Why did they bring Robert Irvine back to Dinner Impossible?

[Robo410]

1) he is a qualified banquet chef...doing bigger jobs than most of the other folks out there on foodtv

2) he does have a pro reputation

3) he did fess up and apologize and lost a season of revenue for: call it lying or embellishing or padding his resume

Food Network has a reputation of sticking by their people be they Martha Stewart when everyone dropped her, to Chef Irvine. They took appropriate action and moved on.

I like the show best when he is working in an unfamiliar culture, or historical setting, or in strange conditions...ice palace, trains, military base. But the WOA WOA WOA can get tedious.

Is he a perfect chef?? Nope: cup of salt for cup of sugar...OOPS, or misdefining risotto. But he seems not to have poisoned anyone.

 

[sketch182]

Irvine wins for me. This past season, I was bored with Symon. In most jobs Irvine would be gone permanently, but it is entertaninment.

 

[Treklady]

I'm wondering also if enough viewers wrote in wanting him back and they felt they should honor their viewing public's wishes?

 

[babetoo]

so he can con us if he is a good cook. not this old lady. i thought the show was ok, not all that entertaining to me. but that is what makes the world go round. different tastes. would be boring if we all agreed

 

[LPBeier]

I am not sure what you mean by "made up", but by some of the situations I don't think Irvine or Symon were given too much of a heads up - the problems they face are a little too real (I know from my own catering experience).

I like Michael Symon (as you can tell from my signature) , but I do have to say that often when he was on a challenge DH and I would be saying "I wonder how Robert Irvine would have handled this one". Episodes that come to mind are the Vegetarian Cowboy Feast and the Block Party. But I really did enjoy Symon's Crayola and Devil Went Down To Georgia episodes (except the fact he didn't use chicken).