The Final Table

It has the best of masterchef but without the soap opera that accompanies it. It is a real cooking competition where the judges are some of the best chefs in the world. It's a spectacular culinary journey across the world, but, the final is a farce and the least deserved winner in recent times.

It seems that they ignore that in the course the one who has the best cooking and the most technique should win and they change it to the one who should win. Very disappointing ending and not in keeping with the rest of the program.

A lot of complaints I see have several flaws. But first things I agree with.

1. The host could be somewhat condescending and negative.

2. The countries could have been less predictable.

3. The finale winner was a little questionable, based solely on the prompt being to create a signature dish that takes risks.

4. There should have been more female chefs.

What I don't agree with: 1. Claiming a country as a whole has bad cuisine is incredibly ignorant. Especially when it came to countries like America with an incredibly diverse roster of dishes that originated there. Every country has good food and talented chefs.

2. Criticizing use of celebrity judges while ignoring the fact they were always paired with a food critic is dense. They have taste buds too, and can make relevant cultural commentary. Only a final table chef actually made the decision to send anyone home anyways.

3. Anyone who knows anything about the chefs on the final table would tell you how laughable it is to think they were somehow involved in a plot to pick a predetermined winner.

I would love a season 2, with a whole new list of countries and contestants.

Overall the entertainment of the show was good. But there are certain flaws: 1. How do food critics or film celebrities qualify as judges ? Does a Food critic is same as a chef ? They should have explained their food knowledge background to justify standing in that position. 2. Chefs partnered as a team split into individuals in the finale. How does this justify that assumption of both partners were equally good until that point and that the other person was in the finale not because of his team mate? 3. The finale was flawed. The audience was never clearly explained on what parameters the culinary legendary chefs are going to decide the winner. There was no rating system. I mean how do you expect 9 judges to have a consensus on the winner without a rating scale? Judgement was questionable in few episodes but the announcement of the winner caught me totally off guard. Now I doubt the show, was the winner already decided by the show makers ?

Fun idea for a show and it made me want to cook better

Being a foodie I have been seeing clips of different shows but never took the plunge in watching one, decided to give this show a shot as it seemed truly an intentional culinary showcase. Twenty four chefs from different background, food schools and countries battle it out with each other in teams of two. The judges are food critiques but the final elimination is judged by a renowned Master Chef. The concept of using different countries cuisine and food products as a theme in each episode, with each and every judge having there on taking on judging gives each episode its uniqueness. It was great seeing the contestants taking advantage of their countries background and others experimenting their way into it. Ultimately it was all about serving plate after plate of gorgeous food. The final episode and the winner did leave me disappointed but it is what it is.