QUOTE (teleburst @ May 27, 2008 - 11:13 PM) 
However, the chefs weren't doing "improv comedy".
If an actor doesn't know the absolute rules of improv comedy, how can he or she do it in the first place? You don't just pull an actor on stage who's never done "improv comedy" (in competition) and then b1tchslap them if they do Margaret Thatcher instead of an American president of the 20th century because they think that all politicians are fair game.
My point is, unless they were very specific about how far you could improv, a chef who is used to "improvisation" might very well have a more liberal view of what could be done because of their prior experience in improvising meals.
And yet, I fully understand the idea that they stretched to limit of what they could do to suit their own biases. Which is why they DID get b1tchslapped. Had their dish had serious faults, they would have probably gone home because they were further afield than the other team.
If an actor doesn't know the absolute rules of improv comedy, how can he or she do it in the first place? You don't just pull an actor on stage who's never done "improv comedy" (in competition) and then b1tchslap them if they do Margaret Thatcher instead of an American president of the 20th century because they think that all politicians are fair game.
My point is, unless they were very specific about how far you could improv, a chef who is used to "improvisation" might very well have a more liberal view of what could be done because of their prior experience in improvising meals.
And yet, I fully understand the idea that they stretched to limit of what they could do to suit their own biases. Which is why they DID get b1tchslapped. Had their dish had serious faults, they would have probably gone home because they were further afield than the other team.
I'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 actors know exactly what Improv comedy is and know that what the person running it or the audience yells out is what you riff on.
If the Improv topic was American Presidents of the 20th century and you did Margaret Thatcher the audience will be laughing at you instead of with you.
So then we get the "there are no hard and fast rules" speach from Baghdad Ted to justify keeping them. You say Antonia and Lisa had the better food. Sure they did because they basically cheated. Keep in mind Jen and Steph's food wasn't bad. In the judges opinion the Shenanigan Sisters (Sausage Sisters fails to take into account them deliberately bagging the Drunken part as well) made the better food.
Yet a couple episodes later Andrew gets the Ax because apparently rules are hard and fast. He forgets a whole grain in a challenge where "Low Carb" was also a rule, tries do do something creative and healthy and gets tossed for someone who tired to do something very safe and failed to execute it at every basic level of cooking. There is not possible way shape or form that the judges could say that Lisa had the better food. None Zero Nada Zip.
The common thread here? Who was the beneficiary of the judging inconsistancy both times?
The Lunch-hack.
In improv, the actors are specific in what they ask for--"Please give us a place!", "Please give us a profession!", "Please give us a kind of junk food!", etc. There would never be a situation where they asked for a place and someone would give them a fictional character.
Others also.
)