Life Force: Major New Sci-Fi Drama For CITV
Greg Taylor
I thought you might be interested to hear that CITV (UK) has a major new
science-fiction drama starting in the New Year.
Life Force is set in 2025, a time when global warming has advanced such that
much of today's world has drowned. On the brink of chaos the world is
swamped with climate refugees ("climeys") and an oppressive federal
government rules Britain with a ruthless task force known as The Commission.
2025 is also a time when genetic engineering has given mankind a new kind of
person. Senders - as they are known - have advanced telepathic abilities and
can hack into other people's minds at will.
Senders, along with climeys and the practice of science of any kind, are
outlawed.
Greg (played by Coronation Street's Paul Fox) and Karen Webber come together
with two on-the-run sender children, Ash Karnak and Mai-Li Cheung, to
protect life and help rescue Earth from disaster.
They are Life Force.
A major new drama for the new millennium.
Starting in January on CITV.
***
There are 13 x 25 minute episodes in series one. The series has been
produced by Childsplay Television (Streetwise, All Change, Eye of the Storm,
Pirates, Children of the New Forest). The website is at www.life-force.co.uk
Greg Taylor
Geoff Lane
"Greg Taylor" <greg.t...@virgin.net> writes:
> A major new drama for the new millennium.
> Starting in January on CITV.
With or without the CITV DOG?
At some point the broadcasters will finally realise that their highly
annoying attempts to establish "brand identity" are doomed to failure.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Today's target: 47.639963 N; 122.130295 W. Fire at Will!!
Today's Excuse:
SIMM crosstalk.
Greg Taylor
Y'know, the majority of the public doesn't actually give a toss!
It's 16x9 too.
Geoff Lane <zza...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8381f5$8m7$1...@yama.mcc.ac.uk...
Peter Weir
Greg Taylor wrote:
>
> Almost certainly with the CITV dog.
>
> Y'know, the majority of the public doesn't actually give a toss!
Well, I'll tell you for nothing that on-screen channel logos really
piss me off. I don't know, I may be alone in this, but... No, sorry, but
I'm afraid that they're crap.
;-)
Peter
Greg Taylor
I don't think the television companies get enough adverse comments made to
take notice.
There are probably lots of people who object but most - in the traditional
British way -
just put up with it.
Greg
Peter Weir <peter...@chch.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3858152A...@chch.ox.ac.uk...
David Given
"Greg Taylor" <greg.t...@virgin.net> writes:
> Of course - everyone's entitled to their opinion.
>
> I don't think the television companies get enough adverse comments made to
> take notice.
> There are probably lots of people who object but most - in the traditional
> British way -
> just put up with it.
The thing I get annoyed about is when they cut off all the end credits,
even when they're appropriate to the story (for example, the music, or
pictures behind the credits). Last scene -> one second of credits -> inane
moron jabbering on about the next program. Urg.
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "...it's not that well-designed GUI's are
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | rare, it's just that the three-armed users
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | GUI's are designed for are rare." --- Mike
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ Uhl on a.f.c
Greg Taylor
tune to be
heard!
But the research shows people change channels during them, so
the chatting-over-end-credits phenomenon is just an attempt to keep the
viewer watching.
David Given <d...@pearl.tao.co.uk> wrote in message
news:71ja38...@127.0.0.1...
Geoff Lane
"Greg Taylor" <greg.t...@virgin.net> writes:
> But the research shows people change channels during them, so
> the chatting-over-end-credits phenomenon is just an attempt to keep the
> viewer watching.
Does it work? No it doesn't!
Getting back to DOGs. If "people" don't care, have they noticed them? If
they learn to ignore them what is the point of having them? Some kind of
subliminal effect? Where's the research that shows DOGs produce higher or
more loyal audiences or better "brand awareness"?
DOGs appear to have all the effectiveness of canned laughter ie None.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Today's target: 47.639963 N; 122.130295 W. Fire at Will!!
Today's Excuse:
broadcast packets on wrong frequency
Greg Taylor
> Does it work? No it doesn't!
Subjective I suppose. I'm sure research has been done.
> Getting back to DOGs. If "people" don't care, have they noticed them? If
> they learn to ignore them what is the point of having them? Some kind of
> subliminal effect? Where's the research that shows DOGs produce higher or
> more loyal audiences or better "brand awareness"?
> DOGs appear to have all the effectiveness of canned laughter ie None.
I'm not going to prolong the DOG debate because I honestly can't be mithered
but canned laughter works to great effect in the CITV series "Mike &
Angelo".
Greg