batalli's sous chefs
> on Iron Chef America.

Oh, darn. I didn't set my DVR to record it and totally forgot about
watching that all star thing. I wonder when it will air again?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mar 14, 4:11*pm, sf > wrote:
> Oh, darn. *I didn't set my DVR to record it and totally forgot about
> watching that all star thing. *I wonder when it will air again?
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

here's when it will air again

Mar 16, 2011

9:00 PM ET/PT

Mar 17, 2011

12:00 AM ET/PT

Mar 19, 2011

2:00 PM ET/PT

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:18:30 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

> here's when it will air again
>
> Mar 16, 2011
>
> 9:00 PM ET/PT
>
> Mar 17, 2011
>
> 12:00 AM ET/PT
>
> Mar 19, 2011
>
> 2:00 PM ET/PT

Thanks a million!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:18:30 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

> here's when it will air again
>
> Mar 16, 2011
>
> 9:00 PM ET/PT

I just found this and the first On Demand. Thanks a million!

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mar 14, 5:49*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > I liked the one last night but I didn't want Anne Burrell to win. *I like
> > Robert Ervine soooo much better!
>
> I like that he commented that it was harder then Iron Chef. *Knowing
> that Anne Burrel got her TV start is one of Mario Batalli's sous chefs
> on Iron Chef America.

When I first started watching ICA, Anne was a usual sous chef for
Batali.

Now, you can often see Richard Blaise (of Top Chef fame) being sous
chef for one of the Iron Chefs on ICA.

N.