Why wasnt it decided on a vote? A few chefs wouldnt speak english so obviously their voice not be counted
The dish that won was the least attractive to me
The dish that won was the least attractive to me
14 Reviews
Unfair way to decide the winner
rmelob1 January 2019
Totally shocking ending
sanjidasultanashapla9 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Show makers are from America, The Influential & most biased judge was from America & the ultimate winner is from America... Haahahahhaa... The finale has just ruined the whole show... I was very much excited about the entire journey of those talented chefs... If you make somebody winner, won't you focus the winning dish precisely? The judges were talking about perfect execution of a dish taking high risk the whole time & finally got influenced by the biased American Judge.... Timothy is no wonder a great chef... But the ending could be much better.
Editing failure ~ thrilling show!
themodernmuse27 August 2021
Each aspect of the show was eye catching, inviting, educational, inspiring and incredibly well executed throughout each episode. The set, camera work, host and pace was excellent on previous episodes, what happened here? The shift from the three experts from each country to the individual chef during the cook off was a great way to move things along. I noticed the women were knocked out early but appreciated the growth within the industry as represented by the experts and panel of chefs. I would expect expanded diversity in a second season though. Sometimes teams were working to please a particular chef's anticipated palate and other times they were taking risks and focused on creativity; both approaches were reinforced depending on the chef. Although this is to be expected, the American chef, centered in the middle of the final episode on the stage appeared pompous and set an initial tone of elitism at the close of the series. It reaffirmed any discomfort the viewer had throughout the episodes watching the American come out almost as if superior to his fellow chefs. Note, I am an American.
This unbecoming pushiness was carried over within the editing of the finale, when Chef Grant Achatz was observed debating the importance of a chef taking a risk versus serving familiar tasty food. The question and weight of risk was an important element to address, but this is where things went downhill quickly. Except for the winner, all of the other chefs created a NOVEL signature dish. The comment from Clare Smyth that dishes in her restaurant must be perfect before being served and often take years to create further exemplified the importance of the risk element. Each chef presented a dish with a risk component, as demonstrated by their combining ingredients and techniques on a single plate, except the announced winner. He had tasted and presented his dish years ago when he started his own restaurant. It was beyond disappointing since the theme throughout the show/competition was elevating the food in a way that balanced respect for the authentic dishes, the ingredients used, and the voice of the individual chef. I did not hear any specific comments about the elevating components of the winner's dish. The winner is clearly worthy and talented..yet... My issue is with the presentation of the decision itself. The rubric used to identify the winner appeared weak and the editing made the final decision appear to be steamrolled by Chef Grant Achatz. Known for overcoming his cancer, embracing the culture and interactions of ingredients in a progressive way, he was quickly shown (spliced in editing) driving the weight of risk when determining the winner. Showing the weight each chef/judge placed on components/elements of a dish such as the smell, presentation, texture, combination of tastes, the cultural significance and story of the dishes along with risk, may have served the audience with a continuation of the experience from the culmination of previous episodes rather than a seemingly hurried, poorly thought out decision highjacked by an American chef. Again this was hopefully the editing and is in no way a personal attack on the judges time and expertise within the program, because each of them were phenomenal.
It was this last part, that left me with a deflating experience; leaving an aftertaste similar to a musty flavorless void. The viewer went from soaring across cuisines in gleeful flight, to being trapped in lifeless cave once the lights were slowly turned on as the judges gathered and the winner was declared. Up until that point and the final decision, I would have recommended the program to everyone and anyone. Now, eh....if it is mentioned I will share that the viewer will have a progressive exciting ride, only to experience a pure deflation at the end, just like most of the edible competitions that are not based on aesthetics alone. There is no clear rationale for the chosen winner. And I am sure there was a clear rationale given the integrity of the judges, it was not shared with the viewers. Either clue us in on it next time or post a disclaimer (for entertainment purposes only). My goodness, you have world class chefs judging...let's honor their voices in the future.
That being said, Bravo to the winner for finding his voice and sharing it with all of us! Well done!
This unbecoming pushiness was carried over within the editing of the finale, when Chef Grant Achatz was observed debating the importance of a chef taking a risk versus serving familiar tasty food. The question and weight of risk was an important element to address, but this is where things went downhill quickly. Except for the winner, all of the other chefs created a NOVEL signature dish. The comment from Clare Smyth that dishes in her restaurant must be perfect before being served and often take years to create further exemplified the importance of the risk element. Each chef presented a dish with a risk component, as demonstrated by their combining ingredients and techniques on a single plate, except the announced winner. He had tasted and presented his dish years ago when he started his own restaurant. It was beyond disappointing since the theme throughout the show/competition was elevating the food in a way that balanced respect for the authentic dishes, the ingredients used, and the voice of the individual chef. I did not hear any specific comments about the elevating components of the winner's dish. The winner is clearly worthy and talented..yet... My issue is with the presentation of the decision itself. The rubric used to identify the winner appeared weak and the editing made the final decision appear to be steamrolled by Chef Grant Achatz. Known for overcoming his cancer, embracing the culture and interactions of ingredients in a progressive way, he was quickly shown (spliced in editing) driving the weight of risk when determining the winner. Showing the weight each chef/judge placed on components/elements of a dish such as the smell, presentation, texture, combination of tastes, the cultural significance and story of the dishes along with risk, may have served the audience with a continuation of the experience from the culmination of previous episodes rather than a seemingly hurried, poorly thought out decision highjacked by an American chef. Again this was hopefully the editing and is in no way a personal attack on the judges time and expertise within the program, because each of them were phenomenal.
It was this last part, that left me with a deflating experience; leaving an aftertaste similar to a musty flavorless void. The viewer went from soaring across cuisines in gleeful flight, to being trapped in lifeless cave once the lights were slowly turned on as the judges gathered and the winner was declared. Up until that point and the final decision, I would have recommended the program to everyone and anyone. Now, eh....if it is mentioned I will share that the viewer will have a progressive exciting ride, only to experience a pure deflation at the end, just like most of the edible competitions that are not based on aesthetics alone. There is no clear rationale for the chosen winner. And I am sure there was a clear rationale given the integrity of the judges, it was not shared with the viewers. Either clue us in on it next time or post a disclaimer (for entertainment purposes only). My goodness, you have world class chefs judging...let's honor their voices in the future.
That being said, Bravo to the winner for finding his voice and sharing it with all of us! Well done!
Final episode takes away from an amazing show
Natron0012 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Clearly the winner of the competition had the most safe and therefore least deserving dish of the four remaining chefs. Grant Achatz pushed for the U.S. chef to win and there was also no vote tally from each of the celebrity chefs - so it appears that the result may have been staged. This is the most disappointing finale of any TV show I have ever seen.
Fix
jacquelinesage-1607218 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It was fairly obvious that there was a postage stamp between the finalists and that the American chef judge was pushing for the American final contestant. It was a truly disappointing and uninspiring end to an enjoyable peek into other countries' cuisine
Bitter Finale
jtarrero20 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Dissapointing finale in an otherwise decent culinary competition. It really does not bring much new to the table than Masterchef and Co. But the contestants made the difference here. As a cook and a foodie, you can actually learn from this people.
I enjoyed the show, but the finale was a disappointment. Not just because the winner played it safe (there is no discussion around it) but the dish itself did not seem anything out of this world.
Clare Smyth (UK) made excellent points. While the contestants were cooking, she said sth like "we take years to perfectionate a dish while these people have just a couple of hours"... well, unless you do something you have been doing for years. During her review she also pointed, "this is something I could have every day" and she finished with the key question "didn't you play it safe?". Timothy humbly admitted it.
Chefs are admired geniuses because of their creativity, their capacity to think out of the box, to work under pressure with the precission of a surgeon... So hard to understand the final decision.
But to me, the real loser was Grant Achaft.
Rooting for his country fellow with such a passion insisting on moot points, so obviously biased, just trying to impose his view, not open to hear anybody else with an open mind or giving others the chance to speak...
You can see how other judges but Vineeth Bathia (India) remained absolutely silent during the discussion (not being English speakers was a clear disadvantage).
I would have loved to hear Helena, Andoni, Yoshiro, Clare or Anne Sophie's thoughts... But probably their silence was more revealing. Why the decision was not made by voting (secret or show of hands) is another question mark.
Timothy will remain as an unfair winner. Comments and episode rating speak for themselves. Can't be denied. We customers have the final say and that is clear here. So, I don't think they made him a big favor here.
Final Table is a good tasting menu, but its final dish is so bitter and hard to swallow... I don't think I will go get a second serving.
I enjoyed the show, but the finale was a disappointment. Not just because the winner played it safe (there is no discussion around it) but the dish itself did not seem anything out of this world.
Clare Smyth (UK) made excellent points. While the contestants were cooking, she said sth like "we take years to perfectionate a dish while these people have just a couple of hours"... well, unless you do something you have been doing for years. During her review she also pointed, "this is something I could have every day" and she finished with the key question "didn't you play it safe?". Timothy humbly admitted it.
Chefs are admired geniuses because of their creativity, their capacity to think out of the box, to work under pressure with the precission of a surgeon... So hard to understand the final decision.
But to me, the real loser was Grant Achaft.
Rooting for his country fellow with such a passion insisting on moot points, so obviously biased, just trying to impose his view, not open to hear anybody else with an open mind or giving others the chance to speak...
You can see how other judges but Vineeth Bathia (India) remained absolutely silent during the discussion (not being English speakers was a clear disadvantage).
I would have loved to hear Helena, Andoni, Yoshiro, Clare or Anne Sophie's thoughts... But probably their silence was more revealing. Why the decision was not made by voting (secret or show of hands) is another question mark.
Timothy will remain as an unfair winner. Comments and episode rating speak for themselves. Can't be denied. We customers have the final say and that is clear here. So, I don't think they made him a big favor here.
Final Table is a good tasting menu, but its final dish is so bitter and hard to swallow... I don't think I will go get a second serving.
Unfair and rigged
nilufarx24 August 2019
The Finale (#1.10)
ComedyFan20102 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A great finale of a great show with 4 finalists who truly deserved to win. I was slightly rooting for Darren. I liked the creativity of him using the fish head and all these ingredients. But I didn't taste them so what can I say.
It is annoying how people are putting down the winner. He is an amazing chef and also deserved to win. The idea was not to be unsafe but to prepare a special dish that represents them as a chef. And his idea to cook a dish that is so important to him was just right. This is what represents him.
People saying it was fixed seem to just have an issue with him being an American which is why the American episode also has the lowest rating. People's bias. Just to clarify I am not an American.
I am happy for Timothy to win the well deserved final place at the table and for the other great chefs who made it so far.
It is annoying how people are putting down the winner. He is an amazing chef and also deserved to win. The idea was not to be unsafe but to prepare a special dish that represents them as a chef. And his idea to cook a dish that is so important to him was just right. This is what represents him.
People saying it was fixed seem to just have an issue with him being an American which is why the American episode also has the lowest rating. People's bias. Just to clarify I am not an American.
I am happy for Timothy to win the well deserved final place at the table and for the other great chefs who made it so far.
WTF!!!
nadirshell21 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Totally a shocker in the end. The challenge was to decide who had techinique and creativity, what the winner did was just pull off the top seller from his existing menu card. Must have been great, but took the safe route, I believe either of the 2 Ausi guyz should have gotten it.
Reality check
aleksandar-andrija26 December 2020
It the intention was to create the impression that Timothy was the best cook, then the directing of it utterly failed. The way it is shown you get an impression that the bleakest and the most uninspiring character and the chef won - especially with the meals. You can see that the American juror outvoiced the rest of the chefs.
Clearly biased ending
tutitalvarez30 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I'm very disappointed in that ending, you can clearly see it was planned. How can you insult your audience with such an ending?
The obvious winner was Mark, or even Shane. But to be the only one who got bad critiques and cooking a non creative dish that he has probably done hundred of times, it's just not fair. The show was amazing in the sense of showing amazing cultures and diversity. The real issue is the decision making, like to eliminate some very good contestants like Charles and Rodrigo or Rafa and Esdras and have as the final ones, 4 white man, and make the American win, really? Worth watching if you're interested in the different countries they show, but a big let down at the end.
The obvious winner was Mark, or even Shane. But to be the only one who got bad critiques and cooking a non creative dish that he has probably done hundred of times, it's just not fair. The show was amazing in the sense of showing amazing cultures and diversity. The real issue is the decision making, like to eliminate some very good contestants like Charles and Rodrigo or Rafa and Esdras and have as the final ones, 4 white man, and make the American win, really? Worth watching if you're interested in the different countries they show, but a big let down at the end.
Terrible
jstownsley20 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Worst ending ever. The finale has about 10 minutes of cooking, and the rest is endless rambling, with the award going to the least talented or deserving contestant seemingly only because he was the one representing America.
I'm sorry but he doesn't deserve to win
bmorgs-0386013 March 2022
You can't have 9 judges sit there before it starts and say "we want something that will amaze us" and then turn around and make something you literally have made before in a restaurant! The other three made something they have never made before! Makes no sense at all and I'm sorry I'm sure he's a great chef but he doesn't deserve it and it ruined the entire series.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
