Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuChefs compete using cooking, strategy and survival skills for the throne. Weekly rulers are chosen through cultural challenges, with eliminations and new entries keeping six players. Winner ... Alles lesenChefs compete using cooking, strategy and survival skills for the throne. Weekly rulers are chosen through cultural challenges, with eliminations and new entries keeping six players. Winner gets $100K.Chefs compete using cooking, strategy and survival skills for the throne. Weekly rulers are chosen through cultural challenges, with eliminations and new entries keeping six players. Winner gets $100K.
Folgen durchsuchen
Fotos
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Ive watched alot of chooking shows some are ok and some are great this one is not good. It might be the first that i really disliked from the first words uttered by the host ....issues i have with this
1. The host has absolutley no flare for hosting a competive cooking show he has no inflection when he talks he waves his hands like an idiot and looks uncomfortable doing it.
2. The premise of the show is ok i guess but its judging aspect is really stupid ...im guessing they are trying to be different but it doesnt work ....oh we do are judging in secret? And the host is one of the judges? Really dumb they all know who cooked what and although other shows have done this they usually watch how its made and give feedback while tasting...this show just seems off.
3. The constant ONE of you is going to be banished? Banished? Why why use that terminology. Eliminated is fine ...the throne for a winner? Why highest graded dish is safe why this goofy throne ...
4. The loser of the winner of the second cook can go head to head with "ruler" (stupid title) or send in someone else and whoeber wins gets to be next ruler....overly complicated on top of that after someone is "banished"( very stupid) they bring in another chef...thsi show could easily be rigged so that it plays out how they want it too.
I doubt this will get any better but ill give it another episode if that next one is just as bad ill be done watching it.
1. The host has absolutley no flare for hosting a competive cooking show he has no inflection when he talks he waves his hands like an idiot and looks uncomfortable doing it.
2. The premise of the show is ok i guess but its judging aspect is really stupid ...im guessing they are trying to be different but it doesnt work ....oh we do are judging in secret? And the host is one of the judges? Really dumb they all know who cooked what and although other shows have done this they usually watch how its made and give feedback while tasting...this show just seems off.
3. The constant ONE of you is going to be banished? Banished? Why why use that terminology. Eliminated is fine ...the throne for a winner? Why highest graded dish is safe why this goofy throne ...
4. The loser of the winner of the second cook can go head to head with "ruler" (stupid title) or send in someone else and whoeber wins gets to be next ruler....overly complicated on top of that after someone is "banished"( very stupid) they bring in another chef...thsi show could easily be rigged so that it plays out how they want it too.
I doubt this will get any better but ill give it another episode if that next one is just as bad ill be done watching it.
Another reviewer complained that many of the competing chefs were little known. I think that's wrong, although talented chefs not frequently seen on television are a real positive. The episode I am watching now (S1 E3) features Ann Burrell, Shirley Chung, Jonathan Sawyer. Hardly unknown. Chefs Claudette Zepeda, Hign Tesar, and Martel Stone are impressive. Other chefs are skilled and not out of place.
Marcus Samuelsson and Judy Joo are very successful in their culinary careers and both are capable and fair judges here.
Host Scott Conant may be more conventional than the spiked hair, jewelry draped Guy that dominates food shows on TV, but Conant is knowledgeable, respectful, articulate, and authentic.
Marcus Samuelsson and Judy Joo are very successful in their culinary careers and both are capable and fair judges here.
Host Scott Conant may be more conventional than the spiked hair, jewelry draped Guy that dominates food shows on TV, but Conant is knowledgeable, respectful, articulate, and authentic.
Concept never gels...a handful of Chefs, some you may have heard of, most not, in a dark silly set cooking for two judges who know who made each dish. So no mystery, no tiebreaker, and easily could be pre-determined who goes and who gets to sit on a pleather "throne" as the "Ruler" until the next round of cooking. With Anne Burrell looking so uncomfortable that she's gone from a long running Food Network series Host to a contestant on this lackluster show. Dreary to watch the forced reactions of both Judges and Chefs, standing the entire episode in their wrinkled, often sweat-soaked attire, and a waste of some otherwise entertaining and watchable talent.
I enjoy most of the cooking shows on the Food Network with the exception of the kiddies' shows and some of the baking is boring.
This is also OK. I recognise most of the chefs even though I'm not a committed viewer and mostly watch late at night when I want something light and unchallenging.
Season 1 is currently on repeat and I don't mind watching it again.
Just a question - has the host had a hair transplant? It seems rather "high".
As for anonymous judging, has no-one ever seen any of the Masterchef series? The judges are present in the kitchen and comment on the cooking and then call the contestants up one by one to taste their dishes and give them feedback in front of everyone. If you want highly produced just look at the Australian version, yet it's hugely popular in many countries. The format works.
It's the first time I've seen Anne Burrell since the tragic news and it was very poignant.
This is also OK. I recognise most of the chefs even though I'm not a committed viewer and mostly watch late at night when I want something light and unchallenging.
Season 1 is currently on repeat and I don't mind watching it again.
Just a question - has the host had a hair transplant? It seems rather "high".
As for anonymous judging, has no-one ever seen any of the Masterchef series? The judges are present in the kitchen and comment on the cooking and then call the contestants up one by one to taste their dishes and give them feedback in front of everyone. If you want highly produced just look at the Australian version, yet it's hugely popular in many countries. The format works.
It's the first time I've seen Anne Burrell since the tragic news and it was very poignant.
I'm not sure what the Food Network was thinking. This show is just same 'ol, same 'ol. Same concept as Iron Chef, Chopped and all of the other imagination-free cooking competitions on the Food Network. Same boring hosts, judges and outcomes. The concept has been done to death with different themes/cooking sets and, by far, the stupidest. Just the fact that Anne Burrell was a competitor tells me they know they're in trouble with the series. Big surprise she won.... Rigged as usual. In the end, she totally embarrassed herself by taking such a step down. Who's next, Bobby Flay? Don't waste your time watching this predictable show.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen