They got it right the first time.

"Roots" taught us white Americans what we never learned in school; more about the evils of slavery than we ever knew, and more than most ever wanted to learn.

the portrayal of slaves or risk the wrath of the Neo-Confederates.

All so happy and comfy before the big, bad northern war of aggression.

n/t

on a series about a dynasty of skunk hunters who drive cars they made out of appliance boxes, lawn mower engines and tiny-tot beauty pageant trophies, while re-enacting various scenes from Hitler's life before 1920, when he worked in a pawn shop buying and selling ancient alien artifacts to a select clientele of Sasquatch?

n/t

I know - they go around the country solving crimes, and they fund their endeavors by winning cooking contests where ever they go!

Definitely a winner.

It's not like there aren't a number of historical figures they could profile from the time of slavery, if that's their motivation. Geez, let's see a Harriet Tubman biopic. Now that's a part to sink one's teeth into.

William Lloyd Garrison:

"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD."

“Enslave the liberty of but one human being and the liberties of the world are put in peril. ”

I think ROOTS was a moment in time, and it holds up pretty well. I don't think anyone would be able to play any role without being compared to the originals. Why not create something new that adds to the available motion picture materials about the era.

People today will probably be more likely to watch a newer version series versus a 30 plus year old TV mini-series.

The right wing pigs are trying to spin the "slavery was actually good for Black Folks" B.S. lately - so why not?

Too bad it's not on a major network.

What they produce is likely to make Mandingo look like a documentary.

Like I said, I'm not thrilled with the proposed choice of networks.

Anywhoo, you me and Dabney Coleman probably agree:

Or a"director's cut" version?

The original should stand - just cosmetically refresh it to renew interest!

On the other hand, maybe they want a wide screen version.Or maybe they want to re-write it so it is less offensive to Tea Baggers.

Why?

forecast by Nostradamus and then finally the link to Hitler.

The "history" channel has been messed up longer than the "music" channel and the "learning channel". Their monikers are similar to those "Peacemaker" missiles. Nothing but oxymoronic drivel.

Tonight on The History Channel

That is my brothers spot on summary of the History Channel

concerned about the third sentence - "which is said to offer a contemporary take on both the book and the original miniseries." How do you make a serious historical story, set primarily in the past, "contemporary"?

Like how? Are they going to set it in a different time period? Or just show more graphic violence and add a plethora of completely gratuitous profanity and sex? The latter is my guess.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original - they could remake it with the current crop of more recognizable actors without changing a word or a scene and it would still be as powerful as the day it first played.



edited because apparently my title shortened itself (odd).

they probably used up almost all the african american actors who had the name recognition and chops in order to make the mini-series. It's nice to know that now, they have far more african american actors, both in quantity and quality, to amply make this remake.

I look forward to seeing this remake.

Yes, dear, they used up ALL the AA actors - because they only had three, they had to use make-up and wigs so they could play the different roles. And they were all pretty lame actors, too - not much quality back then, but hey, what can you expect from the olden days?

OJ into the mix.

There had to be multiple white "sympathetic" characters that had to be included to ensure the white audience didn't run away from the series early on. Ed Asner as the guilt riddled skipper of the Lord Ligonier as an example. Plus the insertion of OJ Simpson as a ratings grabbing cameo. I look forward to seeing how the material is presented moving forward.

Nothing will top Gossett's Fiddler. Probably the best acted role I ever saw on television

I never understand why someone wants to repeat what has already been done, when there's so much potential out there for new material.

Plus, in the case of something like "Roots", it is a classic that shouldn't be messed with. I didn't like that Steel Magnolias was remade either. Leave "awesome" alone!!!

Gen X studio heads are no better than the Boomer nostalgia addicts (Wonder Years, Happy Days, American Pie.. ad nauseum).

They keep making movies out of horrible books (Twilight, 50 Shades, Divergent etc.) and comic books are the new action movies. It is rare to see a good film out of Hollywood. I had hopes for Elysium but it was to actiony, barely any character development and clumsy arc, it was an anvil. Can't they do science fiction without ridiculous action sequences? Why can't they hire good writers and directors? Why must everything be product placement/merchandised? Disney animated movies are all the same movie.

God, I never thought I would say this in a million years but I miss the 1970s. Hollywood--Please don't ruin it by remaking everything from that era. Instead, pick up current compelling novels written for adults (not young adults) and make good movies without disneyfying it, Tarantinoing it, or turning it into Star Wars. Give America realism and by realism, I don't mean soft porn (idiots). I watch independent films when left to myself and Netflix. My husband rents a movie on cable every week and it always seems like the same one from each category. (Action/thriller--Neeson or that horrible actor who plays the same person in every movie he does... who cares what his name is; Comic book-- the best ones have Ironman or Batman in them; Sci fi-- some horrible monster from outer space wants to eat you; Fantasy--D&D wander around New Zealand forests; and Young Adult paranormal/dystopian romance., the occasional formula horror/slasher film; RomCom crossed with adolescent locker room humor.)

I have written in the science fiction field (not lately) and have always had a keen interest but they have almost never done a serious SF movie ever. It is nearly all on the same level as Buck Rogers and Ming the Merciless from the 1930's except with CGI. Television had a few good things years ago. Something by Ursula K. le Guin and a good adaptation of Solaris (S. Lem). But then we had all the Star Wars/Trek fluff. There have been immense possibilities in SF dealing (as George Orwell did) with very serious social issues or dysfunctional futures but the media moguls ignore these. I think Star Wars (amusing sometimes) was a blight and socio-politically retrograde (fascist medal award ceremonies, sly racism and classism etc.). Robert Heinlein did some serious works on a Dominionist future but this has been utterly ignored. And so it goes (as the late Kurt Vonnegut would say).

As they might add a pro-right wing spin to it (as IMO that channel has move that way recently). Hopefully Wolper's son will try to prevent this and give it more a "punch" that the earlier version couldn't.