Cooks vs. Cons

Ya'll. Heavily disappointed. I thought this was going to be about professional chefs up against prison inmates. What a great concept! That prison food can be delicious if you do it right!

IT'S NOT. Regular home chefs vs professional chefs. Boring. I thought it would be a great show for both my boyfriend and I to enjoy since I watch a lot of prison documentaries. Zero stars.

You let a guy move forward who did not use the product selected for the challenge. Who cares that it was beautiful and tastes, it was a chicken wing competition and you allowed him to break the rules and move forward. Sorry, I like your show, but that was wrong. Rules are rules and if you are going to let this guy skip the product of choice, then you cannot send anyone home if they do not use an ingredient. If I was judging I would of not even tasted his dish, but certainly asked him why he did not use the specified product, and why should he be allowed to continue when he did not follow the rules. What chicken was there to taste - NONE. If he wants to cook vegan, great - avoid competitions using meat. If the rules don't mean anything, then have no rules.

A pretty standard Food Network competition show with a lot of familiar faces. Which is fine. I certainly enjoy these types of shows.

The big problem with this one is that the central concept of "cooks vs cons" plays no part in the actual competition. It doesn't make one whit of difference if the judges figure out the true identities of the contestants. It's just a grafted-on idea that gives them something to (repetitively) discuss.

They need to integrate the mystery aspect of the show into the competition.

Something like this:

1. Don't tell how many cooks and cons there are. Change up the ratio. Can't always be two and two. Makes it too easy/predictable.

2. Make the base prize the same for both cooks and cons, but add a bonus component at the end. If the winning contestant managed to fool the judges, they get an extra $5000 or something. This would give all the contestants incentive to deceive. Cons trying to pull off some pro techniques, cooks trying to dumb down certain aspects of their skills to come across as more amateurish.

Would make things way more interesting.

Pro chefs vs amateur cooks. Which is which? Who will win?

Could a pro fall to an amateur? Or are the professional chefs really the standard?

Throughout the show the judges are constantly asked: which one is the cook, which one is the con?

A small side prize pool for the judges guessing who is who would be a welcome addition but there's nothing really to stop this from blending into the sea of elimination cooking competition shows.

It's entertaining, the twitter interactivity is a nice touch, and having the eliminated cook or con reveal what they are is fairly interesting.

As a side note, I like Zakarian as the host. Judging from the amount of guff he gets from his fellow chefs on other shows where he's not a judge I would think that he has a good sense of humour and I would love to see more of that shine while he is a host on his own show.

It's also interesting to hear what the judges think are "pro moves".

I'm gonna give it a few episodes to make up my mind 100% but judging from the first course, this is a show giving a chance. (can't believe I'm gonna let that pun slide).

I guess the idea is kind of interesting. Format is very similar to Chopped but it's less of an actual cooking show then chopped and since it's food network, I would say chopped is better. YES execution is way off. It's more of a mystery then a cooking show and they just want the viewer's curiosity to stay tuned to find out who's who. But it's so rigged. They purposely make some contestants sound so professional and you can tell the makeup artist changes the appearance of certain contestants. They prescreen the contestants so they have to have both looks (con and pro). Too much editing, I just don't think this should be on food network.