This is a comic  Panel 1: A caption says: "FRANCE, 1900" Claude, a professional cook in his work attire, arrives driving a very old-fashioned car from that era. He stops in front of a large open factory door.  Panel 2: Claude walks into the factory hall. Inside, men are busily making bicycle and car tires.  Panel 3: Claude greets a worker and grabs a finished tire from a rack. Claude: "BONJOUR."  Panel 4: Claude holds the tire in front of him and examines it closely. He makes a disapproving face.  Panel 5: Claude stretches the tire.  Panel 6: Claude sniffs the tire.  Panel 7: Claude bites into the tire. At that moment, Victor, the factory director, approaches Claude with a serious expression. Victor: "MONSIEUR, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"  Panel 8: Claude narrows his eyes and gives a sinister look. Claude: "JUDGING."  Panel 9: Claude: "MONSIEUR, YOUR TIRES ARE TERRIBLE. THEY ARE STIFF, UNPLEASANT TO LOOK AT AND THEY SMELL BAD."  Panel 10: Claude walks back toward the same open door. Claude: "ZERO STARS. WOULD NOT RECOMMEND. GOOD DAY, MONSIEUR."  Panel 11: A wide shot of the factory. Claude drives away in his car. Victor stands in the doorway, calling after him. Victor: "HEY MONSIEUR! HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF WE CAME INTO YOUR RESTAURANT AND RATED YOUR FOOD?" Claude: "I DARE YOU, MONSIEUR." The Michelin logo is visible at the top of the tire factory.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Michelin wanted people to drive more, because people driving wore out their tires meaning more tire sales for Michelin. They created a travel guide that included a star system for restaurants that were worth travelling to, eventually settling on the 3 star system where 1 star was worth a stop along your route, 2 stars was worth a detour along your route and 3 stars is worth a dedicated trip to eat at.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Which everyone always gets wrong, since there's apparently a deeply ingrained cultural misconception that a restaurant can achieve up to five Michelin stars. Even Ratatouille got this wrong (although possibly deliberately), with the implication that Gusteau’s was a "five" star restaurant, its downgrading to four is the event that caused Gusteau himself to lose his will to live, and afterwards it was downgraded again to three. Which is already the maximum. Either Gusteau’s was just originally so good it broke the scale, or it was the sole and singular haute cuisine establishment in all of Paris that was not ranked by Michelin for some reason.

    The various hotel ranking schemes have a one-to-five stars scale, though, which is probably what most people conflate the Michelin stars with. Unlike the Michelin ratings there is no central or consistent authority on hotel rankings so they're pretty arbitrary to begin with and to a certain degree just a marketing ploy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The 5 stars of ratatouille might have been an anachronistic shorthand of good quality based more on how so much of what the average person is familiar with is a 5 star rating system (think product reviews on Amazon, app reviews on Google play/app store, driver ratings on Uber etc)

    Like, I imagine people have an understanding that Michelin stars are a thing but don't know what those stars mean other than more stars is more gooder. And to muddle it up even more in the present day a single chef can have more than 3 stars because that chef owns multiple restaurants. (See British shouty chef's 17 Michelin stars)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment