The Fashionable Ones
May. 14th, 2007 05:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azuriteOkay, here's some oddness for you:
(1) 'Mokuba' is apparently a brand of hair accessories. I've seen them featured in the last two month's issues of Glamour, primarily with ribbons.
(2) A person came into the Walk-In center today named Akhnaton. "Akhenaden" or "Akunadin," much? Hey, it's a real Arabic name!
(3) I've also seen Shadi mentioned in Glamour somewhere-- it might have been a jewelry brand or maker, from what I can remember.
Today in the Los Angeles Times, I read about a family that's suing ABC after "their" house got remade by Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. If you can sit through the whole article (it's pretty long; it was half of Page 1 today, plus several columns on A20 and 21 as well), it's rather interesting as to the justification this family has against ABC. Interesting meaning completely bogus, imo.
I'm a big fan of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," it's true-- it's one of the few reality shows I like/will watch, one of the few shows I watch (regularly) at all. And sometimes I do wonder just how much of it is staged-- for example, how do they know that the WHOLE family will be home when they get off that bus and Ty does his bullhorn thing? In this article, it revealed that sometimes they filmed multiple takes, which is a bit disappointing, but not shocking.
But families that apply for the show usually have some pretty extenuating circumstances, and the family in question (the Higginses) has both their parents die. They were orphaned and pretty much high and dry, until some family friends who had, for many years, attended the same church as the Higginses, brought them into their home. But with so many kids (the Higgenses and the other family's own, the Leomitis), it got a bit cramped.
Still, if someone brings you into their home after some serious hardship, you don't bitch about their rules. Well, so the Leomitis applied for EM:HE and were featured in 2005 over Easter weekend. But two weeks later, the Higginses, despite having rooms custom-made for them, chock full of all sorts of furniture and electronics and fantastic stuff, left. Maybe there were issues with the Leonitis, maybe there were problems with their rules, but seriously-- why sue ABC over it?
Okay, so ABC re-aired the episode in July, during the summer repeats, but why is that bad? I mean, even if a family situation goes sour, they're never obligated to do an update on it. I was actually thinking about that-- what if they DID go back and visit some of the people whose lives they've changed, and see what they're up to? They can't all be sour stories like this one.
All in all, I think the Higginses are at fault here. One, for turning an incredible opportunity into an excuse for a lawsuit, and two, for trying to sue a major media mogul over essentially nothing (or at least nothing that is apparently ABC's fault). What did ABC do to them? Nothing! Except build them a home that's probably worth millions of dollars in an effort to keep all the orphans together, off the street, and with a family that obviously cared for them. Yeesh.
The lawsuit makes it sound like the Leomitis kicked the Higgins kids out of the house, and that ABC "profited" from their repeat of the episode (and yeah, they probably did, in terms of sponsorship from advertising and other companies that pay to have their products featured on the show; so what, they do that with EVERY episode, and they don't do it to profit off "fraud" or a family's upset/tragic situation). To me, though, it sounds like the Leomitis did their best for the Higginses, and the Higgenses, for whatever reason, decided the situation wasn't as livable as they thought (seriously, they moved out within TWO weeks of the show fixing the house), and THEY moved out.
Plus they're suing the Leomitis, which I just find ridiculous. I admit, I'd be pretty insulted if I thought a family was using me/my siblings/my "tragic" circumstances to get their house re-done on national TV. But (and maybe this is just what I know based on the article), it didn't sound like the Leomitis had done anything of the sort to instigate such a reaction from the Higginses. And the Higginses seem like the foolish ones for suing the family that took them in. There was no guarantee that their house would get re-made, even if they did all agree to sign up for the makeover. So if there was some sort of sinister "plan" from the Leomitis, it was sure taking an awful big chance on something that wasn't the least bit guaranteed.
And of course, the race card gets brought up, because the Higginses are black, and I assume (based on what I've read) that the Leomitis are white. But seriously, if the Leomitis thought the Higginses were "dirty and smelly" or "lazy," why would they have brought them into their home in the first place? They'd already been family friends for years, known them through church, etc.- if they really thought that way, why would they have even associated with the Higginses? It makes no sense.
Also, I understand, without ever having even researched the application rules, that one has to OWN a home to apply for the makeover. Therefore, it stands to reason that whoever lives in the household, regardless of age or extenuating circumstances, doesn't get any "ownership rights" over the house once it's made over. The rights still belong to the original property owner. Why would that change?
EM was also in the news because a woman's sister committed suicide after she'd been selected for Extreme Makeover (the plastic surgery version, the "original" that I stopped watching ages ago because of its tasteless superficiality) and then had to return to her hometown, without a makeover. But the contract says that the makeover can be halted at any time, with or without reason (though I imagine they wouldn't do that once a makeover is started, but they're well within their rights to bring someone to Hollywood and then say "No, sorry, this isn't going to work." I mean, EM is not a job-- there is no contract that says you're going out of your way, making big sacrifices. They pay for everything. And it turn, it brings them ridiculously high ratings. People like seeing other people be happy.
In the end, ABC and the show's producers decide what will sell and what won't, and it's their prerogative to choose who gets accepted and who doesn't. If the woman was so upset with her appearance as to commit suicide (and if that somehow led into another lawsuit, well, no wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're so frivolous and greedy!), she shouldn't have gone on the show/applied for it in the first place. She should have seen a shrink.
(1) 'Mokuba' is apparently a brand of hair accessories. I've seen them featured in the last two month's issues of Glamour, primarily with ribbons.
(2) A person came into the Walk-In center today named Akhnaton. "Akhenaden" or "Akunadin," much? Hey, it's a real Arabic name!
(3) I've also seen Shadi mentioned in Glamour somewhere-- it might have been a jewelry brand or maker, from what I can remember.
Today in the Los Angeles Times, I read about a family that's suing ABC after "their" house got remade by Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. If you can sit through the whole article (it's pretty long; it was half of Page 1 today, plus several columns on A20 and 21 as well), it's rather interesting as to the justification this family has against ABC. Interesting meaning completely bogus, imo.
I'm a big fan of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," it's true-- it's one of the few reality shows I like/will watch, one of the few shows I watch (regularly) at all. And sometimes I do wonder just how much of it is staged-- for example, how do they know that the WHOLE family will be home when they get off that bus and Ty does his bullhorn thing? In this article, it revealed that sometimes they filmed multiple takes, which is a bit disappointing, but not shocking.
But families that apply for the show usually have some pretty extenuating circumstances, and the family in question (the Higginses) has both their parents die. They were orphaned and pretty much high and dry, until some family friends who had, for many years, attended the same church as the Higginses, brought them into their home. But with so many kids (the Higgenses and the other family's own, the Leomitis), it got a bit cramped.
Still, if someone brings you into their home after some serious hardship, you don't bitch about their rules. Well, so the Leomitis applied for EM:HE and were featured in 2005 over Easter weekend. But two weeks later, the Higginses, despite having rooms custom-made for them, chock full of all sorts of furniture and electronics and fantastic stuff, left. Maybe there were issues with the Leonitis, maybe there were problems with their rules, but seriously-- why sue ABC over it?
Okay, so ABC re-aired the episode in July, during the summer repeats, but why is that bad? I mean, even if a family situation goes sour, they're never obligated to do an update on it. I was actually thinking about that-- what if they DID go back and visit some of the people whose lives they've changed, and see what they're up to? They can't all be sour stories like this one.
All in all, I think the Higginses are at fault here. One, for turning an incredible opportunity into an excuse for a lawsuit, and two, for trying to sue a major media mogul over essentially nothing (or at least nothing that is apparently ABC's fault). What did ABC do to them? Nothing! Except build them a home that's probably worth millions of dollars in an effort to keep all the orphans together, off the street, and with a family that obviously cared for them. Yeesh.
The lawsuit makes it sound like the Leomitis kicked the Higgins kids out of the house, and that ABC "profited" from their repeat of the episode (and yeah, they probably did, in terms of sponsorship from advertising and other companies that pay to have their products featured on the show; so what, they do that with EVERY episode, and they don't do it to profit off "fraud" or a family's upset/tragic situation). To me, though, it sounds like the Leomitis did their best for the Higginses, and the Higgenses, for whatever reason, decided the situation wasn't as livable as they thought (seriously, they moved out within TWO weeks of the show fixing the house), and THEY moved out.
Plus they're suing the Leomitis, which I just find ridiculous. I admit, I'd be pretty insulted if I thought a family was using me/my siblings/my "tragic" circumstances to get their house re-done on national TV. But (and maybe this is just what I know based on the article), it didn't sound like the Leomitis had done anything of the sort to instigate such a reaction from the Higginses. And the Higginses seem like the foolish ones for suing the family that took them in. There was no guarantee that their house would get re-made, even if they did all agree to sign up for the makeover. So if there was some sort of sinister "plan" from the Leomitis, it was sure taking an awful big chance on something that wasn't the least bit guaranteed.
And of course, the race card gets brought up, because the Higginses are black, and I assume (based on what I've read) that the Leomitis are white. But seriously, if the Leomitis thought the Higginses were "dirty and smelly" or "lazy," why would they have brought them into their home in the first place? They'd already been family friends for years, known them through church, etc.- if they really thought that way, why would they have even associated with the Higginses? It makes no sense.
Also, I understand, without ever having even researched the application rules, that one has to OWN a home to apply for the makeover. Therefore, it stands to reason that whoever lives in the household, regardless of age or extenuating circumstances, doesn't get any "ownership rights" over the house once it's made over. The rights still belong to the original property owner. Why would that change?
EM was also in the news because a woman's sister committed suicide after she'd been selected for Extreme Makeover (the plastic surgery version, the "original" that I stopped watching ages ago because of its tasteless superficiality) and then had to return to her hometown, without a makeover. But the contract says that the makeover can be halted at any time, with or without reason (though I imagine they wouldn't do that once a makeover is started, but they're well within their rights to bring someone to Hollywood and then say "No, sorry, this isn't going to work." I mean, EM is not a job-- there is no contract that says you're going out of your way, making big sacrifices. They pay for everything. And it turn, it brings them ridiculously high ratings. People like seeing other people be happy.
In the end, ABC and the show's producers decide what will sell and what won't, and it's their prerogative to choose who gets accepted and who doesn't. If the woman was so upset with her appearance as to commit suicide (and if that somehow led into another lawsuit, well, no wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're so frivolous and greedy!), she shouldn't have gone on the show/applied for it in the first place. She should have seen a shrink.
