Posted Wed 21 Mar 2012 12:53
Well, okay, maybe the contestants did genuinely think Leigh and Jen's dish was the weakest, but the actual scores they gave it? Ones and twos? If 10 is for a perfect dish, 5 is for an average one, and 1 is for something inedible.... giving it 1s meant it was so bad they could hardly eat it. From the sound of the judges' reviews, ALL the dishes should have gotten over 5, because all of them ranged from 'pretty good' to 'great'.
I think the jury concept could work in theory, but I don't like it being introduced so late in the show. After several weeks of fair eliminations, suddenly the best chefs - who've worked hard to get this far - are being given random, dodgy votes and eliminated one night after another. Would be nicer if they voted without knowing who cooked each dish.
It's also annoying because I was starting to enjoy a show with just the best chefs left; you could see them working together well and creating good dishes, without lots of stress or messing up, now that the weaker/more volatile teams had gone. It was a more enjoyable show. As soon as we got to that happy place, they brought all those people back? Annoying. -_-