On Apr 4, 1:16 pm, Ubiquitous > wrote:
> wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 8:15 pm, (Ubiquitous) wrote:
> >> How is this show, anyway? It looks vaguely interesting, but since it's
> >> on Food Network...
>
> >It's on the Travel Channel.
>
> Oops! Followups set.
>
> >The show is okay, but I have some complaints about it. The pilot,
> >Bizarre Foods of Asia, was more interesting than any of the subsequent
> >episodes -- although a good deal of what he ate in that show (e.g.,
> >sushi, curry) wasn't bizarre at all; and he shied away from the really
> >unusual stuff. That's been a problem with the show in general. You
> >get glimpses of odd foods,but Zimmern tends to stick to the more
> >ordinary stuff. Worse yet,you'll often see him put his fork in
> >something unusual -- but then he doesn't eat it! (Watch carefully.)
>
> In other words, it's a "light" version of Bourdain's show?

Yeah. It's like Bourdain's show minus the booze, the cigarettes, the
edgy humor, the vivid descriptions of the food -- and the fun.
Zimmern visits a lot of places Bourdain has been to, but he manages to
make them seem much less interesting than Bourdain did. And while
Bourdain never claimed to pursue bizarre foods, his tastes were much
more adventurous than Zimmern's.

For example, when Bourdain ate dourian, he described it vividly and in
detail, clearly relishing it but likening it to a style of odoriferous
French cheese. Bourdain also mentioned that durian wasn't -- because
of its lingering effect on one's breath -- the kind of thing you'd
want to eat if you were about to be "nuzzling the neck of a beautiful
woman." Zimmern simply spat out his small tiny taste of the fruit.
This is a useful summary of the two hosts' differences, IMO.