I just finished watching "Roots"! — Page 2

ROOTS is an excellent novel and an equally excellent mini series. Looking back at the time both made an impact it was an important event because it forced us to look at the atrocities of our history's past and it also catapulted a phenomenon of tracing one's lineage. The only thing that tarnished ROOTS was the discovery that Alex Haley was sued for plagiarism because certain parts of ROOTS were "borrowed" from another novel THE AFRICAN by Harold Courlander.

Courlander sued Haley and Haley admitted passages from Courlander's novel were lifted and used in ROOTS. He later stated it was "unintentional". Also genealogists have since come to the conclusion that Kunta Kinte is not a Haley ancestor.

All in all it is a great read, an important work of fiction and a landmark television mini series despite all the controversy that eventually surrounded it.

I didn't remember that they showed it over 8 consecutive days.

I thought it went

Sunday - 2 episodes
Monday - 1 episode
Tuesday - 1 episode
Wednesday - 1 episode
Thursday - 1 episode

---

Yeah, because we know that whitey was to blame for the whole slavery thing. Not one African tribal chief profited off of the deal. Not one black person owned slaves in America. Nope, obviously all whitey's fault. (Time for some people to lay down their Howard Zinn and face truth).

I just thought I owed it to this post to let it make it to another page.

"Mid-'70s TV was the zenith for the "mini-series" and "TV movie" formats."

And the variety show format as well(Burnett, Sonny & Cher, etc)

I think today's tv doesn't want to put the money into the big event mini-series.

Plus would today's actors want to lay aside their ego to perform in an ensemble piece like Roots?

---

Additionally - I'll argue that timing is everything. Roots appeared on TV at the right time. If the same miniseries hit the airwaves today, it would be well received - but I doubt it would be the phenomenon that it has become.

---

yes, you did, q. it come from drinking samuel adams and listening to jimmy hendrix band of gypsies.

---

PRS

Yes.. didn't you know this? And anyone who is sexually assaulted was asking for it. I though this was common knowledge.


(oh - for the people randomly google searching this thread. SARCASM!)

---

Ah, I guess you don't know how to register hyperbole. Is that the darkies' fault, too?

Phyllis, I tried to be as diplomatic as I could be with regards to Goth's previous comments...but I soon just found them comical as usual and resigned myself to that fact. Oh and thank you for totally getting what I was saying about my Grandmother

As in my previous posts, some people's hands just weren't clean at the time. That includes white, black, Native Americans, and others who had a hand in slavery.

Because some black people were brought to America as slaves, is that the fault of all white people?

Goth, there you go again. *sigh* The only person here even suggesting that ALL white people were to blame is you. By continually saying that blasphemous word when referring to Caucasians, it clouds that fact that obviously NOT ALL white people participated in slavery. Have we already forgotten about, dare I say, WHITE abolitionists who helped escaped and freed slaves?

---

"I have the prettiest mother..."--Rhoda Penmark~~~ The Bad Seed

Updated On: 3/5/09 at 12:31 PM

Papa, you are a sick individual...and that's why I secretly HEART you.

---

I openly HEART papa.

It's other things with him that are a secret.

Q---As much as you might have enjoyed John Adams and Band of Brothers, they were pay-cable "events." And while HBO has a nice subscription base which helps pay for the production of these (excellent) mini-series examples, they don't even come CLOSE to the viewership of anything back in the '70s.

They don't even come close to the viewership of one episode of "Roseanne" back in the '80s.

So, yes, you imagined them. For many out there in TV land, they don't even "exist."

TV viewership has been on a huge decline in the past 15 years. Mostly due to the oversaturation of "specialty" channels. And the rise of on-demand, internet broadcasting, DVR and DVD.

"They don't make 'em like they used to" is arguable, but "they don't watch 'em like they used to" is fact. I think certainly production values and technology are FAR better than what was available in the '70s. I was actually surprised to go back and watch "Roots" a few years ago. It felt a bit "cheap" by today's standards, because I'm so spoiled by the possibilities now. But what wasn't "cheap" (and was arguably even better) was the acting and especially the writing of the '70s examples mentioned above. And there's no amount of HD or CGI you can throw at the screen today that will compensate for a well-told, well-acted story.

But viewership? Can't argue. The '70s blow today out of the water. As much as HBO wants you to think "John Adams" is a nationwide event? It's reaching about a tenth of the audience that "Roots" did.

Years ago, in the mid-'80s, before the Internet, and when VCR rentals were still relatively new, I remember Spielberg reacting when somebody told him that "E.T." was one of the highest grossing films of all-time. He said, "Yes, but the viewership of just 3 episodes of the Cosby Show outdo the entire worldwide viewership to date for E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial."

I thought that was pretty fascinating. That's how big TV was at one time. And viewership was DOWN in the mid-'80s from the mid-'70s!

---

Not to stir up the argument any further, but America long ago outlawed slavery and there is now a Black president in office.

Yet in many countries of the world slavery still exists on a large scale, even in places where it is illegal. Even in Africa.

I would venture to say that in spite of its dubious past, America has it above other countries as far as slavery goes. With Roots, America was owning up to its past, unlike Turkey with Armenia and many, many other examples.