It's always nice to see the chefs interacting without all the crazed stress of the competition, and you hope they'll be a bit more forthcoming on some of the questions that have been teasing away in our minds all this time. Here are some they might answer, but probably won't:
Did they find some of the challenges as dumb as I did -- the partisandwiches, the food for Padma and Tom's babies, the "easily executable" fare for the Hilton Hotel chain?
Do they think the judges have completely free rein in making their decisions, or do network powers sometimes intervene?
Is there a judge whose tastes and/or food prejudices they find suspect? Another whose opinion they particularly value? Do they think the judges are sometimes petty, vindictive or plain wrong?
Given the editing, did they recognize themselves or their competitors when they watched the show later? What was the biggest misrepresentation or distortion they perceived?
Were any of the winning dishes really horrible?
We can tell some past winners are sincerely admired by current competitors. Are there others whom no one really respects?
Why all the Frenchification? Why can't anyone just call it custard instead of creme anglaise?
Is it true that the show favors pretentious fare with multiple ingredients -- exotic and hard to obtain, if possible -- over beautifully executed classical dishes and new, trendy techniques over the tried and true?
No, I don't think Tiffany and Ed were having an affair, and also I don't care. I've stopped being annoyed about Arnold being sent home when it was Lynne who sabotaged his pasta. I know I'll never figure out whether Kenny is a true beast in the kitchen or a bullshitter. But I do want to know if anyone saw Alex make that damn pea puree.