Most Cooking Shows Vs. American Cooking Shows

Overly competitive cooking shows seem so pointless to me because the last thing I want at a restaurant is some panicked cook making the food as fast as they can while the head chef curses loudly at them.

But American competition shows are always overly aggressive, with interpersonal drama and plenty of expletives to bleep out, which is why Gordon Ramsay couldn't wait to hop across the pond and bring hell to American TV! (Comic by The Pigeon Gazette)

-Via Geeks Are Sexy


Comments (2)

Newest 2
Newest 2 Comments

That is just the ONE show for the most part. There are parts of Master Chef that get a little aggressive, but it IS a competition and if the competitors don't seem like they are competing then it is not. I don't watch Hell's Kitchen because it's like Producers choose the most wretched people for that show, and I can;t root for wretched. Also, that show is not about the food it's about the drama- no fun.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This why I ended up watching mostly Chopped, as judges and competitors tend to be friendlier, judges are constructive & supportive, and the focus is on the food even if a competitor has some emotional motivation. Some of the non-American versions, like the South African one, have a bit harsher judging, but it is still about the food.

Even some of the shows with nasty, emotional fights you can tell there is some more normal human interaction going on and it is just how things were edited. I don't blame the shows for how they edit things (in general, some specific cases are a different story) as that is what sells... but I don't like it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Dude! That image is not of a glancing blow, that's more like being socked in the breadbasket by a burly man being shot out of a cannon! Damage would be much noticeable when leaving a dent like that sucker.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
just like that, huh? of course the scientific method has no bearing here, because realistically, who would have the means to reproduce it and a control in a lab? but you know the old saying: sex sells; unfounded knowledge paired with Micheal Bay-esque explosions obtains grants from the fed.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The moon is a fascinating ball of rock. Irwin Shapiro (Harvard astrophysicist)jokingly said, "The best explanation for the moon is observational error - The Moon doesn't exist."

1. The Moon is freakin' huge, we're talking ginormous. A natural satellite of the earth should be something closer to 30 miles in diameter, Luna is over 2000 (that's bigger than Pluto).
2. The moon doesn't have a magnetic field, but it's rocks are magnetized.
3. Some moon rocks date back 4.5 billion years and there's even one that was dated 5.3 billion years old (that's a billion years older than the Earth.
4. Moon rocks have also been found to contain processed metals like brass and mica, and uranium236 and neptunium237 (those have never been found to occur naturally).
5. The Moon also appears to be freakin' hollow!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"Most Cooking Shows Vs. American Cooking Shows"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More