Top Chef - Season 6 Postmortem

Well, that was one for the ages.

Though it ended -- again -- in less than satisfying fashion (the structure, not the result), season six was still a barnburner, and I feel pretty comfortable calling it my favorite of the series thus far. A big jump in collective talent paired with a good deal of restraint when it came to wacky challenges fulfilled the food nerds' wishes... up until the finale.

Because I'd like to finish with the positive, let's get this out of the way. I thought the finale was a clunker. Once upon a time, the finalists were set loose to cook "the meal of their lives." It was a great sentiment. You've survived a full season of tough competition and wacky challenges, now give us your no-holds-barred best shot. Go! But as the series has gone on, the (in)famous Top Chef "twists" have slowly worked their way into the last episode, until you're left with the modern three ring circus Top Chef Finale. Random sous chef assignment from a broad range of talents (and lack thereof)! Mystery box of ingredients! Mom's on your doorstep! Surprise course with a theme! You must make dessert! Individually, they range from largely innocuous to potentially unbalancing, but when all thrown into the same four course meal, they pretty much make the old mandate -- the meal of the chef's lives -- an exercise in futility. Even if they successfully navigate all of the roadblocks and turn out good dishes, how can they be expected to produce any kind of a cohesive menu from such chaos?

What made it especially galling this season, and the reasons I reacted so strongly a few days ago, are twofold. First, the sous chef knife block draw. I don't mean to suggest that what transpired in any way delegitimizes the results. Absolutely not. BUT, the fact is that they were subjected to a process that could have -- and may have! -- immediately put one of them at a very significant disadvantage or advantage. As terrible as pulling the sous chefs without notice was in season four, at least that disadvantage was evenly applied. And though we've had sous chef selections before, those involved a narrower range of talent and some level of selection on the part of the chefs. And again, if the shenanigans end there, it's largely a non-issue. But as a contributing factor, it struck me as especially ridiculous. Second, and I think this is why the finale really got my goat, was the issue of potential. Here you had an incredible collection of talent -- three guys who, if totally cut loose, could have produced three incredible menus of wildly disparate yet mature styles. Do we know for certain that this would have happened in a completely open format? Of course not. But it sure seems a lot more likely, doesn't it? As anybody who watched the Top Chef Masters finale can attest, there's nothing more exciting than watching great chefs express their vision with no holds barred. The Top Chef Masters finale was one of the best in the history of the Top Chef franchise. Maybe THE best. That's what we could have and should have gotten. Instead, we got an episode that, to me, barely ranks in the top third of season six alone.

My conclusion? If this is how the finale is going to be (it wasn't always this way), they need to drop this pretense of it being a "show us your best" ultimate challenge. It's not the big kahuna. It's not an opportunity for them to express their vision. It's not their best shot. It's two episodes -- quickfires and eliminations -- crammed into one with a little extra pomp and circumstance. Nothing more. Of course, my preference would be a return to the purer finale format (it was never totally pure, but it started out a heckuva lot closer). It seems to me that despite the claims that they have to make interesting television, the more compelling material has always come from the chefs themselves, not from whatever goofy situations they were put in. And though it's been a long time since I've seen some of them, I think my favorite finale is still season one where, after some sous chef selection shenanigans, Harold and Tiffani really and truly were set loose to make the best meal they could. And it resulted in a beautiful and illuminating contrast of their styles and talents -- far more interesting, in a finale context, than what they might do with a mystery box or how they might react when their moms show up. And it's doubly disappointing for me because it means that Lee Anne -- whose tenure as culinary director coincided, not accidentally I think, with a marked improvement in the quality of the challenges -- having defended the format of the finale, leaves on a sour note.

Setting that aside, however, since it seems to have been the grand exception for somebody who has always championed food before reality, I'm still incredibly sad to see Lee Anne go. As just mentioned, it appears that she's had a very positive impact on the past few seasons -- potentially a very, very significant one -- and historically speaking, I've always looked to her blog as one of the most illuminating. You can't pull a chef out of the kitchen for too long, however, and her recent writings seem to suggest that one of her culinary team protégés has been groomed as her successor, so hopefully we'll continue to see mostly smart, compelling challenges and a stunning selection of tools and raw materials as we go to season seven.

I told myself I wasn't going to let the season postmortem be dominated by the finale, and it looks like it's a little too late for that. but it's also important to talk about how much went right this season. The problem is, we've said so much of it already. This was an incredible collection of talent that was a joy to watch in the kitchen. The challenges allowed them to flex their muscles and diminished the chances of ridiculous, freak eliminations. The judges -- THE JUDGES -- how better to put the focus on the food than having panels like those in the French standards episode, or the Bocuse d'Or challenge? The Robin drama was unfortunate -- did anybody really consider that compelling television? -- but I found the camaraderie and (mostly) support of this season's cast far more enjoyable to watch than the constant backbiting and high school antics of some seasons past. This is a food blog. You guys are reading a food blog. Maybe we're in the minority, I don't know. But really, if any magical elves are reading, more of this, please. To think... with an elegant coda, season six could have -- no, no... not going back there.

And with that, we'll wrap up season six here at Skillet Doux. From the look of things, season seven is going to be hot on season six's heels, with more Masters crammed in between. But it'll be back to business as usual around these parts, at least for a little while.

Once again, thanks to everybody for participating. I continue to try to make this a place for smart discussion of a show with which we're all embarrassingly obsessed, and that's as much if not more a factor of the nature of your participation than it is the result of my setup. Hope you all stick around in the "offseason," but if not, I look forward to season seven!

Comments

[kit]

Love this post Dom. As usual, you manage to express many of the sentiments that I feel but don't nearly have your skill at articulating.

Thanks for this amazing blog, season after season. And I think you underestimate your influence on how great this forum is. Not only do you set us up for great discussion topics with your posts, but you respond to our comments with your usual well-reasoned, objective but passionate commentary, and you also police us when we starting veering into counterproductive territory. In short, you're awesome!

[Will Allen]

Thanks to Independent George for putting me on to this blog, and thanks to Dom for producing it, of course. I really do hope for more focus on food, and less on reality t.v. shenannigans in future TC seasons, but perhaps I am too optimistic.

[Lou_NJ]

Thank you for hosting an amazing forum to exchange ideas. You have provided insight and managed to keep passionate discussions civil. For many of us you have also encouraged greater appreciation of the art and craft of cuisine as many of us approach our own kitchens or choose restaurants when we dine out.
Take care and safe travels.

[timothy]

I am just going to repeat the above, well-expressed sentiments: thanks for the blog and good luck with the move.

[JJH2]

I agree with just about all the points raised. I distinctly remember the finales of seasons 1-3 being the most impressive, even though the second season finale was marked by perhaps the worst of the sous chef shenanigans. The relative lack of restrictions in those challenges really elevated the food, I think. Honestly, I prefer the consecutive dining experiences over the concurrent, three-plates-per-course system they have going on now, and overall I just prefer to have a two person finale.

My LEAST favorite finale standard is probably the dessert requirement. While I enjoy a good dessert, it's pretty secondary to any fine dining experience that I have. I'm not usually in the mood for it after a big, satisfying meal. But really, they're just usually not that impressive. I mostly remember a string of disappointments - Hung's pedestrian lava cake, Blais' banana scallop retread, Stefan and Carla's dual disappointments (although I really like the idea of a blue cheese souffle), and Ilan's little balls of fruit. Bryan, Kevin, and Michael probably had the best finale desserts overall, but... meh. I'd rather have another savory course.

[Independent George]

Thanks, Dom, for yet another great season of analysis, debate, and just a wee bit of snark. I have to admit, I've come to enjoy the break between seasons to discuss non-TC food discussions.

I think the most important thing to take away from this season is that Top Chef has street cred. I guess we always knew that, but Robuchon, Keller, and Bocuse in the same season? Wow.

Anyway, I mentioned this in the finale thread, but it bears repeating - I think the S4 finale format came the closest to my ideal. I loved the idea drawing knives to select between bundles of diverse proteins and superstar sous-chefs. I could have done without the mandatory fish-poultry-meat-dessert coursing, but I didn't think that was an unreasonable constraint. To me, that strikes the right balance. You have just enough constraints to make it interesting, but nothing wildly ridiculous.

If only they had told them up front that they would only have the sous chefs for day 1, it would have been perfect (leaving the chefs on their own on day 2 made sense, especially after previous seasons where the sous chefs sometimes outshone the executive chefs). Plus, how awesome was it to watch Steph staring over Eric Ripert's shoulder micromanaging how to cut the fillets?

[danny]

Dom, thanks. I read every one of your posts. Not because it is likely that I will eat at most of these restaurants but because you write about food so compellingly. After reading a review I feel like I've eaten the meal (and without the calories or the bill!). You've given me a lot of great meals.

Again, thank you.

[lamelama22]

After every episode I'm usually left wanting more but I have to say I was extremely disappointed and even disheartened by the finale. The gimmicks & structure of the episode really destroyed it... it was terrible, and it wasn't even enjoyable for me to watch.

I'm glad you brought up Season 1, because as when I think of a Finale, I think that's how it should be done. Using prior contestants as line cooks is almost a necessary evil, because the help is needed. Although the use of celebrity chefs could also take this place, it seemed as if they couldn't do it this year because of the experience of some of the contestants. You couldn't schedule Ripert for example, in case Jen made it into the finale. Can't schedule José Andrés, in case of Mike Isabella making it that far, etc.

I quickly went back and ran through the past finales, and I have to say I think they should use Seasons 1-3 as a template, because all 3 of those finales were awesome. Starting in Season 4 is when gimmicks started arriving and it's been progressively getting worse every year. I think this season is the boiling point, cause the gimmicks were finally too much and completely destroyed and overshadowed the episode.

Season 1:
Sous Chefs: The 2 finalists pick their 2 sous chefs from the 4 most recently eliminated contestants.
Product: The kitchen is fully stocked with every food product imaginable all of the highest quality.
Location: The chefs each cook in a separate kitchen at different times. Prep together in a main kitchen.
Time: The time limits were not revealed in the episode. They had a "full afternoon" to plan/prep, including a relaxed sit down wine tasting, and cooked the following day.
Challenge: Cook the best meal of your lives, a 5 course meal.
Gripes: Only have 4 possible sous chefs meant that the finalists might get stuck with somebody they did not want helping them. This was fixed in Season 2.

Season 2:
Sous Chefs: The 2 finalists pick their 2 sous chefs from the 6 most recently eliminated contestants.
Product: The chefs pick all of their ingredients from a local well stocked farmer's market, with no budget.
Location: The chefs each cook in a separate kitchen at different times. Prep together in a main kitchen.
Time: 4 hours to prep today. 1 hour to cook tomorrow.
Challenge: Cook the best meal of your lives, a 5 course meal.

Season 3:
Sous Chefs: The 3 finalists get a celebrity sous chef chosen by random knife block for the prep. The 3 finalists get one of the 3 most recently eliminated contestants (not including the most recently eliminated in the finale part 1), chosen by random knife block, for cooking.
Product: The chefs pick all of their ingredients from a well stocked spread of food while planning their dishes, before going into the kitchen.
Location: The chefs cook head to head in the same kitchen.
Time: 35 minutes to select ingredients and plan the menu. 3 hours to prep today, 1 hour to cook tomorrow.
Challenge: Cook the best meal of your lives, a 3 course meal, and an extra surprise 4th course.
Gimmicks: A surprise fourth course was added right before cooking time started. The contestants were informed they would not have their celebrity sous chef during cooking, but they were given a prior contestant as a surprise to help with the fourth course. The most recently eliminated contestant wasn't among them.
Gripes: The fourth course surprise was a big gimmick and throws a wrench into the "best meal of your life" planned menu. Sous chefs were chosen by random knife block and only 1 was available for each chef. Serving head-to-head made some of the chefs change their dishes so that they would not be serving the same ingredient as their competition, although it does allow the judges to better compare.

Season 4:
Sous Chefs: The 3 finalists get a celebrity sous chef chosen by season total of elimination wins, in case of a tie by random knife block.
Product: Each finalist gets a different mystery basket of top notch ingredients, also chosen by random knife block and associated with the sous chef.
Location: The chefs cook head to head in the same kitchen.
Time: 3 hours to prep today, 4 hours to prep/cook tomorrow.
Challenge: Cook a traditional progression: fish, poultry, red meat, dessert.
Gimmicks: The contestants were informed they would have their sous chef the entire time, but the sous chefs "called out sick", and so were only present for prep. No sous chefs present for cooking. Forced to cook a specific type of meal, including dessert, with a given set of ingredients.
Gripes: This is when the "cooking the best meal of your life" disappeared and it started getting gimmicky. The contestants were locked into a type of meal and a specific set of ingredients. They also did not have a sous chef during cooking, and unlike Season 3 where they were informed they would not have their sous chefs ahead of time, they were lied to and blindsided (but were given more time).

Season 5:
Sous Chefs: The 3 finalists pick one of 3 sous chefs who was a finalist from a previous season.
Product: The kitchen is fully stocked, but not with enough of each ingredient.
Location: The chefs cook head to head in the same kitchen.
Time: 2 hours to prep today, 3 hours to cook tomorrow.
Challenge: Cook the best meal of your life, a 3 course meal, and an extra surprise 4th appetizer course with a specific given protein chosen by one of the competitors who was randomly chosen.
Gimmicks: The surprise course was a gimmick in and of itself. However, in addition, they randomly chose one of the competitors to choose which proteins each all of the competitors had and only one ingredient (alligator) was exotic - effectively allowing one contestant to screw one of the others. The kitchen was also understocked - not enough foie gras for two contestants (unlike in seasons past where this was not an issue).
Gripes: The surprise course was complete bullshit. Allowing a contestant to screw another one in the finale is just... well it shouldn't happen. If you're going to fully stock the kitchen (like Season 1), fully stock it.

Season 6:
Sous Chefs: The 3 finalists pick 2 sous chefs from the entire season's cast chosen by random knife block.
Product: The kitchen is fully stocked.
Location: The chefs cook head to head in the same kitchen.
Time: 15 min to plan. 3 hours to prep, 3 hours to cook the next day.
Challenge: Cook a 3 course meal, the first one with an identical mystery box of ingredients using every ingredient, the second one is anything you want, the third course must be a dessert; and a surprise 4th "first" course inspired by your mother.
Gimmicks: The sous chefs are not picked, they are randomly chosen by knife block. The sous chefs are from the entire season's cast, not just the stronger recent eliminations. This really unbalanced the challenge. Other than one dish, every dish was gimmicky or controlled in some way. The mystery box one was especially bad, where every ingredient must be used - it was like the first quickfire of Season 2. The mother challenge was too. They don't get the sous chefs for the entire time, they get 1 sous chef for prep and the other for cooking.
Gripes: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many gimmicks. Terrible episode - one of the worst of the season. It also appeared as if they tried to make it hard for Kevin to win - forcing a dessert and the mystery box meal, which was as they stated on the episode, to force the contestants to be super creative.

That reminds me, I also have a bone to pick with the elves. It's one thing to try and make it look even. It's another to make the loser look like the overwhelming favorite. Going into the reveal, the edit made it seem like it wasn't even close and that Bryan was going to definitely win... terrible editing.

[AJ]

Dom, thanks again for incredible insight into and devotion to the show.
The last time I enjoyed the shows "drama" was Harold slamming an airplane bottle of sapphire in season one, (and that is more about loving Harold and what he turns out at Perilla every night) so I completely agree with you on the food is better than story point.
Again, just thanks for providing smart, thorough, way more thought out and researched commentary than I have time to execute on this show. I will definitely be sticking around, as always.
Happy holidays!!!!
AJ

[jh]

How about this for the finale?

http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef/videos/slice-and-dice-showdown-finale-part-1
http://www.bravotv.com/top-chef/videos/slice-and-dice-showdown-finale-part-2

Apparently, they can't make everything taste good, but it's probably much better than anything I could do.

lamelama22, thanks for putting together such a comprehensive list of the past finales. I am pretty much with the consensus that a "meal of your life" should be fairly gimmick free, though I don't mind requiring a dessert course. Possibilities that I would like to see for a finale would be a restaurant wars-like finale, or in an Iron Chef like competition where we can see the creativity and cohesiveness of the chef given a singular ingredient. Another variation would be to give them a specific, but well known veggie, fish, meat, and fruit to be served as the centerpiece of a four course meal (appetizer, fish, entree, dessert), but free range beyond that.

I missed seeing a tasting quickfire. They could even make it high stakes. Here are 20 ingredients worth $500 apiece. The person that identifies the most correct will win that amount.

Thanks for all the wonderful writeups both TC and non-TC related. I'm just waiting for you to move to an area where I live so that I can take full advantage of your posts...

[aaalex]

i wonder, dominic, if your disappointment isn't because the finale was, and was always going to be, anti-climactic. any one of those guys could have won and it would have produced the same satisfaction and the same let-down. three different chefs, with quite different - but intimidatingly high-levelled - ways of thinking about food ... the end could only be "who was better on the day". i mean, much as i understand your chagrin over the "mystery box" and the random sous-chef choice, there is a level of the ridiculous, here: when you're dealing with such top level chefs, you're basically comparing incommensurates. collicchio saying that hosea (not even the best chef of season 5) might have finished sixth in this year's field (maybe above robin!) tells you all you need to know about the culinary stratosphere season 6 took place on. designating either bryan, michael or kevin as "top chef" was going to be, ultimately, unconvincing. i guess "just letting them cook" would have felt fairer and more "pure", but i'm betting there would still have been a let down of some sort.

in the end, the tension between "reality show entertainment" and "dedicated to food cooking show" is always going to produce moments of irritating, ramped up "drama" because the show walks a razor thin line between foodie world and entertainment world. top chef does its best but it's AMERICAN television (no insult intended at all) and AMERICAN television is big, loud, aggressively entertaining, and, ultimately very successful. top chef is branching out and producing another masters series and a dessert series because the drama WORKS, because of thing slike the robin episodes (which hopelessly marred this year for me), the leah-hosea lubricity, and the jack in the box finales. and i can see you, dominic, year in year out, for as long as you keep this blog, complaining about the "non level playing field" of the finales. you'll always be right, but i think you're pointing to an almost inevitable, systemic flaw. (btw i completely agree that tc masters' finale was the single best tc finale yet. but that's partly because, by forcing the chefs to reveal the intimately personal nature of their connections to food, they created really human - and exhilarating - moments that you could understand whether you love the food or the drama. you could see that with this finale - with the appearance of mom - they were echoing the human touch of the tc masters finale. didn't work as well, though ...)

my biggest impression, this year, will be how tawdry and unnecessary the robin drama was. for a good five or six episodes, it was like being trapped in season 2. but my biggest change of mind comes with michael voltaggio. i pretty much disliked his arrogance and aggression from the start. i also wondered what the hell he meant when he said that kevin cooks the kind of food that he cooks at home. don't we cook at home the food we WANT to eat? don't we cook the food we love? in which case, kevin is cooking the food michael voltaggio loves? if so, why wouldn't voltaggio cook such food as well? most people took it to mean, rightly i guess, that michael was accusing kevin of making bacon and eggs while he, voltaggio, was creating "art", the kind of food you might find at el bulli or the fat duck, the kind of food you go out for. BUT throughout the season, this dynamic has been at work inside michael voltaggio. in the quickfire that robin won, michael v made scallops two ways, showing - he explicitly said - the competing forces within him: simplicity and over-elaboration. like most young craftsmen, he hasn't discovered where his center is yet. if you remember this inner michael drama, his comment about kevin has as much to do with his own dilemmas as it has to do with kevin's food. at the end of the day, michael voltaggio was unlikeable, aggressive, pompous, over-assertive, but also generous, articulate, creative on his feet, possessed of great technique, self-deprecating and utterly passionate. much as i love stephan, i don't think it would have been possible for michael v to say, after losing to hosea, that he didn't really want to win. michael v would have suffered for years after losing to a hosea. and that passion, despite his flaws, made me admire him very much in the end. i was going for bryan, but i was moved when michael hugged his mother and finally broke down. to have something matter so much to you ... i found it singularly un-cynical. and i liked him a lot for it. i think he stands for this season, for me, now.

i still much prefer the personalities of season 5. (and i still hate that hosea won.) i'd much rather hang with stephan or carla than anyone this year, but if you could bottle michael's v's devotion to food, i'd buy it by the case.

season 6: best food
season 5: best personalities and camaraderie (despite zoi)
season 4: second best overall cooking
season 3: okay cooking, okay crew ... no lisa
season 2: most annoying winner, most annoying year
season 1: ground zero, hard to judge, the games changed so much since then ...

[aaalex]

oops. zoi was, of course, season 4.
(i recently watched 4 and 5 again. got them mixed up...)

[Skillet Doux]

Aaalex...

The unbalanced playing field, as I think you put it, irritated me, to be sure. But the true crux of my displeasure, I think, is that I just want these guys have a chance to bring their very, very best... and that if they fail to do so, it will be because of themselves, not because of some goofy roadblock.

You suggest that a letdown is inevitable... that two of these fellows, all of whom could win on any given day, will lose. But my feeling is that if they are truly given the opportunity to do their best, a letdown is impossible -- that whatever happens, they will have given it their best shot.

In short, I think it's less an issue of fairness that gets me, and more an issue of unrealized potential.

[aaalex]

dominic: so, your ideal for a great finale would be three great chefs given all the time they need, the best sous chefs, all the best ingredients and a single injunction: cook the best meal you are capable of cooking. this year that would have meant:

a magnificent, complex pork dish from kevin
a brilliantly prepared - impeccable technique, unexpected flavours - entree from bryan
a surprisingly executed, utterly unpredictable, mg-influenced creation from michael...

i (personally) think it would be thrilling to have watched them execute at that level but, as i said, the fiction behind this show just becomes more and more obvious, at the highest level: you can't actually compare these things, any more than you can apples and oranges. (who'd you rather? thomas keller on his best day or rick bayless on his? a trip to el bulli or le bernadin?) in a way, i think you misunderstand (that's not quite the right word, but bear with me) the idea of a finale: the finale is a way to make judging possible at all. it's a matter of balance, of course. you can't entirely frustrate the chefs' techniques and strong points, but i can't really imagine the judges judging, if they were given three perfectly executed meals. the arbitrariness of this whole procedure would become glaring. is this a defense of this finale's format? yes, to the extent that i feel "the better the chefs the more arbitrary the whole process of judging" so why NOT this not-shockingly invasive occasion. (we can both imagine much much worse...)

but, for me, the deep question that your ideal finale brings up is about the nature of the judging. say you have three brilliantly executed, four course meals. do you trust toby's ability to discriminate in a meaningful way? (by his own admission, food is only worth 20% of his judging of a restaurant. and though he was less annoying this year than last ... i can't wait for jay rayner's return, frankly.) do you trust tom to put aside his craft-oriented thinking? (kevin rightly pointed out that the soft braised ribs at craft were NOT what he liked and that tom docked his pork for a firmness that was kevin's ideal) what about gail or padma? are they really the ones you'd want judging the highest level of food? in past years, this question hasn't been so pressing, because the level of execution hasn't been this high. (or, another possibility, so hyped ... how many times HAS tom mentioned that this is the best year ever?) this year, i really started to wonder about the judges at the finale. (well, this year you had robuchon judging, so ... padma, gail, toby? big come down in palates. though, that said: i think gail's pretty good, here.)

i'm not arguing against anything you've said, dominic. in the foodie's best of all worlds, the finale would be: best chefs, best meals, best judges. over six years, the judges at the finales have been "okay", the chefs have been "okay" (hosea, really? ilan?) and the meals have been pretty good by all accounts. this is the first year where it really seemed possible to have two of those "bests" actualized (best chefs and best meals). we were never going to get best judges and, because it's all really a silly, competitive reality show (which i unabashedly love) we were never going to avoid "drama". (i'm shocked, actually, that they nowhere mentioned that kevin and his wife split up shortly before the finale. hard hard luck for kevin, but good for bravo for leaving it out.) as i mentioned in my previous post, i think you're going to be a very old blogger, still complaining at the end of top chef season 37 (finale at craft's on the moon) that the show frustrates the attainment of "best meal". i just don't think top chef can go to the place you'd like it to, because of its very nature. (i would be happily proved wrong, though. and that's why i'll be watching season 7 and up. there's always the tantalizing possibility of a season with 15 superb chefs, 4 superb judges, and a fair finale judged by the acknowledged greats of modern cooking.)

[Skillet Doux]

Aaalex... perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying the same no-holds-barred finale you agree worked wonderfully on Top Chef Masters could never work on Top Chef. And you're suggesting the reason for this is because of the difference in judges?

Do you really think that Tom/Gail/Padma/Toby are the factor that make such a grand finale on Top Chef impossible?

Plus, Top Chef has already HAD some of those great no-holds-barred finales. Why was it possible in season one but impossible in season six?

Unless I misunderstand, it seems that you're arguing for the unattainability of something that's already been attained... just not this season.

[JJ]

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, as well as your readers. I wasn't as perturbed by the twists and turns of the final episode as you were though, at least not by the initial announcement of how the 3-course dinner would be structured. Why? Because I could see that it was an attempt by the show to create a more level playing field to *evaluate* three obviously talented, top of the line, contestants by having them 1) cook one course using the same ingredients and 2) make a dessert. The latter decision, in particular, seemed a correct one to me since there is always debate about whether to include or not include dessert, and how much credit to give a chef for risking dessert versus someone who plays to their strengths, etc. The other twists - involving the knife block and the contestant's mothers - were more silly to me but I can't see how they seriously impacted the finale in any way. Sure, I can see why Kevin would be less than thrilled by the random chef names he drew, but I hardly think this was his downfall. Kevin's downfall was that he did not hit a home run with his third course and that he did not come prepared to make dessert. Even if they change the format next season I like that the finalists will come to it thinking that they will have to make a dessert.

[dc]

I wish it was 2 open ended dishes, and 2 restricted. But in a way the dessert was pretty open ended. The mom challenge was also pretty open ended -- just needed to make up a mom/childhood story.

I am good with having dessert challenge. They get to show off another type of cooking -- culinary sweets. And show off to America how fine dining dessert goes beyond a pie, breakfast danish, TGIF sundae.

Talking about types of food, I'd like to see a soup challenge -- probably paired with another challenge. Like, pair your soup with your dish, or use same ingredients for each. Or a bread / soup challenge ... (does every chef know how to make their own bread?) Or pizza challenge.

Thanks Don and everyone. All your passion, and historical insight of past TC seasons added a whole other depth of enjoyment to this new fan of TC.

Until next season.

[aaalex]

dominic: you know, i DO think i'm arguing that what happens on top chef masters can't happen on top chef. though, i'm not suggesting it's entirely because of the judges. (the judges in top chef are not up to your ideal was my point, if you accept that your ideal is "best chef, best meal, best judges" for the finale. it was late at night, and i over-elaborated a very small point. but toby was so unconvincing during the finale ...)

tc masters, which i loved, came in "food first", as it were. it was all about the food, in part because getting hubert keller to do mise en place after years of having someone else do it is ridiculous on the face of it. tc masters did everything it could to NOT humiliate the contestants.

top chef, being more about drama and humiliation, is not really "food first". it's balanced on the knife edge of food/drama. top chef does not mind humiliating its contestants at all. it revels in the humiliating. a number of the top chef contestants have now complained that padma's judgments are unpleasant, high handed and annoying to them. the attitude of the tc masters judges was uniformly respectful of the contestant's standing and stature.

the difference between season one and season six is precisely in the ramping up of the drama. the season one finale, which was great - in part because tiffani lost - was the last time the finale was "pure" because, frankly, they didn't know what they were doing. season one was a great FOOD show with drama thrown in. the drama has, in the years since, almost overtaken the food. where top chef is concerned. (the food still reigns on tc masters and probably always will because rick bayless, for instance, will not participate in something humiliating.)

i AM arguing for the un-attainability of something that has been previously attained. top chef the series has done phenomenally well with a formula (by now, a formula) that calls for as much "human drama" as cooking skill. what are the chances of top chef ever going back to the "food first" attitude it had in season one? from your tone, i think you believe this possible. you think it's possible that the food/drama balance will be redressed and the finale (now a nationwide spectacle) can be be salvaged for foodies. i think ... not likely. top chef's finale has become a successful spectacle. what would induce them to chage what they have? and, since i think we're not likely to have the "innocence" of season one again, this year's finale didn't bother me as much as it might have otherwise. compared to finales over the last five seasons, this year was pretty good. (relatively, i mean.) i still hold out hope you could be right, that there may be a season of top chef (as opposed to top chef masters) that gets the finale just right - by going back to season one - but my hope is fainter than yours, so i wasn't as frustrated as you were by this year's finale.

[Skillet Doux]

Well, none of that is invalid, Aaalex, it just seems to me that the question of whether a purer finale -- one that would make me, as a food-obsessed viewer, happy --can be achieved, should be achieved or will be achieved are all very different questions.

They obviously can do it again. They've done it before and there's nothing stopping the producers from saying, "You know, let's get rid of all of the twists in the finale this season." Done. You seemed to be suggesting that a finale that would make me happy is impossible. I think it's clear that's not the case.

As to whether or not they should return to a purer finale, it's hard to say. If the goal is to make food-first viewers happy, I'd say they probably should. If the goal is to get ratings (as it most likely is), I honestly don't know, and anything I could say would be pure speculation. I think they "should" in the sense that I think it'll make for a better show, but the general viewing public may disagree. I could hazard a guess, but it'd be just that -- a guess.

As to whether they will return to a purer finale, I agree, it seems unlikely, but certainly not impossible. The one thing that's kind of odd is that the trend with the finale is actually counter to the trend of the rest of the season. Despite the Robin thing, I think this was easily the least "drama" heavy season, the challenges, on the whole, were the least gimmicky they've ever been, and top to bottom, this was the most capable cast we've seen. What's so strange is that the finale was so incongruous with the rest of the season. They spent 13 episodes as a food first show, then suddenly went very gimmick-heavy. It's like they fought to hold those reality TV instincts in check for almost the entire season, then just lost control and got it all out in one go. It makes it very hard to guess what their motives may be, or where they see the show going. So who knows how likely it is to happen? But you can always hope!

[SorchaRei]

I'm not sure I agree that the TCM judges were uniformly above criticism or bias. Chiarello seemed convinced that James Oseland disliked him and his food, and he had to have gotten that from the Critic's Table interactions that we did not see. Now, maybe Oseland was justified, but I think there is some evidence that even in TCM, the judges did not handle the contestants with kid gloves.

One of the differences is that the format for TCM was quite different. Until the Championship Round, it was not a grueling competition that just never stopped.

Anyway, Dom, I am grateful to the person who pointed me towards this blog, not only because it's the best discussion of the food aspects of the show anywhere I've found, but also because it turned me onto your food writing in general. I love the non-TC season of this blog as much as I love participating in the conversation of the various incarnations of TC. Thanks for everything you do here.

[Scott]

aaalex and Dominic:

I think both of you guys have some valid points. It's important to note that not all "curve balls" are unfair and as you heard from the commentary throughout the episode, the contestants pretty much know there is a twist coming and I'm sure it's going to be another course. To me, the extra course is okay because it's not a great limitation. The box of random food items is also legitimate because I feel like a top chef should know all the ingredients and be able to creatively make a good dish out of it.

I'm going to venture out and say the curveball none of us like is the way they handle the sous chefs. As noted before, they are handled differently every season, but this is the first one where it is left up to chance and Kevin got the short straw, and I mean really short. Last season we already saw the controversy with Casey helping out Hootie and although she vehemently denies Casey ruining her dish, Top Chef creative folk should've learned that it's hard to be a leader among your peers in such short time and yes your sous chefs can and will have an affect on your psyche which will affect your food. I'm not making a case for Kevin or anybody else, but to throw a factor into there where you no longer leave it up to the head chef himself (obviously Preeti was just completely useless) than you have made an inherently unfair challenge because it is no longer in the hands of the contestant.

I would also like to note that I did complain about the way Kevin was dismissed. I now realize that it was probably so Kevin can have that moment with his mom. However, I am still miffed by the prospect as I'm sure this could have occured in many different ways. Even if they wanted a clear top 1, 2, 3 hierarchy (which why should they, second and third don't win anything), they didn't have to send Kevin away. I just felt that the elves really showed their true forms and by reading the bravo blogs about all those women who were so touched and crying over the brother's finale, the elves won.

[Skillet Doux]

Scott...

"It's important to note that not all "curve balls" are unfair and as you heard from the commentary throughout the episode, the contestants pretty much know there is a twist coming and I'm sure it's going to be another course."

For me, other than the sous selection, it's not an issue of fairness. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's evenly applied, any twist is fair (well... within reason. Having a molecular gastronomy course wouldn't exactly have been evenhanded). It's simply an issue of wasted potential. Almost all of the challenges tie the chefs' hands to some degree. Creativity comes from limitations, and 27 consecutive open-ended challenges wouldn't exactly make the most exciting program. But if there's ever a time to just set them loose and do whatever they want, it's the finale. Not because it's unfair to them to do otherwise, but simply because it's a shame to waste that much exciting potential.

"As noted before, they are handled differently every season, but this is the first one where it is left up to chance and Kevin got the short straw, and I mean really short."

Well, not entirely. In season 4, for example, whoever drew the short straw didn't get to choose at all. Of course, that chef was getting Ripert or Barber or Bloomfield, which is hard to categorize as a disadvantage. And if you extend beyond sous chefs, the first course ingredient selection last season was pretty sleazy, too.

[aaalex]

dominic: i agree with most everything in your last post, except i think you're underselling/under-remembering (?) the extent of the robin drama this season. it began with michael i's supposed sexism, continued with frank disrespect for robin from all quarters (including jen), carried on with the (to me, ugly) locker room, frat-boy "eli fucked robin" episode, and the michael v. nastiness. it pretty much divided viewers, led to some very ugly posts - here and elsewhere - and made four or five episodes difficult (for me, anyway) to take and left a bit of an after taste.

they milked this robin versus the crowd thing for all it was worth and that milking influences how i feel about this season. the "least drama heavy" season, for me, was season three, despite howie. (and, christ on a cross, i'd take the howie story line over the robin thing any day of the week.) so, i don't agree that the finale was, in terms of drama, against the run of the season. i'd agree if you said "the level of accomplished cooking, this season, was so high that the producers should have trusted the talent they had in the room, rather than trying to ramp up the emotion." (i think whether one agrees with me depends on how one took the robin thing. i took it badly. hated watching that stuff and was mostly depressed by the commentary it evoked.)

sorcha: the attitude of the judges on top chef masters is markedly different from the attitude of the judges on top chef. (at least, what we're shown is) there is, at times,a snideness and a condescension, from the top chef judges that was nowhere in evidence on top chef masters. oseland did indeed have it in for michael chiarello. if oseland had rated chiarello in line with the other judges, chiarello might even have won. (and it was really interesting for me, this season, to hear michael v. speak respectfully of chiarello as a chef. i remember some snide comments about chiarello from blais, for instance.) but oseland was never anything but courteous (that WE saw). and the top chef masters JT process was all about trying to get at how certain effects were created, not about witty "nasticisms". to me, the tc masters jury was foremost about the food, even oseland, while maintaining respect.

scott/dominic: the thing is, if ever a season merited sous chefs ripert, et al., THIS season did. if they had done THAT, i think the finale - mothers and all - would have been one for the ages.

[jh]

If you're going to bring back Ripert, then what if they matched each of the contestants with their high profile mentor? That could have provided some interesting dynamics.

[Lon]

I found this season very uneven. The French and Bocuse D'or episodes were tops; some of the others were okay and some were pretty bad. The better shows should have been near the end of the season, not scattered here and there.

For the finale, what irritated me was the random gimmickiness of the knife draw and the scope of the sous chef choices. While there is some validity to the comment that an excellent chef should be able to succeed with just about anyone, to handicap them at that point in the season with no second chance to overcome a potential lack of talent and taste, is extremely disappointing. For me it ruined the finale.

I believe that throughout the season, as the poorer contestants get weeded out, the episodes should provide stronger challenges, building to the crescendo of the finale. This season did not do that. It was uneven, up and down in quality. Other seasons the contestants were at fault. This season, I believe, the producers and the selection of challenges were at fault.

As to comparing TCM and TC, I don't think one really can do that. The TCM participants are all successful celebrity chefs. Be too harsh with them, and you won't get participants in the future. Judges or critics or whatever title they go by, can't use the same standards for a Rick Bayless or Michael Chiarello as they can for even a Kevin or Mike or Bryan. One could tell the critics were being very careful in what they said and were not ultra critical of anyone.

Returning to TC - I think part of what we're seeing is the belief TC can't repeat a challenge. Every episode has to be "different." They couldn't just allow the final three chefs to "cook for their lives" with top sous chefs because that had already been done. If the elves stick to that belief, we won't see this method of choosing sous chefs again, thankfully.

I don't agree with the need to always throw in twists, but it's pretty obvious in the show. I would like to see some of the same challenges repeated every season.

To me, seasons 3 & 4 had the best finales. I hope that level of finale returns in the future.

[babyarm]

My thoughts on the finale are in the previous thread. No reason to rehash them. In summary I had little to no issue with it and I would be fine to see that type of format adapted in the future.

One thing that may need consideration is whether the TomC input in contestant selection was good or bad for the franchise. The other question is after all was said and done who do we really think was a Tom selection?

Jen for sure. 100% lock.
Volts, probably at least one. Maybe both.
MikeI maybe. Perhaps someone else down the line that didn't pop as well.
Kevin. I'm going to say 75% yes.

Now the question is how did they really fill the spots. Did Tom just get a half dozen invites and Bravo filled the rest? It sure felt like it. And what did that give the show? Nearly no drama in the midseason to speak of. If it wasn't for fancy editing there would have been nearly no suspense from about episode 6 on.

Is this good TV? Is it really a good season if you get 4 quality contestants and the rest are just reality TV fodder?

I don't think a balance was struck this year at all. It felt to me to be far to much an overreaction to Season 5's issues.

Other little quick hits:

-Very little regional cuisine focused chefs. MikeI was only one producing a regional cuisine to speak of past Ep6. Even Matteen claimed to be doing Basque food, but little of it resembled Basque cooking.

-The dishes this year lended hardly anything to the homecook repertoire. The "last meal" show in the prior season was a goldmine.

-Why are soups so shunned? Odd.

-Prize disparity still head scratching. Quick fires worth 10-30k and EC gets you a bottle of wine or a book. I'll never get this.

[kweiss819]

I agree 100% Dom! Of all the seasons this was the one I most wanted to see the no holds barred - cook the best meal of you life - go! They had already proven themselves with the twists and turns. I love TC, and I have no qualms about Michael V winning, I would have been satisfied with any of the finale 3, I was just left wanting more.

[gilmore]

I am enjoying the insightful comments. I loved most of the season. The final left me empty due to the sous chef draw, the mothers and having Kevin leave the room.

I hope they keep up the trend with very strong chefs. I could care less about the rea;ity drama.

I still think Mike V. was the brains behind Robin's dessert in restaurant wars.

Dom - Thanks for the time and effort you spend on this blog. All others, thanks for your contributions.

[paula]

Just adding my thanks to Dom here. I didn't see the finale until this weekend (traveling), so I won't get into my thoughts on it so late in the game, but I did enjoy this season immensely and I especially enjoyed coming here every week and rehashing it all with you folks. I'm sad the season's over.

[Bart]

Thanks for a great season's worth of insight, Dom. Your hard work was much appreciated.

I know we've shared differing views, mostly with my wanting to see personality - which is NOT to be confused with drama - injected into the show and compatible with the food thrust...where you'd rather see Top Chef almost entirely (or maybe completely) focused on food.

But I obviously respect your opinions, which are often well thought out and equally well articulated.

Then again, I am usually in total agreement with you on...well, just about everything else. This post being no exception. Even though I like personality, it still is, ultimately, a competition.

The finale should be straightforward: five course meal (including dessert!), with as much time needed to prep and the "surprise" being that they can choose a sous chef.

They've made it through so many episodes of twists and turns and, as several have put it, humiliating experiences. As a reward for making it so far, why not just cut them loose and let them rock out their thing?

Five courses. A few hours prep. Next day, five hours (or maybe more) to cook. I can't imagine anyone saying that's a bad idea, or that it's boring. Even those who watch Top Chef for the drama (and they DO exist) would probably find that to be a sensible approach to the ultimate dish of the season.

Make the penultimate dish the one with all the crazy twists. But leave the final dish alone, and let the chefs do what they were there to do: to cook.

[Katie]

I think they should use the format of the Top Chef Masters finale as their permafinal. It was perfect. The frame of "do your culinary autobiography" was well-suited to both a final and cooking the best meal of your life. And it also fulfilled the purpose of the "twists," I think, which was to give viewers something to hold onto. I will admit, with a couple of exceptions, the final often isn't my favorite episode - because I can't taste the food what's most interesting to me is seeing how the cheftestants translate the theme or constraint they're given to food. Just watching them no holds barred cook is impressive, but doesn't necessarily hold my interest as a viewer as well as the more conceptual challenges, probably because I'm not as educated about food as many here and can't always picture what something would taste like. The Masters finale linked the conceptual with the no holds barred cooking brilliantly, I thought.

[anon man]

I think within the context of a "cook us the greatest meal ever" challenge say of 5+ courses, a mystery box and/or a requirement to make dessert is fine. It doesn't have to be pastry. Even something as lame as fruit balls and bay leaf donut (Ilan, Season 2) is fine. And, I'm a guy who will order cheese course for dessert, so I'm okay with skipping sweet. (For this purpose, a cheese course, unless you've got some plated cheese course idea may not be right, though.) But, in past seasons we've seen people end with a meat course, and that, frankly, is not acceptable.

Same with the mystery box. Overnight to think through the dish is hardly a brain buster. Maybe too many restraints on a 3.5 course meal, but conceptionally, neither of those tricks/rules really bother me.

The sous chef thing would be more interesting if they had more than one per day. Ok, Preeti isn't the best chef among the pool. But, I'm sure she could help in a brigade. With one a day, it really makes the draw crucial. If there was only one a day, I would say let them pick. To make it fun, it could even be: pick one from the first half of contestants to go and one from the second half.

Dom, a great season of writing. Looking forward to the next one. And, since you're moving West, I'm assuming you'll be driving up to Vegas to place your bets for the Season 7 winner? Also, I look forward to your pending search for the best Mexican (not Southwestern) food in Phoenix. As a San Diegan, I never realized how rare good, authenic Mexican food was until I left.

[Dave_P]

Thanks for everything, Dom. Once again, you leave me nothing to add about your comments about the overall season. I'll definitely be back for Masters 2, but I don't know about 7--I'm really burned out on TC atm.

Meanwhile, I'm off to Chicago to check out some beef. The Original Al's is definitely on the menu, and I'll try to squeeze in Jonnie's, thanks to your recommendations.

--
Dave

[Mann of Sandd]

Dom, Thank you as always, not just for your TC writings but for all of your tremendous work on the blog.

That said, I'm not letting you off easy. At one point this year you mentioned that you'd be up for an all time Top Chef power rankings....I for one would love to see that promise delivered upon.

Until then, safe travels in your move!

[Danny]

Dom, again, thank you. All I can say is that Seasons 1 and 2 did it right. Cook what you want - 2 chefs - and do it at seperate meals. That last to me is particularly important. You are being served course 3 - chef #1 does very delicate, subtle dishes, #2 does bold flavors and #3 does extremely spicy cuisine. Trying to eat all three at one course would have to affect you - particularly with the order that you ate them. If you did #2 then #3 followed by #1 would you really taste #1's food properly? Except at a buffet (having performed on hundreds of cruise ships, oh how I loathe the concept) one does not normally dine eating wildly disparate foods. This challenge is understandable during most of the season but at the finale, shouldn't it be about the chef making their best meal possible and it being judged in the best way possible?

[Bart]

Danny - I think it was Tom Colicchio who touched on that very thing. He prefers eating them all at once (if only for the sake of using up less time).

What's to stop them from cleansing their palate with water or sorbet of some sort? I trust the judges enough to know how eating one plate affects the way the next plate tastes.

[Joe S]

Late to echo my sentiments, but thanks as always Dom! Can't wait for the season seven coverage.

[Luray]

I just wanted to say thanks to Dom for all your hard work! Reading this blog is part of my Top Chef ritual- read the pre-show blog, watch the show, read postmortem, then the Bravo blogs. It certainly adds to my enjoyment.

Plus I love reading your restaurant reviews. I wish I had the ability to describe food as well as you. I ate at le bernadin in Oct and tried to explain the meal to people- I was not as eloquent as you would have been. Saying the food is amazing, just doesn't really cut it.

Good luck on your move!

[rab01]

Thanks Dom for running this blog, searching out the chefs' styles before the season even starts, commenting so intelligently on every episode, engaging with us in the comment threads and engineering the boot-order this season to get us our final four (how else can we explain your near perfect record of "predictions" this season?)

For changes to future seasons' finales, I thought back to the last time that the final episode was more interesting than the semi-final episode. I think it has to be S2's Ilan-Marcel final (though S3 wasn't bad).

I think the last episode lost a lot of natural tension when it switched from 2 contenders to 3. If they go back to 2 people squaring off and add back the few hours where the cameras roll but the two are forced to roam around and talk without being able to start work yet, the strange, human interactions can happen that allow us to better enjoy the final competition (that we will never taste anyway).

As for the show in general, what makes it better than (or at least different from) Iron Chef, Chopped, Next Iron Chef, etc.? I say that it is getting a chance to see the chefs in a variety of circumstances over the course of a few weeks. I don't like the "drama" of Hosea and (what was her name?) cheating on their significant others or Robin being marginalized by the rest of the cast, or Marcel being picked on, etc. I do, however, really like the bits of the chefs talking about food and prior restaurants and approaches to the challenges and just relaxing by the pool. Those few minutes of unguarded chatting (doubtless culled from hours of horribly boring tape) are what helps create the fiction that we know these people. I would prefer if the editors didn't feel like they needed to create through-lines from those bits but, for me, the program would take a serious hit if it dropped all of the footage from the house.

[gilmore]

Kevin on his beard -
"I always kept it trimmed down, though. But when I knew I was going to go on Top Chef, I thought it would be funny to grow this mountain man beard because then people would meet me and be like, "Who the hell is this guy?" and count me out from the first day, which would give me an edge. And it totally worked!"

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Chefs-Kevin-Gillespie-1013013.aspx

[Dreamboat]

Eli is taking a stint as Solo in Manhattan as a “guest chef”.

http://blogs.ajc.com/food-and-more/2009/12/14/top-chef-contestant-eli-kirshtein-leaving-atlanta/

[doktarr]

lamelama, thanks for the great past season summary.

Personally, I don't think there's necessarily a tension between "dramatic twists/reality TV fan fodder that Bravo can market for teasers" and "fair challenge that gives the chefs an opportunity to excel". It just means they have to restrict the twists a bit.

To wit, imagine the following "twists":

- Celebrity prep sous-chefs, assigned either randomly or by selection.

- Past contestant same-day sous-chefs, picked from the entire season's cast (except maybe the 4th place finisher), with pick order determined by QF/knife draw/season challenge leader.

- You must cook a desert, and you must prepare two of seafood, poultry, and red meat.

- Some theme assigned to the first course (mothers, whatever)

Personally, I don't think any of the above are unfair, or keep the chefs from soaring. A creative, well-rounded chef should be able to deal with all of these things without it detracting from their overall vision.

The key, really, isn't the presence or lack of twists. It's to provide the chefs with plenty of product, plenty of prep space, and plenty of time for both prep and cooking. Those are the key elements that allow them to succeed.

[Polybus]

Just want to add my thanks and congratulations to Dom on calling a great season. And thanks to everyone who blogs here - it is the highlight of my week during a Top Chef season (many times Dom's blog is actually better than the episode it dissects).

Keep up the good work!

[SorchaRei]

I've been thinking about this, of course, since I'm ridiculously over-invested in this show, just like everyone else here. I really prefer the freer form finale meals. What I'd really like to see is a meal like the one the TCMs did: they get told everything they need to know about the food restrictions or theme up front. You must make a dessert? Fine? Your first course needs to be inspired by your first day of school? Okay. You must use only locally sourced ingredients? Sure, as long as they chefs get to pick them before planning the meal.

What I want is to avoid the situation where the chefs can plan the menu during the downtime, and some restrictions and thematic requirements do that. What I also want to avoid is detracting from the "cook the meal of your lifetime" approach. So, tell them the general outline of what they have to do, including ingredient limitations or course requirements.

As for sous chefs, just make the playing field more or less even.

Want to inject drama? Attach each sous to a pile of proteins and make it so that the chefs can only use the proteins in their pile. Draw knives, pick the proteins, and let them plan their meals from there. Then the next day, provide them with the famous chef sous chef who assembled the pile of proteins.

If you must use eliminated contestants, let there be some choice on the parts of the chefs. It's not just who can and cannot cook well, but also whose cooking style or kitchen persona fits well with the chef they have to help. Draw knives and pick in order. Or ahead of time, let each chef veto one of the eliminated contestants -- and then randomly assign the sous chefs. Or something. Just, don't make it so that the sous chef can be a make-or-break part of the meal.

Heck, do what the TCMs did -- send in their sous, or one of their colleagues, or their exec (if the contestant is a sous). I don't care, so long as it's fairly even. I don't want someone winning or losing based on the sous draw.

Basically, I want to see people cooking terrific food without last minute hitches or twists. The TCM final meals were insanely awesome. The early seasons of TC had great food at the finals. The more twists they add, the less that happens. They've achieved a reasonably good balance of challenges for the main part of the show. Now if they would just streamline the finale and let it be what it is (chefs cooking the best meal they can under mild constraints), I'd be thrilled.

[Cici]

Dom, thanks for another season's worth of great analysis and hosting a great group of foodies.

One thing I wanted to note on the Top Chef vs TCM finale discussion is that the judging set-up really affects the dynamics and the intensity of the critiques. For Top Chef the judges are at judges table until an unanimous decision is reached. For TCM, the critics could simply agree to disagree before giving their individual scores for each dish. That has a huge impact on some of the practicalities that have been raised in picking a winner of an unrestricted meal.

Anyway, Boston will miss you Dom. Good luck with the move!

[Bart]

The reunion show was fun. FINALLY, I got to see the personality I've been looking for from Mike and Bryan Voltaggio. They actually relaxed and showed us who they were.

[babyarm]

So the next season has been now set to film in April. This was after reports (from Bravo) that they were set to do it in January. And the location is still up in the air with rumors that they will maybe even do it in Texas which would be alllsome.

I assume TCM2 now takes the January shooting. Maybe. With an April TC7 shooting this will put a much longer gap then was present between the TC5-TC6 seasons if they keep the same editing deadlines.

[TxGriff]

Being a Texas resident, I really hope they consider doing a season down here! I can say from personal experience that Dallas is home to some of the best restuarants I've ever eaten at, and I've also had incredible dining experiences in Houston. It would be great to get some exposure dispell the myth that Texas is only home to steak, brisket and Tex-Mex.

Just want to offer my thanks to Dom and to everyone who participates in this blog. S6 has been wonderful...I don't know how they will top it next time with S7, but I look forward to seeing how it turns out.

[babyarm]

Rumors are out that the two strongest contenders are Maui and Texas.

I'd assume "Texas" would mean Dallas for a while then probably a trip to Austin or Houston.

Tom has a flagging outpost of his Craft empire in Dallas and it could help the profile a bit to host it locally here. There's also some really, really strong female chefs here as well which they do like to seek out.

Houston of course has the highest restaurant seating capacity per capita of anywhere in the world or something like that among other records like "most meals eaten out" or something. Of course that also falls in line with being one of the fattest cities in the world as well.

Austin has some great funky places, but lacks many celebrity chefs. I'm sure Lance would be happy to host an event at Mellow Johnny's if he's not already in Europe.

[Cheryl]

Not sure whose seen it but if you go on the Top Chef website, they have a video where they announce Fan Favorite.