Talk:Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Cost procedures 2 Overhaul 3 Criticism 4 50 more episodes coming? 5 Marlee Matlin

[edit] Cost procedures

I'm curious if anyone knows how the financial situation works between the network and the family. I would assume that ABC would have to buy the house and land in order to do the renovations to the extent that they do. Futhermore the property tax that the family would be left with could be too much for many of them. Are there contractual agreements for ABC to pay the tax? Is the family required to live there for a specified period of time before they can sell it and move someplace less costly? Anyone know the answers to these questions?They are ....Ñ

Having indirectly worked with the show, and seen two homes here locally get 'made over", it is run kinda like the story of "Stone Soup"... ABC and the producers pick a family, and then go to the businesses and people of that community, and beg for donations of time, labor, materials, and, oh yeah, money. No contracts exist to my knowledge regarding home resale or tax liabilities. ABC sets it all up, has everyone pay for the bulk of it, and takes all the credit. Check-Six 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for local laws on property taxes, but the federal gift tax is avoided by a loophole that allows for the tax-free "improvement" of rental property. In essence, ABC rents the property from the family for the week. The family is payed in improvements to the property. In this case, the improvement is usually the demolition and construction of a new house. 63.246.163.240 05:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

This page is in need of an update -- grammar errors, cast members, etc...

[edit] Criticism

Does anyone know of any criticism for this pap? I've seen every episode, and I know that it's really an hour-long commercial for sears etc. I can't be the only one who has noticed this, nor can I be the only one who finds trite such formulaic tugging of the heart strings. Turly-burly 12:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Noted the criticism in the PopReview article. Wish I could find more. Turly-burly 04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If every long-form commercial resulted in improving the lives of people who much more often than not were victim to something beyond their control, I'm not sure it would be bad. Of course it's a commercial, of course it's made to be heart-wrenching...but the heart-wrenching leads to viewers, and viewers lead to advertisers, and advertisers lead to money and donations that can be used on the houses. ...just a possible insight into the difficulty in finding criticism. (That, and anyone who criticizes will immediately get attacked as hating people who have little money/are victims of {disaster/disease}, so I imagine most potential criticizers just find something else. ;) ) --24.23.84.46 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we should be able to find some more articles on criticism, though. I mean, a bunch of things jump to mind right off the bat. The idea that they're putting these houses in neighborhoods which are completely inappropriate is the first thing, but is only touched on briefly in the criticism section. Similarly, I often question the practicality of these houses. Will the family have to pay to refurbish Junior's room when a pirate theme is no longer appropriate? And how do you sell a house that has five bedrooms and two bathrooms -- one of which has five sinks and two showers?

I don't really even think the Sears aspect is as troubling as what I mentioned above. Product placement is a simple fact of life in modern day TV. --Wolf530 04:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My question would be, why are you so determined to find criticism? The criticism that exists already can hardly be called NPOV. Sounds more like pseudo-Communist ramblings. JettaMann 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, please. Now you're just being hyperbolic. I think a good encyclopedia article needs to show both sides when they exist. The fact of the matter is, this show has good intentions -- but just because we only see the family crying on the front end does not mean they're not crying on the back end. There are real consequences to dropping a $500k house in a $60k-median neighborhood. How is it pseudo-communist to point this out? For the article to be full and complete, it should look at the positive and negative aspects of what the show does. Simple as that. Take your rampant optimism elsewhere. --Wolf530 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I would like for you to explain to me is exactly why you feel it is your job to use Wikipedia as a platform to find every last possible piece of criticism you can find for this show, or really any show or person that tries to use the corporate ladder to improve the lives of others. I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of criticisms, and you might even be able to some legitmate source for it. What validity is there in adding that criticism if it is only held in the minority view? What possible value does some trite little fact that four people thought was interesting add to this or any other article?

Those of you who are habitual criticism seekers, I highly recommend you stop, analyze your own intentions, and then of course read the various Wikipedia guidelines on sources, what you can and cannot use, and what you really shouldn't even bother using.--Arkcana 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The only criticism I have is rather weak and adds to the criticism brought up above. The rooms they build and decorate for, say, a kid who is ten, is very ten-year-oldish. What happens 18 months from now when they grow out of it? I think they could... tone down the way they design the children's rooms instead of just covering the room in whatever the flavor of the week is. BrainRotMenacer 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have enjoyed the show over the year, a real tear jerker sometimes. However the show about the family in Lincoln, NE was weak. I sure wish the show was on when I first got divorced so they could have built me a house.

The property tax issue is a major one. See this webpage about a family that can't pay the property taxes after EMHE redid their house. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/FEATURES01/701080359 And there's also a potential income tax issue: if the improvements to the home get classified as gameshow or lottery winnings, then they are taxable income. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/05/tax_consequence.html Jaysbro 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The second link can't be used directly because it is a blog, but if you could find the Newsweek article it mentions, that would be perfect. The first one I'd be very careful how you worded the information though. It would be very easy to twist what the article is saying and introduce ideas that are anti-subject... I would word it something like "After the makeover is complete, assessment values often rise and homeowners have difficulty meeting their new tax level. Congressmen in some states are working towards resolving tax laws to avoid such issues." Something like that, closer to what the article is saying, rather than the usual "Extreme Home Makeover gives no thought to the rising land values after the so-called makover, leaving the disabled homeowner in worse shape than they were before" that I would expect from the usual critics.--Arkcana 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The question that bugs me the most about the show is the quality of the construction. While I'm sure that all of the people who build the houses are experts, the idea of crafting a house in seven days, especially some of the massive houses I've seen built on the show, seems too haphazard to be true. Has there been any documented case of any of the houses built on the show suffering damage or extensive need for post-construction repairs or touch-ups? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't access google at the moment but was there not an episode where later it was revealed that the person they built the house for was an ex-con? Also the Lincoln NE episode locally was spoke out against from people who knew them and didn't see the need of the family. I should check local paper back issues for it, unless someone can cite first. --Xiahou 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 more episodes coming?

Commercials being aired around Summer 2006 seem to show Ty P. saying that the show is going to do a tour of the U.S. and visit every state. If that's to be believed, ABC may be planning to air another 50~ episodes. --24.23.84.46 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marlee Matlin

This page lists Marlee Matlin as a new cast member, but I believe she's a one-episode celebrity guest host. Am I wrong? - 208.107.8.49 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)