They are trying to make him out as a liar. - Dinner: Impossible (2007) Discussion

[–] lamawebb 16 years ago

Unfortunately, he is a pathological liar. It must be terrifying to be him, with all of his deceptions laid bare and his professional future wounded, if not devastated, but it's nothing more than the inevitable collapse of a pretty audacious house of cards. His goose is cooked.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lamawebb 16 years ago

The Food Network took down his bio, his own website removed his bio, the Home Shopping Network released him from his contract and the production crew modified the beginning of 'Dinner Impossible' to remove all his accolades and claims of having ties with the royal family and Presidents.

Nobody seems to know what the real truth is, but all that can be verified is that Robert is a chef. He was in the Royal Navy for ten years. He was executive chef of a cruise ship and Donald Trump's Taj Mahal casino and resort in Atlantic City, NJ. He lied about practically everything else, even going so far as to claim that he was knighted by the Queen and was gifted a castle in Scotland. He owes investors millions of dollars for restaurants that will never open.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pleasekillyourself 16 years ago

while this does possibly make him a pretty despicable human being... i fail to see what it has to do with him being, apparently, an great chef.

most hollywood types are liars and backstabbers.

who cares?

reply

[–] lamawebb 16 years ago

The lying isn't a new thing. He's spent his whole life spinning tales.

Chefs who have claimed to work with him in the past say that he's a skilled chef, but he's terribly insecure, although egomaniacal, and he tried to hide it under layers upon layers of BS.

His credibility is gone. His awards were bogus. If you're a great chef, you shouldn't have to lie about your accomplishments. The food should speak for itself.

The St. Pete Times (Florida) broke the story. You can search their archives and look up all the dirt.

reply

[–] pleasekillyourself 16 years ago

i read all about it.

i just fail to see, at least as far as a t.v. show goes, why any of this stuff matters.

reply

[–] TheKara 16 years ago

because the network doesnt want to be made a fool of. They spent all that time allowing him to tell the stories he did on national tv and to them and all that, and for him to be found out a liar it sure as hell would be embarrassing if it had happened to me. Though to be honest I would not of fired him. His show is a success people love to watch it, I would make him issue some form of on air apology on his show, remove the false credits and continue on from there.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hogepr 16 years ago

The network wants to be taken seriously and wants to be credible. When you have someone who has been lying on your network, you lose some credibility and reputation.

The network did not want to take that chance.

reply

[–] para_owl 16 years ago

I could not agree with you more! It's a shame that he had to lie. It seemed like the network was embracing him more and more. I hope someone else picks up him up for another show. Maybe he can co-host with Ming Tsai or Mario Batali, two other chefs that really knew food and were more entertaining than anything Rachel Ray or Sandra Lee cooks.

--Will.

reply

[–] impressionist123 16 years ago

No kidding, right? I mean, E-V-O-O?????? WTF???? Just call it what it is, don't make up cutsey little nick-names...anyway...

reply

[–] takiko-1 15 years ago

But the name is so long and she uses it so often, I guess that's why it's e-v-o-o. I guess a person doesn't forget it though.

reply

[–] jason031572 16 years ago

One of the articles said that Food Network might reinstate him at the end of this season's Dinner Impossible.

I have to agree with FN in this situation. You lie on your resume, you should be held accountable for it, especially with these whoppers.

I always questioned the authenticity of the opening credits. I mean, a U.S. president is in office for 4 or 8 years. To say he cooked for--what was it? 3 or 4 of them AND the Royal Family don’t add up for his age--unless he was cooking for former presidents.

I like Chef Irvine, so I would like to see him come back. He probably will since he is popular enough, but again, you have to send a message that you can't lie about your past to get a job.

reply

[–] cinemajay 16 years ago

"They are trying to make him out as a liar."

But....he did lie.

So the Food Network isn't "making him out" to be anything--he did it to himself. They fired him because he's not the accomplished chef he said he was. If "they" did anything wrong it all--it was in not verifying his references!

reply

[–] gcoast_213 16 years ago

Here's the link to the actual story that brought him down:

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/17/Southpinellas/TV_chef_spiced_up_his.shtml

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MilB12 16 years ago

I was sad to hear about this too. While I did think he could be a big old D!@K at times, I assumed it was due to the pressure he was under due to what they had him doing, and I'm not so sure Michael Symon, or Simon, however you spell it can do as well as he did. Though I like him, with the constraints this show puts on a chef, Michael can't be jerk enough to motivate a team, I don't think.

As for his resume, how is it that Food Network didn't do a background check on this guy? In my teens I worked for Dominoes Pizza, and the retail store ROSS, and they both did background checks on me, and checked all of my references. How did the Food Network not check out any of his outrageous claims? Especially about being knighted, that probably could have been checked via Google.

I do agree the man did lie, I remember one episode him talking about cooking for either royalty or Presidents. But I think the Food Network knew about it, and just went along since it added credibility to the show, and now since they've found out have just cut him off.

I remember the episode where he was cooking for the Governor of Pennsylvania and he was going on about how big of a deal that was, and such an honor, and I was thinking, "how is that anything compared to cooking for royalty or Presidents?" That was the first that I doubted his experience.

Anyway, the guy is a great chef apparently, but his reputation is shot. I'm sure he'll land on his feet, hopefully not on Surreal World, but all of the potential and momentum he built up on the Food Network has just crashed and burned.

reply

[–] crappola515 16 years ago

He lied and got caught. That's likely the big deal for FN. The Royal Family and US Presidents. All it would have taken for FN to verify this (or not) was a few phone calls. No one bothered to check out even just one or two of these lies? BS, I say!
Someone at FN knew and put it out there anyway. A shame since FN builds shows around unknowns all the time. There was no need for such outrageous lies.

That said. You get caught lying on your resume, you get fired. If that is what happens to the average Joe, it's what happens to Irvine. I like the show. And it's a shame. But if anything less had happened, FN would have lost even more respect and what little credibility it has.

Vic Mackey: "God creates all men equal. Out of the womb, he starts playing favorites."

reply

[–] OKCRay 16 years ago

Be all this as it may, if the Food Network REALLY wanted to disassociate itself from Chef Robert Irvine, don't you think they would cease showing repeats of HIS Dinner Impossible episodes?

Just some "food for thought" (pardon the pun!).

reply

[–] crappola515 16 years ago

Why would they need to completely dissociate themselves from Irvine? According to their propaganda, when his episodes were made (read: paid for) Irvine was who he claimed he was. When they found out he was instead a fake, they took action and fired him.

Irvine is a legitimate chef, he's just not as "famous" as he claimed to be. So having a show where he's cooking is still valid and they removed the voiceover of his resume from the opening.

FN did what was required of them.

Vic Mackey: "God creates all men equal. Out of the womb, he starts playing favorites."

reply

[–] sjynyc 15 years ago

I have the feeling food Network KNEW from the get go. He had to of been making good money, what multimillion dollar company hires someone, gives them a great salary, and NOT check their claims? Especially when the claims involve presidents and royalty? Hell, I'd check just because it would sound so over the top.

I think the Network KNEW, saw that he would put on a good show, and looked the other way. Its not until some THIRD PARTY brings it all to light, that the Network suddenly is back tracking and acting all "shame on you".

I think many people "pad" their resumes to some extent (though that was some serious padding). Did'nt a cook/chef in one of their reality shows lie about his military action or something like that? I think it was "The Next Foodnetwork Star" or something like that.

Now I'm supposed to believe that the Network found out about some reality show guy's military lie.. but are JUST finding about and his claims of royalty and presidents??

reply

[–] DrunkPanda 15 years ago

HAHAHAHA. he claimed he was knighted by the queen and given a castle... and food network believed him?! something is wrong here...

reply

[–] Splarne 15 years ago

uh.... he is a liar.

i used to cook for the princess of wales too.

***
What about that time I found you naked with that bowl of Jell-O?

reply

[–] ja-156 15 years ago

He did lie, but Food Network has had issues with other liars. On one season of the next food network star, a finalist lied. According to back tracking the network did then, the finalist had won the show, but later "admitted" to lying about his past. To fix errors there, the show brought back the second and third finalists to have the finale of the season of food network star be fair. I believe the food network has to do some research into the background of people the bring onto any show, so it's fair to say the network was only covering their own hides by firing Irvine. Before he came back he did issue an apology, but I say the only reason they brought him back is ratings. The only reason they kept him as long as they did the first time is because his secrets were hidden and he was a ratings favorite. They knew and they denied knowing publicly to keep themselves looking legit. You have to wonder how many other network stars have lied at first, but grew into the chefs they are today. Hell though most of the food the stars "cook" is actually prepared by others backstage and very few stars actually eat what they cook, so the whole network's an entertaining lie. Just think about all the problems with the network stars and shows.

reply