The Final Table

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.

I Think This Show Good Until the last episode. The Winner is not fair, He not create new dish And many chefs thought he did not risk enough.

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.

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 ?

I won't go to deep into the whole show. I like food. Novelle cuisine or street food. Doesn't matter. What bothers me most about the show is that the jury are people who have nothing to do with food except one food critique. Still no chef involved. The chefs in the show are top notch chefs with awards and reputations. They participate in one of the biggest cooking shows ever, and the get criticized by models, singers, actors...WHAT. I found that for the most part they had no culinary sense. That's fine but a bit misplaced in a show like that. They decide who gets to go to the next round and who has to cook for high class chef. The arrangement didn't do it for me. I watched it cause i liked what those chefs do. Definitely culinary art. I personally didn't like the decision making process. At all.