Chopped

I think the whole premise of this show is fantastic with the 4 crazy ingredients having to be whipped into a dish in a limited amount of time and the winner must survive 3 rounds where 1 person is "Chopped" after each course

But, the judging appears to be disingenuous and biased. They seem to favor personalities, stories and potential over the actual dishes served. They let their favorites through even when given uncooked dishes or those missing a basket ingredient. This is the only show of this type of the ones I watch (the others are Guy's Grocery Games and Forged in Fire) where I can't consistently guess the winner based on the judges' comments. Is this because the judges let through who they like best without regards to the established criteria/parameters or is it just a case of poor editing? Anyway, if you ignore that aspect, it is very entertaining to watch just to see what the chefs come up with in each round.

I have watched Chopped for a long time, and I still really enjoyed the show. Sometimes it's obvious that the wrong person wins, but again I didn't have a chance to taste the food. Sometimes it does seem as if the person with the worst sob story is the winner, maybe out of pity.

Unlike some, I do think that leaving out a basket ingredient should be a reason to be automatically Chopped. Although they do you eliminate those who have blood the food because they can't eat the dish, sometimes they give the contestant rave reviews about the appearance of the food when really the person shouldn't even be up there for judging.

Overall it's a fun show and feel most of the judging is fair.

1. If you appreciate creativity, you'll enjoy this show. 2. To think that you have twenty minutes to plan, prepare, execute and present an appetizer; thirty minutes each to do the same for an entrée and desert? 3. It makes me wonder, how many episodes were not aired because of the numerous contestants who could not finish. 4. Oh! and did I mention the mystery basket ingredients, usually one to a few of those have not been used before by the contestants. 5. Why not use liquid Nitrogen when making ice cream? It's so much quicker. 6. For special showings like the championship series, why not award the winners of each of the four episodes the usual $10,000 like the regular showings? Their prize shouldn't just be a spot in the final championship round. 7. I suspect the judges are bored and closed-minded, how about revamping the judging panel occasionally? 8. The judges inform contestants that they can use as little or as much of the mystery ingredients as they wish, yet when the cooks do that, judges have a problem with it. Where is the consistency?

Season 45 was a disappointment to be honest. So unfair to the chefs that are trying to win. I understand the judges work with each other but when they do a versus show with the judges, there needs to be unknown judges that judge the meal. 2 episodes back to back and I feel like the chefs got railroaded. Scott won against Michael which is BS and the one before that was BS. She dropped her sorbet and burnt her cookies but still won. Stop playing favorites with your friends and judge it honestly. You guys harp on the basket ingredients being noticed and Scott's ranch could t be tasted but he still won. I just feel that it was very unfair to the contestants. Just my 2 cents.

ONE ICE CREAM FREEZER!!!!!

Totally unfair. I watched this today at 5:00. Jen absolutely should have won. Alex dropped her ice cream burnt her cookies and Jen didn't set out to do Panna Cotta.... she was doing ice cream, bit you only have one machine?????? Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of Alex. You can tell on The Kitchen that the other chefs have almost a reverence for her. But in this case, especially, she got to the ice cream freezer first, but what did she do with that advantage? Absolutely nothing. If you had two ice cream freezers like you should, then you have a level playing field.

Shame on you!