1-1: "Peter's" 2007.09.19 (recap)
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:03 PM
What killed me was what an ugly jerk Peter is. I don't mean just his general jerkishness, but he looked like he's been kicked in the face a few too many times. You can't coat that kind of ugly no matter how many hours you spend over-tanning.
It was pretty clear that nobody has stood up to him in far, far too long. Good on Gordon for doing it. Although I too agree the turnaround was suspiciously fast. Perhaps Peter's behavior in the first part of the show was his idea of an audition for the next Goombahs (sp?) movie? Famewhore wannabes are everywhere, alas.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:09 PM
I would have smacked that plate right out of his hands. What an ass!
Forgot to mention how much I wanted to kick him in the head for going in the kitchen and eating those oysters.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:11 PM
- Peter's only (and I mean ONLY) use through the show was actually making the phone call to get the walk-in fridge fixed. He's useless. The whole blow-up with the bill collector was immature at best. Everyone played their part in that segment. The kitchen staff "held" him back. He played the bad-ass.
Did anyone also notice how Peter in his "rage" knocked his father down and the bill collector looked as though he was trying to help his father up while Peter just kept lunging at him with everyone holding him back. I am surprised his parents never told him off, especially with all of his eating the food and then humiliating the young waitress in front of everyone because their food was late (because Peter ate it and the chefs had to start cooking another order).
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:16 PM
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:19 PM
They said the restaurant has been in business for 17 years so I am guessing it was opened when Peter and Tina were kids. Then they took it over when their parents wanted to retire.
I want more on the food. Did Ramsey insist that they start using fresh ingredients or did the lobster ravioli come from the restaurant depot?
The new kitchen was very generous. They don't do things like that on the UK version. I almost wish they hadn't done it for them. It was like rewarding Peter for being an over spending ass.
I did love watching Peter and his drink orders. I think Tina spent more time making his drinks then anyone else's. Seriously, Peter needs to go. Leave the business fast.
Wow, can't wait to hear what he has to say now that it has aired.
ETA: I loved GRrrr standing up to Peter and watching Peter have to take it. No more bluster and bravado. He just had to take it. You could see that everyone else enjoyed it as well.
Edited by ProfCrash, Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:23 PM.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:21 PM
I also found the hour time slot way too short. I think a two-episode approach would be better, with the first hour showing the problems and plans and the second showing the execution and a follow-up. Still, any Ramsay is good Ramsay.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:23 PM
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:29 PM
Count me with those who think they weren't so much "bill collectors" as they were "bookies" or some other seedy person Peter was associated with. Why was the restaurant named after him anyway?
What a tool though. The way he was mugging with his $1000 dental work and suit and car and giving free bottles of wine (which probably run $50 - $100 a pop easily) he was a great, big, liability for that restaurant. He stood there in the kitchen eating the food that was supposed to go out to his customers?! The hell?!
I find the turn around a bit hard to swallow but not totatly. Depending on the time frame or the guy's real heart it's not completely impossible. Decent enough series, I guess.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:38 PM
Therefore, FOX had to fuck up everything else. The opening title, just like HK, took WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much time, as did the preview of the episode we were just about to watch. The abundant private confessionals were out of place and completely unnecessary. Like on the UK version, what we see during normal taping is enough to get a good read on the staff's personalities. That and the use of music, sound effects, and visual effects was FOX's usual useless way of saying they think we're too stupid to know that spending essential monies on teeth whitening is a bad idea. The editing, as with the aforementioned Zagat plaque, was shitty (I love how the BBC America version keeps that word unbleeped). We saw way too little food, the transformation was too quick and stilted, and unless I'm mistaken, there was no revisit a month or so later. Plus, why couldn't they just have Gordon himself narrate rather than that assy guy they used?
I still like the show, but FOX just had to FOXitize it. Is there a Network Nightmares premiering soon?
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:45 PM
A cultural note: Peter was a classic Long Island "Guido"--a middle class Italian American male with an eye to materialism. The bleached teeth, expensive suits, the big black car, the gold chain,expensive watch, etc is classic. Peter also had a soupcon of being a gym rat with possible steriod use( hence the rage) and ? gambler--those "bill collectors" were either his bookies or loan sharks(ie, Mafia) and they were appearing in person because these men in person were there to collect on more personal debts, IMO. Otherwise, bill collectors just harrass people by phone.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:51 PM
I want to see inept but likeable owners struggling to make their restaurants successful. I want to see demoralized chefs reinvigorated or sent packing. I don't want to see over-the-top drama, because that's not what this show is supposed to be about. For that, I tune into Hell's Kitchen. And I agree, I want to see more about the food, because that is in the end the key to success or failure.
That said, I found Gordo to be just as charming as on the UK version.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:51 PM
Peter was a scary man. I wonder how much was played up for TV (or, more frightening, played *down* for TV) and how much was "real Peter". That's a lawsuit or protection order waiting to happen. Even if he had his amazing turnaround of attitude about the restaurant, I doubt that he has lost his rage. (Given his physique, wonder if it was roid rage. skatemd - guess we were thinking/posting at the same time)
As mentioned upthread, we did get a chance to see some of the gentler, caring about the food and restaurant GRrr. But it seemed so buried under the ton of dramatic crap and special audio/video stuff that I imagine new viewers may well miss that aspect of the show.
I did love the shots of Robert (the chef)'s face at several times when GRrr took Peter down a few notches. (Which Peter didn't always "get")
- I was disappointed that after it was all said and done that he didn't stop back in (like in the UK version) after a few weeks to see how things were going
As was I. I wonder if they plan to do so for future episodes, and also if the charming little outdoor "event" was supposed to be the happy ending revisit, tailored for us iggnerent US viewers??
And yes, Faux, please - more food, more Gordon, no outrageously expensive freebies, and much less drama and soundtrack.
Oh - forgot to mention. I liked that front of the house guy. The family should trade Peter in for him in a more prominent role.
Edited by addicted_aardvark, Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:54 PM.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 10:59 PM
What I missed...Who paid for the new kitchen?
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:01 PM
But to me, I thought Peter was exactly what a lot of those people wanted to see in coming to a small, Italian-family owned Italian restaurant. I think they could have capitalized on having their own Guido out front, schmoozing and upselling left and right. Peter just didn't know how to do it. He was more of the give-it-away type who wanted everyone to like him.
I liked that front of the house guy. The family should trade Peter in for him in a more prominent role.
But I understand what you're saying; Angelo seemed to understand that a restaurant is a business and the bottom-line is what matters. I, too, think he could have done okay in a "manager-for-show" role. I also liked him saying that, because Peter eats out a lot, he (Peter) feels like he knows how to cook.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:07 PM
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:10 PM
I think if Gordon was in the freebie business, he'd have thrown in a new walk-in freezer as well, but there he made them fend for themselves.
Edited by mtvcdm, Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:13 PM.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:12 PM
The Turiks are very familiar with the Babylon area, and we were happy to see Argyle Lake (little waterfalls under bridge), one of the historic village churches, the LIRR station (Long Island Railroad) and some of the waterfront houses (but could you have shown a few DIFFERENT houses? We saw the same still at least 3 times). The town's cleaned up nicely in the last ten years or so.
And yes, Peter is the archetypal Long Guyland Guido. I kept wanting Tina, who was terrific (loved her "I LOVE him!" re Gordo), to slap him silly, but that's not how those families do things. Parents annoyed me. And yes, bookies or other such for sure. But surely that guy's got grounds for a lawsuit? Assault on national TV. Though the whole thing did feel as staged as a Potemkin village.
Don't know if I can deal with bug and slop as promised for next week...but I'll take my Gordo any way I can get him.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:17 PM
Edited by justtee1, Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:19 PM.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:20 PM
The "free brand new kitchen" gift surprised me. Did the UK version of the show have giveaways like that?
I wouldn't be surprised if the UK version just didn't have the sponsorship. I'd bet if you watch the credits really slow, you'd get to see all the "sponsers" who now donate their kitchen goods for the show. Believe me, I noticed those Viking stoves! And I still want one!
But I agree - not enough food or actual kitchen activity. It was obvious the "begining" food sucked, and even the chefs knew it talking about how they were basicly "store-bought" ravioli, but there was very little showing of what was done to turn the menu around to fresher, "just cooked" food. If Fox hasn't realized THAT is why people turn in to this show, this is gonna crash and burn.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:20 PM
Parents annoyed me. And yes, bookies or other such for sure. But surely that guy's got grounds for a lawsuit?
I'm guessing that bookies don't seek legal action all that much considering the business they are in.
I thought the new kitchen equipment was a nice gesture it was certainly something the restaurant needed, only one stove worked, and they probably didn't have the money to do it themselves. It will be interesting to see if "gifting" items to the restaurants is a continuing trend. (They also got new flatware and china as I recall.)
I personaly don't like "family style" eateries but it seemed a good fit to this place and these people.
Now, can I give anyone a bottle of wine?
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:30 PM
I'm watching the last half of the episode now, but hubby's gonna be disappointed. I'm hoping reading this will catch me up on what happened in the first part.
Is Peter the one who sued Gordon? I read a story that one of the managers of one of the places, sued Gordon for making him look bad or something.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:30 PM
Besides the great front room guy mentioned by a previous poster, I was really impressed by the sous-chef. He took responsibility for his own bad performance and then, when the kitchen was given to him, he didn't say "now what was holding me back has been fixed," he said "we've been given a chance to prove ourselves and we have a responsibility." He seemed really smart and insightful.
It was hilarious how the head chef was amazed by GR's putting Peter in his place. I bet GR's his hero now.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:46 PM
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:50 PM
While the narrator kept repeating "bill collector", my wife took one look at Peter and said: "Bookie."
Bookie? Beforehand, was the restaurant really a business, or some type of front for Peter's other business interests?
I loved the start of the show w/ the Zagat plaque standing proudly by the front door.
At then end when Gordon was doing his wrap-up? The Zagat name was blurred.
ROTFL, I noticed that one too!
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:54 PM
Posted Sep 20, 2007 @ 12:00 AM
Posted Sep 20, 2007 @ 12:06 AM
Word ala mode. I was watching with a friend who's never seen the Brit version and I was noting the differences. But then, Fox, not BBCA.
it was all American high drama and none of the charm the British version of the show had. What I liked about the British version was GR talking to the owners and the staff and working with them to make things better. The American version however involves owners fighting with "thugs" and a sort of abracadabra conclusion.
More attention, time, emphasis and insights spent on the food, please. That the food wasn't the main course, but rather that clam-stealing creep, was a disappointment. Otoh, Gordon teaches and does not suffer fools - sign me up.
Posted Sep 20, 2007 @ 12:17 AM
Not as balanced and engaging as the UK version, but GR is GR and I'll watch every week.
Posted Sep 20, 2007 @ 12:23 AM
Shut up obnoxious editors giving interview time to everybody but the one man you need to watch, Gordon.
I don't want to be all "The British version is so much better", but... The British version is so much better. Just quiet down with all the antics, the sound effects, the stupid, unnecessary flash and present the story simply. Ironically, that's the same advice Gordon usually gives about food.