Production Updates, Announcements and the Monday Movie Meme

After a brief hiatus, The Monday Movie Meme will return in two weeks, on January 28th. I’ve also narrowed the potential editors for my short film down to two guys, so one will hopefully be selected by this weekend. I’m currently logging (hours of) footage -- a tedious and sometimes frustrating, but necessary, task so as to aid in a smooth post-production process.

I’ve been assigned to devour the Oscars for The Lamb sometime between now and February 24th. I have to cover the Best Original Score category, so that should be fun.

Also, remember when I participated in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge last spring? Well,  a few months ago, I accepted an invitation to become a host for this year’s A to Z Challenge! That means I am among the 12 co-hosts for the 2013 Blogging from A to Z Challenge headed by the main host and founder, Arlee Bird at Tossing It Out. There are lots of administrative, organizing, developing, monitoring and general oversight duties that goes along with the hosting position but rather than bore you all with those details, I’m going to sum up the fun and most important part of this event...

The Blogging from A to Z Challenge is an annual blogathon that takes place in April where bloggers here and abroad post a blog every day centered on a different letter of the alphabet. Since its inception, the A to Z Challenge has been growing by the number of participants each year. There were well over 1,700 participants in 2012 and this year is expected to be bigger than ever. Anyone (yes, including YOU) can participate. More details can be found at the A to Z Blog. The sign-up list opens on January 30th.

Here are the Co-Hosts for the 2013 A to Z Challenge:

Arlee Bird at Tossing It Out
Tina Downey at Life is Good
Alex J. Cavanaugh
Damyanti Biswas at Amlokiblogs
Jeremy Hawkins at Retro Zombie
Shannon Lawrence at The Warrior Muse
Stephen Tremp at Breakthrough Blogs
DL Hammons at Cruising Altitude 2.0
Matthew MacNish at The QQQE
Konstanz Silverbow at No Thought Too Small
Nicole Ayers at The Madlab Post
Livia Peterson at Leave It to Livia
L. Diane Wolf at Spunk on a Stick

Last but not least, I will be introducing you all to the cast (and maybe a few crew members as well) of my short film, in the coming weeks. I also realized that the King Dong series slipped my mind over the holidays, so we will be revamping that as well. If there are any actors who you would like to nominate for a spotlight, let me know and I will get on it as soon as I can.

As always, thanks for reading. You guys (and gals) rock!

San Diego News on California fires shut down Prime Time TV Shows

Photo: Miro-Foto of Flickr

The filming of major prime time TV shows has been halted due to the recent California fires that have killed a number of locals and destroyed the homes of many residents. The fires have led to our country’s largest evacuation since Hurricane Katrina. Among the prime time TV shows affected is 24 starring actor Kiefer Sutherland. The producers shut down production after cast and crew members were affected by smoke produced from these fires in California. The filming was then moved from a military base to the show’s soundstages.

Photo: Fox

The CBS TV show Cold Case and ABC’s new show Big Shots were two other programs affected by the fires in California. The sets for Cold Case were blown over by winds from these fires in southern California. The Big Shots TV show was filming in Malibu and had to be canceled as well. NCIS, another CBS prime time series was also filming near the fires in southern California. However, the filming continued for this TV show despite evidence of smoke from their soundstages. Some crew members working on the NCIS TV show had to leave to save their homes during the fires in southern California. The 7th Season of 24 is scheduled to air January 13, 2008.

Source: BBC news

How has the fires in Southern California affected you?

Leave your comments below.

Technorati Tags: fires+in+California, Wildfires, TV+Shows, California+Fires, 24, San+Diego+Fires, Cold+Case, fires+in+southern+California, NCIS, Big+Shots

The Story Behind "Babies on Sale"

Those who have seen the online video “Babies on Sale” may come away with both a quick chuckle and concern about adoption. The video, starring Tony Slade, Danica Moore and Charles McNear reveals an alarming reality of the adoption process. In Babies on Sale, an adoption agent happily announces a discount on human infants. The represented agency has a wide inventory of babies, making it the ideal destination for couples seeking adoption. While delivered as comedy at best, Babies on Sale offers a deeper insight into capitalism in the world of adoption.

Many adoption agencies receive large profits after facilitating the adoption of a baby. This indicates that these adoption agencies are more concerned with their bottom line, so they operate much like typical businesses. While there are costs that cannot be avoided, adoption agency fees have been astronomical over the years. The lowest standard cost to adopt an infant is about $22,000 currently. These costs include the necessary legal debt and other associated expenses including agency fees.

However, infants are being adopted for over $40,000 at some adoption agencies. These high fees are paid for both domestic and international adoptions. In fact, a healthy infant born in the United States could cost up to $60,000 to adopt. This may not be that big of an issue if there were an abundance of infants available for adoption. However, infants are more easily obtained through private agencies and independent adoptions. It is this fact that gives adoption agencies an opportunity to take advantage of hopeful parents.

The adoption of infants in America is a matter of supply and demand. The agency that can provide a healthy infant gets the gold. On one hand, it should be a good to know that children have found loving homes. However, it is painstakingly obvious that babies are stuck in the middle of greedy and critical transactions between adoption agencies and prospective parents. They have become a product that is being traded for money.

Couples are placed a delicate situation when choosing to adopt a child. With a potential $60,000 expense hanging over their head, couples have to decide on how bad they want a child. Adoption agencies are the result of such a difficult decision. This is sad that children are placed much like merchandise by adoption agencies. Before paying out tens of thousands of dollars, one must choose between adoption and purchasing a new car.

“Do I want a child or should I get the new BMW M5”? As brutal as the comparison may seem, this is the reality of adoption nationwide. The high fees charged by adoption agencies are the result of such a likening. Infants are being treated like merchandise. The youngest and healthiest will bring in the most profit. Children with special needs and older kids are less expensive. For that reason, those who are not able to pay for a healthy infant can always adopt a child with special needs or an 8 year-old from the local Department of Social Services and Welfare.

Using the aforementioned product comparison, a couple who budgeted properly could adopt a sexually abused toddler from a public agency and still have enough money left over to get a Toyota Yaris. However, many couples desire newborn babies. Adoption agencies are aware of this and take advantage every chance that they get. People who want babies can get them so long as they do not mind paying high fees for them. The fact that children are given different price tags dependent upon their health, age and background should be alarming in and of itself.

Couples who cannot afford to pay high fees are even offered financial loans and other incentives. It is be normal for someone to take out a loan to buy a house or attend school. Only in our society do we allow loans to be provided for the purpose of adopting a child. Due to the way that adoption agencies operate, the term “adoption” is just another fancy word used to replace “purchase”. In reality, that is what couples are doing. Adoption agencies are selling and couples are buying.

When adoption fees are lowered significantly, then maybe one will believe the true concept of adoption that is marketed everywhere. The true concept of adoption should be carried out with the sole purpose of helping a child find loving parents. There are an abundance of children who are in need of caring homes. Children are no cheap to care for. It already costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a child. The same money used to adopt a baby could be utilized to provide food, shelter and a college education for the same child. There is no justification for charging additional and unnecessary fees to facilitate an adoption. The agencies that do so should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.nacac.org/how_adoptiontypes.html
http://www.adoptionservices.org/adoption/adoption_costs.htm