Rome - The series!
- Thread starter Rulke
- Start date
Escape
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,643
The first episode started with the Romans holding off Gauls. Only ~40 extras were used in the scene but it gave the impression of a larger conflict.
I expected something similar to begin in ep#08, whilst a hazy dream/memory sequence played out... and then we find out that was the battle!
Even footage from "ROME: Total War" would've been better
I expected something similar to begin in ep#08, whilst a hazy dream/memory sequence played out... and then we find out that was the battle!
Even footage from "ROME: Total War" would've been better
Mofo8
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 363
Clown said:
When Cleopatra came to visit Caesar in Rome, she brought a one year old son she claimed was his. He refused to acknowledge the child as his as he was still married. Cleopatra gave a clue to the father by the subtle method of naming him Caesarion (which is the title of the espisode in question). She later went onto produce twin sprogs with Mark Anthony after Caesar's assasination. She was obviously a bit of a shagger, but seemed very skillfull at mostly picking the right people to shag - to increase her power and influence - or maybe she just shagged everyone
The most important thing to remember, and something not made too clear in the series is how much the Romans of the Republic despised royalty and kings.... and Caesar started acting like one.
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,216
DaGaffer said:
Reading Wiki, it says that he was reputed to have been born via ceasarion section and hence his name arose because of that - although it also says that this is unlikely, since mothers were usually dead before that procedure, and his mother survived his birth.
Read the wiki entry on Caeser, its fascinating and gives a good background to the series, you'd be surprised how accurate some of the storytelling is.
Anyhow, this series fucking rocks.
Draylor
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,591
So after reading that the BBC were to edit the first 3 episodes into 2 I watched the first ep on BBC2.
Wonder what anyone that hadnt seen the US version thought of it: I wasnt at all impressed.
What a mess. Various full scenes cut (which didnt fit with their explanation above at all), and other scenes shortened in a very ugly way.BBCs explanation of edits said:
Wonder what anyone that hadnt seen the US version thought of it: I wasnt at all impressed.
Draylor
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,591
Tdc that was episode 1 with around 20minutes (!) cut out, and assorted footage from episode 2 inserted.
For example the final scene, with an army marching, was the final scene from episode 1. It was cut so short in the BBC version since they wouldnt want to show that it was actually Vorenus, Pullo and Octavian heading back into Rome
For example the final scene, with an army marching, was the final scene from episode 1. It was cut so short in the BBC version since they wouldnt want to show that it was actually Vorenus, Pullo and Octavian heading back into Rome
Turamber
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Messages
- 3,558
Rather enjoyed the episode on BBC2 last night, thought they captured the spirit of Rome very well. Seemed a little strange that they advertised it as the 'beginning of Rome', seeing as it was 300-400 years old at that point and had already fought its life or death wars with both the Etruscans and Carthaginians but that might be nit-picking.
Rather like the understated way they showed you their recreation of Rome. Most programmes these days you'd have had a good 5 minutes of CGI gratutiously thrown in there. Revealing the city little-by-little is a good move.
A few little inaccuracies in the episode (eg. Caesar was not a career soldier, he was a politician and a 'chancer') but overall excellent. Looking forward to seeing how it unfolds!
Rather like the understated way they showed you their recreation of Rome. Most programmes these days you'd have had a good 5 minutes of CGI gratutiously thrown in there. Revealing the city little-by-little is a good move.
A few little inaccuracies in the episode (eg. Caesar was not a career soldier, he was a politician and a 'chancer') but overall excellent. Looking forward to seeing how it unfolds!
DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,412
Tom said:
Treat most stuff you read on Wiki with a pinch of salt tbh. Since his dad's name was Gaius Julius Ceasar (as well), it doesn't really make logical sense that he was named after the procedure rather than the other way round does it?
Only watched the first episode last night. Looked like there's a good series in there marred by some seriously shoddy editing.
stormrider
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 130
Draylor said:
ah that explains it. I thought it seemed rather disjointed, particularly with Pompey being offerred a wife, then the actual marriage.
They seemed to be able to fit in all the sex scenes though - not that I'm complaining or anything
TdC
Trem's hunky sex love muffin
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 30,805
Draylor said:Tdc that was episode 1 with around 20minutes (!) cut out, and assorted footage from episode 2 inserted.
For example the final scene, with an army marching, was the final scene from episode 1. It was cut so short in the BBC version since they wouldnt want to show that it was actually Vorenus, Pullo and Octavian heading back into Rome
damn, so that was it :/
Anyone who's watched QI will tell you that Ceaser wasnt a Ceaserian birth.
The origin is meant to be the latin word "caedare" - "to cut"
Cesarean Section
Cesarean section, or the surgical delivery of a child, is a term with an interesting etymology and lots of associated folklore. Greek myth had Apollo delivering his son, Aesclepius, by C-section. But by far the most pervasive legend regarding this operation is associated with its name.
Legend has it that Julius Caesar was surgically delivered, hence his name from the Latin caesus, meaning "to have been cut." This seems unlikely as Caesar's mother, Aurelia, survived his birth and lived to hear news of his invasion of Britain. Surgical deliveries were well known in Roman times, but almost always resulted in the death of the mother. The operation would be performed only in the slim hope of saving the child or to fulfill Roman law that said that mothers and children dying in birth should be buried separately. Other versions of the legend have a relative of Caesar's being surgically delivered and conferring the name upon his younger relation.
This origin of Julius's name is not certain, though. Pliny reported that the name derived from caesaries, or hair, as the future dictator of Rome was born with a full head of hair.
But did the term come from the legend, true or not, that Caesar or one of his relatives was surgically delivered? It appears to be the case. A myth engendered the phrase.
A term, now obsolete, for babies delivered by Cesarean section was cesares, coined in 1540. In that year, R. Jonas in Roesslin's Byrth of Mankynde writes:
They that are borne after this fashion be called cesares, for because they be cut out of theyr mothers belly, whervpon also the noble Romane cesar the .j. of that name in Rome toke his name.
The term Cesarean section dates to at least 1615, first used in Crooke's Body of Man.
Having nothing whatsoever to with etymology, the following are some interesting facts regarding C-sections:
The first recorded C-section in which the mother lived was performed in 1500 by a Swiss pig gelder, Jacob Nufer, who performed the operation on his wife. The woman had been labor for several days when Nufer got permission to attempt the operation. Both she and the child survived. She subsequently gave birth to five other children, including twins. The story was not recorded until 1582, however, so its authenticity is somewhat questionable.
Despite the long tradition of midwifery, surgical deliveries were the province of men until very recently. The first cesarean delivery performed by a woman in the British Empire was sometime between 1815 and 1821. It was performed by "James" Miranda Stuart Barry, who was masquerading as a man and serving as a physician with the British army in South Africa.
A British traveler, R.W. Felkin, reported witnessing a surgical delivery by native healers in Uganda in 1879. The patient recovered. Felkin concluded from the technique and apparent expertise of the surgeon that the procedure was well established. Similar reports are to be had from Rwanda.
In comparison, one estimate cited by the National Library of Medicine estimates that not one woman survived a cesarean in Paris in the years between 1787 and 1876.
The National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health has a web page, dated August 1994, on the history of cesarean deliveries which I have used a source for some of the above information.
Anyway, I hear there's quite a bit of fanny in the series -is it true?
The origin is meant to be the latin word "caedare" - "to cut"
Cesarean Section
Cesarean section, or the surgical delivery of a child, is a term with an interesting etymology and lots of associated folklore. Greek myth had Apollo delivering his son, Aesclepius, by C-section. But by far the most pervasive legend regarding this operation is associated with its name.
Legend has it that Julius Caesar was surgically delivered, hence his name from the Latin caesus, meaning "to have been cut." This seems unlikely as Caesar's mother, Aurelia, survived his birth and lived to hear news of his invasion of Britain. Surgical deliveries were well known in Roman times, but almost always resulted in the death of the mother. The operation would be performed only in the slim hope of saving the child or to fulfill Roman law that said that mothers and children dying in birth should be buried separately. Other versions of the legend have a relative of Caesar's being surgically delivered and conferring the name upon his younger relation.
This origin of Julius's name is not certain, though. Pliny reported that the name derived from caesaries, or hair, as the future dictator of Rome was born with a full head of hair.
But did the term come from the legend, true or not, that Caesar or one of his relatives was surgically delivered? It appears to be the case. A myth engendered the phrase.
A term, now obsolete, for babies delivered by Cesarean section was cesares, coined in 1540. In that year, R. Jonas in Roesslin's Byrth of Mankynde writes:
They that are borne after this fashion be called cesares, for because they be cut out of theyr mothers belly, whervpon also the noble Romane cesar the .j. of that name in Rome toke his name.
The term Cesarean section dates to at least 1615, first used in Crooke's Body of Man.
Having nothing whatsoever to with etymology, the following are some interesting facts regarding C-sections:
The first recorded C-section in which the mother lived was performed in 1500 by a Swiss pig gelder, Jacob Nufer, who performed the operation on his wife. The woman had been labor for several days when Nufer got permission to attempt the operation. Both she and the child survived. She subsequently gave birth to five other children, including twins. The story was not recorded until 1582, however, so its authenticity is somewhat questionable.
Despite the long tradition of midwifery, surgical deliveries were the province of men until very recently. The first cesarean delivery performed by a woman in the British Empire was sometime between 1815 and 1821. It was performed by "James" Miranda Stuart Barry, who was masquerading as a man and serving as a physician with the British army in South Africa.
A British traveler, R.W. Felkin, reported witnessing a surgical delivery by native healers in Uganda in 1879. The patient recovered. Felkin concluded from the technique and apparent expertise of the surgeon that the procedure was well established. Similar reports are to be had from Rwanda.
In comparison, one estimate cited by the National Library of Medicine estimates that not one woman survived a cesarean in Paris in the years between 1787 and 1876.
The National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health has a web page, dated August 1994, on the history of cesarean deliveries which I have used a source for some of the above information.
Anyway, I hear there's quite a bit of fanny in the series -is it true?