House of Knives

As soon as they showed the contestants and judges and because the judges knew who cooked what, we knew who the winner was.

Scott Conant is a good judge but not a good host. The overall concept, what with all the medieval motif, is corny as hell.

The Asian chef can only cook Asian food but with an Asian judge that's no problem. For the noodle challenge she makes dumplings but still wins? All her dishes reminded the Asian judge of home and her childhood. Baloney.

How about a challenge that forces her to cook something Italian or Mexican or Southern?

Rigged from the getgo because of Food Network's new obsession with Asian cooks.

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.

So in my opinion , anything artistic weather it be photography, painting, cooking ...etc should be anonymous judging, meaning the judges do not know who cook what, so you you have to judge the food not the cook and be persuaded by personal bias. That's why i love watching Tournament of Champions or Triple Threat. This is neat twist in cooking but the Judging is Joke. No disrespect to the judging I'm talking about the judging format. They probably already have their winner picked out.

We all love watching our favorites cook I just think to be a fair format the judges should never know who cooked what especially if its something that produces a finish product. They didnt say they were being judge on watching them cook, from the judging it looks like they just want to make sure the food meets the challenge and the test. Theres not even a score card to average the scores like they do on Guys Grocery Games. Just my opinion, I think it be more interesting if it was a blind taste test and the judges never know who cooked what. Go TOC.

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.

Great cooking. The rules are what feel new here. It's going for the throat of the top dog. Contrary to letting the worst pick each other off. Very medieval. I think that's is why I liked it so much. It's cutthroat because of that.

The judging could be improved. TOC and next level chef are more fair because it is truly anonymous. It is hard to not agree that it feels like decisions are what makes it for good TV. Reads as less than meritocratic a couple of times and that's a letdown.

Also feel like it's unbalanced when you end up being on the throne near the beginning is nowhere near as important as being on the throne going in to finale. It is very lopsided. Not sure how to fix that but that should be addressed in season 2. Otherwise winning 5 times in a row is meaningless other than bragging rights unless you made it happen at the right moment.