MovieChat Forums > 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) Discussion > Gorgo as female commander was an insult ...

Gorgo as female commander was an insult to both men and women

posted 11 years ago by Lin301
187 replies | jump to latest

I hate how gender roles are being all messed up these days under the 'feminist' flag and anyone who dares say otherwise is a sexist. I believe in equal rights for men and women, but this is not that! This is women taking over male atributes and archetypes and thereby both denying men's masculinity and their own femninity.

I think the first 300 did it perfectly: men were men, women were women; both respected and loved the other for their attributes; women were the birthgivers, nurturing and wise, men were the leaders (not bosses!), protectors and somewhat selfdestructive as I believe all men are. This is what made the relation between Gorgo and Leonidas so intimate to me, they had a deep mutual respect for one another whilst maintaining their own gender attributes.

Then along comes Rise of an Empire and we suddenly see Gorgo swinging around a blade in her evening dress as the front commander of the Spartans. Remember how 300 ended with Dilios leading the troops (where did that battle take places anyways?) and not Gorgo; it's because it was not her role as queen of Sparta. Apparantly now we have to ensure women are just as manly as men? Even if it's a historical piece of a time where this wasn't an issue? Are we not simply destroying what it means to be a woman by having them adopt male attributes? To me this is the same as wanting equal rights for gays and then showing they can be just as hetero as hetersexual people. Am I the only one seeing the insanity of this development? I hope someone can provide me with more insight because this was just ridiculous

---

Edit for further elaboration in reply to:

" women were the birthgivers, nurturing and wise, men were the leaders (not bosses!), protectors and somewhat selfdestructive as I believe all men are."

This in itself is sexist against both males and females lmao. You do realize a lot of "feminine" and "masculine" attributes are social constructs? As in they have been made up at one point and then spread? Several aspects and/or things that are commonly thought of as male or female have been neither gender or thought as belong to the opposite once upon a time (easy example is the color pink, considered to be feminine, when it was at first considered a masculine color. Now you got guys like you probably, thinking it make a man look "womanly" if he wears pink. Btw high heels were also for males at first, yet a guy wearing that would get so much crap today for acting "gay"). Do you even realize that the belief in rigid ideas about masculinity is one of the leading reasons for male suicide since it plays a huge role in causing anxiety in men? You whining over what? A female being assertive? Because that belongs only to men? That is utterly ridiculous. And lmao on women being "nurturing and wise". The idea that all women are nurturing is *beep* despite all girls being exposed to the idea that they should be since they are children (e.g. girls are almost always giving toys/dolls that they have to take care off, even if they have no interest). Guys are denied to be shown as nurturing as well as if there is someone wrong to care for others, especially their own children. No gender is inherently wise either. That is just a posterous idea.

I agree with you that some gender attributes are social constructs, but you can't deny there aren't any biological differences between men and women; I must admit I dont exactly know which is which (I don't believe a clear distinction can be made) but I do like to discuss this topic with women and most say they believe they act more from their emotions than men, which act more from their ego (which makes some sense I guess evolution-wise). The examples I gave in the part you quoted where just the ones I felt were set up in the world of the first 300, where women were respected for ''giving birth to real men'' and the men were heavily trained in the art of combat. Sexist or not, that was 300. Obviously these attributes don't apply today; I apologise for not being more clear about that. I also didn't mean to say women can't be assertive; as Gorgo was assertive in the first 300 when she stabbed that corrupt politician dude and she obviously had some control over Leonidas as he asked for her permission to kick the Persian messenger down the pitt. I actually thought she was a strong female character in that movie. My main beef was with how Rise of an Empire broke with these roles set up in the first movie and we suddenly see Gorgo on the front line waving a blade around. Note that I didn't mind Artemesia as a assertive female warrior, just how they changed Gorgo for whatever reasons; as I mentioned in the op my best guess was to conform more to modern gender roles, which is exactly what I hate in a lot of movies these days (or ever)

[–] al666940-3 11 years ago

Dude, 300 and this are like 99% FANTASY (300 even had mutants, aliens and dinosaurs).

Why would they stop at that and not have women behave like they most likely did not?

I was kinda waiting for the Spartans to fly like Superman, since they already have capes...

[–] spxxx 11 years ago

aliens and dinosaurs

Yeah... That never happened...

Yippee Ki-Yay!

[–] al666940-3 11 years ago

Dinosaurs: WTF do you call rhinoceros and elephants bigger than 3 stories buildings in the movie?

Aliens/mutants/whatever: the giant Leonidas fights in the first fight, the thing with crab clamps for arms decapitating Persian generals, the human/animal hybrids in Xerxes' tent, need to go further?

[–] Calick 11 years ago

I think mutants was good enough. A giant rhino is still a mammal, not a dinosaur. Go back to school.

[–] punishable-by-death 11 years ago

Mutants??? No wonder I never bothered watching the original with everyone telling me I had to. Giant crabs? Mutants? I think the whole concept of this and the original has gone over my head, it just sounds silly. And after downloading a quick sample to see if I should go buy a ticket to this, the first thing I saw was what the OP correctly pointed out:

Hot women in an evening gown, slashing and leading her troops. WTF. You either want equality, or you don't. This isn't equality. This is exactly what the OP said it is, and its sad that feminist movements don't see how BS like this is the exact OPPOSITE of their overall goal.

Lets next have women play five set tennis matches! That'd make for the first interesting tennis tournament in decades!! ;P

--
www.usedrugsnow.livejournal.com
Some may never live, but the crazy never die.

[–] GBDaddy 11 years ago

Hot women in an evening gown, slashing and leading her troops. WTF. You either want equality, or you don't.

Equality is for suckers of the real world ;) I liked the hot evening gown look. But, Eva Green was seriously WOW! Spank me, for I was naughty, oh Artemisia! And then...reality set in.

By the way, 300 was classified as fantasy. So, is it so much of a stretch to include women in atypical roles?

[–] undeadnightorc 11 years ago

You have to keep in mind that the story of 300 is being told through the eyes of a narrator, who exaggerates details to make them more extraordinary. Giant elephants, giant warriors, limbs chopped off with one swing... many stories from ancient history are exaggerated like this. There is one story from ancient India that depicts a warrior who was so filled with passion for battle that he continued fighting even after his head was chopped off. Obviously this could never happen... but it makes a great visual for a movie, doesn't it?

[–] wittmann73 11 years ago

look, we get why Hollywood wants to have attractive females in their movies that "can kick ass" to please a modern female/teenage(?) crowd, but it is also an insult towards the men (!) who fought back then in the actual battle.

and yes, it is annoying having the "badass chick" character in almost every action movie nowadays.
Just watched "The Winter Soldier" and, whattdoyouknow, there she is again! Tiny female kicking the ass of dozends of trained soldiers. Then I watched the Hercules movie with The Rock ... and of course he must have a tough warrior chick in his gang.

So tired of this.

[–] tseybert 10 years ago

So tired of ... movies that have elements you don't like. Action films that have female characters that fight.

Poor thing.

Hopefully you'll never have to cope with a real problem instead of merely having your male privilege challenged a tiny bit.

Keep your chin up, you brave little toaster.

Janet! Donkeys!

[–] dreaming-stranger 8 years ago

Ahaha!! You are such a retard ROFL!!!

Artemisia was real! Yes, she was also a woman and a warrior, a naval commander, a queen, and a strong ally to the Persian empire. Do your research.

Oh, and have you heard of Boudicea? Joan of Arc? Nakano Takeko? There are a lot of female warriors who have gone down in history for their victories on the battlefield. Thousands of men followed these women into battle, they didn't feel threatened by a strong woman because they were strong men. Only weak men fear strong women. This is reality, history. It's not an insult to men who are secure in themselves.

Most women don't like to fight physically because most often it's a really stupid thing to do and doesn't ultimately resolve conflicts, as history has proven. The loser eventually rises up and seeks revenge. The best way to resolve conflict is through diplomacy and women have always been better at that than men.

Anyway, some women want to fight, others were forced to fight in order to protect their homelands. Women are allowed to make their own choices and do as they please. If a woman prefers to raise children, she shouldn't be considered any less strong than a woman whose heart's desire is to carry weapons. The only difference is that a warrior woman may prove a stronger adversary for a man when it comes down to physical combat. And since physical strength is the only thing men have over women, yes, that is intimidating for you, but only because it makes you afraid.

Most people are not actually trained in combat and yes, men are stronger. That means that every man we encounter could potentially beat us, rape us, kill us, do whatever they please should the whim cross their mind. As a result we learn to live with fear and caution every single day of our lives. The result? Women are MUCH braver than men. If you can't consciously accept that, you'll always know subconsciously that you're lying to yourself.

When it comes to emotional strength. Well. There's no comparison. In the face of emotional suffering, most men crumble. Most women survive and grow even stronger. The strength of humanity has always belonged to women. Men are generally just too self-centred to notice.

[–] bryhain84 11 years ago

Ever heard of the word rhetoric? some people...

[–] tseybert 10 years ago

Yes, I've heard of it.

What's your point?

Janet! Donkeys!

[–] bryhain84 9 years ago

I don't recall but, whilst my comment may have been posted after yours, it wasn't in reply to yours, but one preceding yours.

[–] Gus-69 11 years ago

God, you're stupid.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ackmondual 11 years ago

Weren't some of them jumping off triremes wearing armor and heavy swords as if they were them Kung Fu warriors in those Chinese martial arts movies?

If nothing else, they should've added a few female bodyguards. You're already in disbelief, why not go even further? :)

ORANGE for all

__
_____

[–] Korios 11 years ago

(300 even had mutants, aliens and dinosaurs)

I do not think you gain anything positive by being a total idiot in these boards.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] vittoriaa 11 years ago

First of all, Neither the film 300 or its' sequel is/or claims to be historically accurate. And before you start whinning about how implausible it is for Gorgo to have led a ship or done some military service. I strongly suggest that you do some research on Spartan women and their roles. They excercised they rode and they drove chariots. They were hardly just confined to the homes.

'Queens Conquer'

[–] eddiehasskills 11 years ago

Is there a video on YouTube showing a wife mourning her husband's death than shows up leading charge into battle with her dinner dress on? In my Chris Carter voice "C'mon man"

[–] vittoriaa 11 years ago

Is there a video on YouTube showing a wife mourning her husband's death than shows up leading charge into battle with her dinner dress on? In my Chris Carter voice "C'mon man"

You find that implausible? But the rest of the film believable? "C'mon man" indeed.

'Queens Conquer'

[–] mit800 9 years ago

I think they only added women warriors to the movie so it wouldn't look so gay like the first one

[–] Royalcourtier 11 years ago

Historical accuracy is not really the issue. Hopefully most people realise that these sorts of movies are essentially entirely fictitious - any similarity to actual events is a coincidence. But that does not justify applying modern political correctness (AKA brainwashing) to past times. People in the past did not think or behave they way modern activists (of whatever cause) wanted - modern people do not act the way they want, why should they pretend that people in the past did?

[–] xystophoros 11 years ago

I don't know where you're getting this "drove chariots" thing, aside from a Wikipedia article that contains inaccurate information, but yes, Spartan women were enrolled in their own version of the agoge, the same way the boys were.

Spartan women were given an education, taught to read, and expected to excel in physical activities. That was laid out in the Lykurgan laws, because it was thought that hardy women bred hardy babies who would go on to become sturdy men and Spartiates.

However, the "female agoge" was not as lengthy or anywhere near as brutal as the male agoge, and there is no recorded incident in history that says a Spartan woman was ever allowed to become an ephor, sit on the war council, or even share a meal at the Spartiate messes, much less command a unit. Spartan women were not full citizens.

One old Spartan boast, according to Plutarch, was that "the women of Sparta had never seen the smoke of the enemy's fire."

That's a compliment to the other Spartan boasts about not needing walls around Sparta, and it means that no enemy had ever even marched through Lakedaemon, let alone Sparta proper. They're basically saying their women and children have never had to fear a foreign power. A woman's role was to have lots of strong babies, keep the home, and act resolute when watching their sons and husbands march off to war.

tl;dr version: No woman has ever commanded a Spartan unit. Women were not full citizens in Sparta. It would have been politically, traditionally and practically impossible for a woman to command a Spartan unit. And no amount of PC revisionism or arguing is ever going to change the fact that Sparta existed in a time of place that did NOT mirror our 2014 western values.

[–] CynE007 11 years ago

Another reason why Sparta FELL! You treat women like second class and your empire will fall! Plus you talk all that s**t like you so high and mighty and so ruled by comic books and movies but can YOU have that same warrior skill and sword fight face to face rather then shooting, throwing bombs and air striking at a distance????? Youre a dingy little 150 pound welter weight with warrior fantasies and TOO jealous of any woman with the opportunity to have warrior leadership skills!

[–] xystophoros 11 years ago

Another reason why Sparta FELL! You treat women like second class and your empire will fall! Plus you talk all that s**t like you so high and mighty and so ruled by comic books and movies but can YOU have that same warrior skill and sword fight face to face rather then shooting, throwing bombs and air striking at a distance????? Youre a dingy little 150 pound welter weight with warrior fantasies and TOO jealous of any woman with the opportunity to have warrior leadership skills!

Uh, Sparta didn't actually "fall." It was just rendered powerless.

That happened about 130 years after the Persian invasion. Sparta had been ruling Greece, and the rest of the Greeks got tired of Spartan rule, which had become corrupt. There was an uprising, then a Theban general named Epominondas figured out how to destroy a Spartan phalanx in the Battle of Mantinea.

After defeating the main Spartan army, Epominondas could have marched his army to Sparta and sacked the city, but he didn't. Instead, he marched his army past Sparta into Messenia, and freed the helot slaves from Spartan rule.

Without slaves to work their farms, forge their weapons and tend their animals, the Spartans could no longer remain full-time warriors. Combined with all the casualties the Spartans suffered, that was enough to permanently reduce Sparta's power in Greek history. Sparta was a tiny "city" to begin with, and after so many Spartans died in Mantinea, there simply weren't enough of them left to form a military force of any consequence.

So you see, it had nothing to do with women, or how they were treated. Your rage at a social injustice is misplaced -- the helot slaves had much more brutal and difficult lives than Spartan females, who were essentially the equivalent of noblewomen.

[–] CynE007 11 years ago

Then where is Sparta NOW??? GONE! Your rage at the facts wont change the fact of your comic book delusionals of being SOOOOO offended because (GASP) a woman is a warrior in the ranks! Keeping women in the house was part of that was the reason for Spartas fall! While all the men are out there fighting and you leave the women behind, the enemy can have a secret army attack the back door (villages)! Busy brainwashing women to be helpless and under your feet cause you offended by female warriors but that fact is if either men or women are defensiveless and cant fight the enemy WINS! Plus youre 150 pounds what can you DO?? Read comic books and brag about something you will never be!

[–] xystophoros 11 years ago

Then where is Sparta NOW??? GONE! Your rage at the facts wont change the fact of your comic book delusionals of being SOOOOO offended because (GASP) a woman is a warrior in the ranks! Keeping women in the house was part of that was the reason for Spartas fall! While all the men are out there fighting and you leave the women behind, the enemy can have a secret army attack the back door (villages)! Busy brainwashing women to be helpless and under your feet cause you offended by female warriors but that fact is if either men or women are defensiveless and cant fight the enemy WINS! Plus youre 150 pounds what can you DO?? Read comic books and brag about something you will never be!

If you're a troll, you fail because you're not funny. Trolling is supposed to be funny.

If you're serious, then you're inadvertently hilarious for being so monumentally wrong and ill-informed.

Go read about Spartan history, and get back to me when you realize that Spartan women had more freedom and were better-treated than women in any other part of the world at that time, including Persia and Athens. They received a full education, they were allowed to compete in games, and they could own land -- things that were unheard of in classical Greece and most of human history until recently.

And as for your backdoor ninja sneak attack theory, it never happened. Sparta always kept a garrison home to keep the helots under control.

Seriously, go read a history book.

[–] aleksandar-j87 11 years ago

You are so wrong! Did you know that Sparta had two kings? Always! When one is at war, another one stays to defend Sparta. If one king get kill, Sparta will not stay without king! You ask where is Sparta now? Where is Persian Empire now? Sparta was not a big country by its territory, maybe like Prague, or Vienna, and now that territory is in modern Greece.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hindsights5150 11 years ago

Another reason why Sparta FELL! You treat women like second class and your empire will fall! Plus you talk all that s**t like you so high and mighty and so ruled by comic books and movies but can YOU have that same warrior skill and sword fight face to face rather then shooting, throwing bombs and air striking at a distance????? Youre a dingy little 150 pound welter weight with warrior fantasies and TOO jealous of any woman with the opportunity to have warrior leadership skills!

what a stupid post

[–] IfOnlyItWereTrue 11 years ago

That's interesting because having read about Spartan women I was under the impression that we knew almost nothing about them and that what little we think we know is mere speculation formed from second hand accounts, hearsay and questionable sources.

You are totally right though, in that neither this nor the previous film are remotely historically accurate.

[–] osborting 11 years ago

They did excercise with the men until they were 13 and trained similar to Spartans so as to birth proper Spartan children. That being said they didn't take part in the day to day running of Sparta, and they certainly weren't ever meant to fight, and they didn't learn Spartan combat techniques.

[–] AmyJune1989 11 years ago

And before you start whining about how implausible it is for Gorgo to have led a ship or done some military service, I strongly suggest that you do some research on Spartan women and their roles. They exercised, they rode, and they drove chariots. They were hardly just confined to the homes.

You took the words right from my mouth, Vittoriaa. Thank you.

[–] eddiehasskills 11 years ago

@OP couldn't agree more. Of course it's a movie and their job is to go over the top. But I'm sorry you can't have her mourning her husband's death than 5 minutes later she turns into some sought of JEDI....totally killed a already dying plot to begin with. This is what happens when great movies make sequels/prequels you get farfetched plots like this one.

[–] roxelana 11 years ago

yeah, Gorogo the Jedi in Evening Gown was as stupid as when Michelle Moneghan turned from dmasel in distres into super shooter in the last 10 minutes of MI3. Where did this warrior sh!t come from?

The problem with Gorgo and Michelle-like characters is that they don't have any build-up whatsoever that explains their super skills and make them believable. Artemisia was well-covered in that respect and her dresses at least tried to resemble some kind of armor. But Gorgo jumping into battle in a freakin evening gown as if she was born and bred warrior (which she was not...300 established that only boys were trained to be warriors, not boys AND girls) is what gives Girl Power a bad name. It's shoe-horned, unbelievable and simply doesn't fit.

[–] eddiehasskills 11 years ago

@roxelena I'm actually ok with female whatever. But as u mentioned give me a good backdrop. I don't wanna go on Wikipedia that's your job as the director to educate us. I mean it was almost a SNL skit. We see her mourning and boom just like that she's leading a a6rmy and transforms into a JEDI lol and she was sporting the same cream dinner dress for crying out loud. Probably the wrong color for battle.

[–] Lin301 11 years ago

Dude, 300 and this are like 99% FANTASY (300 even had mutants, aliens and dinosaurs).

Why would they stop at that and not have women behave like they most likely did not?

Regardless of the historical accuracy; the first 300 created a world with these roles (and it worked in my opinion), but Rise of an Empire broke these rules for reasons I have no knowledge of, my best guess is to make it more appealing to women audiences. But this is where the trouble lies; watching 300 I got drawn into this world of Sparta (again; regardless if its fantasy or not) and Rise of an Empire pulls me right out by shattering the dream and almost force me to analyse it by thinking stuff like ''why did the movie makers do this?'' at that point I'm no longer enthralled by the world created in the first 300 and am now an outsider pondering movie production choices rather than experiencing the movie itself

[–] Low_Rent 11 years ago

Regardless of the historical accuracy; the first 300 created a world with these roles (and it worked in my opinion), but Rise of an Empire broke these rules...

I agree with you here. One of my pet peeves about any movie is when they break their own rules. If done well I can accept any world the movie makers set up, it is their story and it is just that, a story. So I am willing to accept the premise. But, what annoys me is when the movie makers break their own rules, when they go outside of the premise that they themselves set up.

Gorgo showing up at the end was just out of place.

"Kiss my Converse!" -Sho'nuff: The Shogun of Harlem.

[–] Agent_Smoulder 11 years ago

This reminds me of Kick Ass 2, where Jim Carrey tells then to never strike with a closed fist cause it'll break your hand.... and then immediately does that to a baddie in his second fight :|

?

[–] RetroRick 11 years ago

Its simple. Feminism / liberalism is trying to re-write history. they take a kernel of truth - Artemisia's existence as a real life naval commander and amplify that element for political purpose. 300 was a film about brave male soldiers triumphing against incredible odds. That's not a story that much of Hollywood wants to tell.

[–] roxelana 11 years ago

The problem with female warriors in movies is that they are simply badly written because they are a PC-enforced afterthought and feel like one. For every katniss, a well-rounded female fighter character, we have numerous Gorgo's and Elizabeth "Pirate King" Swann's, etc. So because majority is ridiculous it creates an illusion than concept of female warrior is ridiculous itself, whereas the concept is fine but:

a) casting (size 0 actresses taking on muscle-bound actors, and wielding weapons that look heavier than their skeletal frames),

b) writing (there's either zero explanation where skills come from...at least with male heroes it's always Navy SEAL, or ex cop, or trained warrior from a society of warriors, etc...or it's something that doesn't compute like she trained for 3 months and suddenly is besting people who trained all their lives)

c) fighting coreography (always something too OTT which is even worse on a character without properly explained background in combat)

are epic fail that give concept a bad name.

[–] faithdk-907-18747 11 years ago

a) yet there are so much fewer or next to no complaints when skinny white guy or average joe takes on 5 super soldiers/criminals/cops/monsters/ninjas/whatever and kicks their asses.

Somehow the physical thing only becomes an issue when it is a female character. In the few movies I seen where they made an effort to higher an actress looking more fit, you had guys complained that she wasn't sexy enough.

b) Lets be honest here, female characters are often secondary roles so they are given less importance and are less fleshed out. They are often there to serve the male lead, so he can be shown to be sexually appealing as well to the opposite sex (and therefore enforce ideas of gender types/traits etc.) And even if given some background, it is rarely considered enough by people who take issue.

You ever seen the newer version of Nikita? The biggest complaint that constantly hunted the show is that no way can Maggie Q beat any trained guy in a fight, let alone 2 or more.

... Except she has been trained in various martial arts (initially by Jackie Chang) etc. She didn't even start young. She doesn't look bulky. She is very lean - almost borderline skinny. But she can fight and in a real life situation she could take on a bigger guy, even more than one. To many people who never done any proper MA think it is all about size, which is laughable. I would love for them to meet people trained in close combat systems such as WT, where bigger size and more raw strength quickly becomes a liability.

[–] roxelana 11 years ago

female characters are often secondary roles so they are given less importance and are less fleshed out. They are often there to serve the male lead, so he can be shown to be sexually appealing as well to the opposite sex (and therefore enforce ideas of gender types/traits etc.)

This. Warrior chick-as-love-interest has replaced damsel-in-distress-as-love-interest but the essence is the same - they all serve male lead by giving proof to his sexual appeal. Some people fall for cosmetics (hey, at least she's kicking ass while pining for the male lead!) some see through it. But the bototm line is that, kicking ass or not, a guy drives her actions, motivations, life,etc. She does things to impress him. That's evident in Artemisia's post-sex attitude that's really about "I must impress Themistocles" than simply "I want to win the war". It's a veyr sly way how Hollywood turned feminist pressure into its own advantage that promotes male masculinity even more than before, but this time undetected by anyone thinking that giving a female character a sword or another weapon is proof of gender equality. LOL.

as for skinny men not getitng a smuch backlash as skinny women in action, that's because men are traditionally soldiers regardless of their physical atrributes (in coutnries where militayr's compulsory, where there's draft, etc), so thast gives them some credibility. OTOH, fighter chick is still more exception than a rule and when you put an actress who looks like she's dying of hunger in such role, goodwill flies out of the window. It's Keira Knightley-types that people have problem with, not Linda Hamilton ones.

[–] waneagony 11 years ago

a) yet there are so much fewer or next to no complaints when skinny white guy or average joe takes on 5 super soldiers/criminals/cops/monsters/ninjas/whatever and kicks their asses.

To be fair, movies nowadays cast mostly muscled male characters for action flicks. At least I can't think of any skinny white male superhero without superpowers that does what you say.

b) Lets be honest here, female characters are often secondary roles so they are given less importance and are less fleshed out. They are often there to serve the male lead, so he can be shown to be sexually appealing as well to the opposite sex (and therefore enforce ideas of gender types/traits etc.)

As for action movies, I agree.

To many people who never done any proper MA think it is all about size, which is laughable. I would love for them to meet people trained in close combat systems such as WT, where bigger size and more raw strength quickly becomes a liability.

Except that here we are talking about all involved being trained in MA. And then size is a factor. Hence weight classes in all combat sports. Of course a smaller man/woman can at times beat a bigger, all else being equal, but that is not really the point here, is it.
Women are physically weaker/smaller than men in general - that's just fact (and maybe the biggest contributor to the patriarchal society we have - worldwide (not saying it's a good thing though)).

~(3r:3s:(P(r,s)V(s=g(sub(f2(y))))))
/K.G.

[–] vittoriaa 11 years ago

The problem with Gorgo and Michelle-like characters is that they don't have any build-up whatsoever that explains their super skills and make them believable.

You're kidding right? We're talking about the same woman who politict behind the scenes to get help for her husband and her country. We're talking about the same woman who stabbed Theron at the council meeting?

Artemisia was well-covered in that respect and her dresses at least tried to resemble some kind of armor.

So let me get this straight. You find it implausible that Gorgo wore a dress into battle. But you don't have a problem with the Athenians (and Spartans in 300) going in to battle bare chested and without a covering of their torso's? You find that 'realistic' and historically accurate?

But Gorgo jumping into battle in a freakin evening gown as if she was born and bred warrior (which she was not...300 established that only boys were trained to be warriors, not boys AND girls) is what gives Girl Power a bad name.

I think that you might want to do some research before you make those sort of pronouncements:

Many In their youth, female Spartans ran around nude alongside the boys and competed in gymnastics, wrestling, foot and horse races, and other required physical trials, all in the public’s view.

Girls also frequently competed in gymnopaedia, the Spartan festival of naked youths. Women were also known to compete in the Olympics and other important athletic events, usually wrestling.

It's shoe-horned, unbelievable and simply doesn't fit.

Nothing of the kind was shoe-horned it. Just your own ignorance and/or female jealousy.

[–] eddiehasskills 11 years ago

You liked the movie great. Most of us thought it was trash. And if I have to do research to watch a freakn fictional movie. That explains it all right there. Research is for thought provocative movies. They fumbled the ball with this farfetched script. I don't care what the history books say. They poorly wrote the Queen's character. IDGF who she snuck up on stabbed. Big difference being in the trenches of war wouldn't u agree? Unless of course we got a chance to see her actually in battle before. But no we got Wikipedia and Google for that right?

[–] vittoriaa 11 years ago

You liked the movie great. Most of us thought it was trash. And if I have to do research to watch a freakn fictional movie. That explains it all right there. Research is for thought provocative movies. They fumbled the ball with this farfetched script. I don't care what the history books say. They poorly wrote the Queen's character. IDGF who she snuck up on stabbed. Big difference being in the trenches of war wouldn't u agree? Unless of course we got a chance to see her actually in battle before. But no we got Wikipedia and Google for that right?

As I pointed out in my initial post. Many things in the Queens character were either already addressed in 300 or in the RAE. But then again you've just as much admitted that you need to be spoon fed the details. Whatever the case that's your problem not the film makers.

'Queens Conquer'

[–] eddiehasskills 11 years ago

@vittoreesse actually that's why forums were invented to give our opinion. You allowed and accepted lazy writing others pulled their cards on it. Spoon fed? How can a hotpocket of a script be spoon fed to a person? I'm still waiting for you to build up the Queen's character as some sought of warrior since the writers failed to do so. You used the "research" card to death. How about an actual script and not a term paper.....yes?

[–] lndultsch 11 years ago

He's telling you that the points you try to make to bash on the movie are false, by taking them one by one and demonstrating their fallacy.

That you (and "most of us", whoever that is) didn't like the movie is well and fine. But if somebody takes the points you were trying to make and shatters them, at least have the decency of admitting your mistake and find other grounds to base your distaste of the flick on. What you did there was to turn a loosely argumented critique into some sort of defensive troll bait.

[–] C8D 11 years ago

yeah, Gorogo the Jedi in Evening Gown was as stupid as when Michelle Moneghan turned from dmasel in distres into super shooter in the last 10 minutes of MI3. Where did this warrior sh!t come from?

The problem with Gorgo and Michelle-like characters is that they don't have any build-up whatsoever that explains their super skills and make them believable

Don't forget Pepper Potts in IM3.
Total "WTF?" moment there.

Boom! Thats right! This is all happening!! You cannot change the channel now!

[–] twacy_anne 11 years ago

Not really. That was mostly due to the Extremis virus they put into her. It gave her strength and stamina.

[–] rsmallmanwork 11 years ago

Spartan women were allowed to train in combat skills and were pretty good at them. For example a Spartan man could rape a woman and so force the woman to marry him so self defense was though valid.

As the sexes were divided women took on a lot of the male roles in Spartan society.

[–] LadyVelvet13 11 years ago

I'm a female and I agree... that's scene was so unrealistic! It ruined the ending for me. Since when Gorgo fought in battle? Her moves were horrible. But I guess they placed her there to let the audience know that she went to seek revenge.

[–] The_Mad_mad_mad 11 years ago

Let's not forget her bitchy attitude from beginning to end.

[–] vittoriaa 11 years ago

I'm a female and I agree... that's scene was so unrealistic! It ruined the ending for me. Since when Gorgo fought in battle? Her moves were horrible. But I guess they placed her there to let the audience know that she went to seek revenge.

I'm sure you would have been more accepting of her if she was 40 pounds overweight, with greasy hair and wore dirty sweat pants .

You know, I knew that Heady's Gorgo wouldn't go over well with a female audience. She's too strong, too powerful too refined. She's way too threatening to a general female audience. Your average female viewer don't like women like that. It's why shows like Girls and Sex and the City are so popular. Even Artemsia is in some ways more palatble than Gorgo for your average female audience since she behaved so trampy.

'Queens Conquer'

[–] lucero65 11 years ago

I didn't have a problem with the QUEEN. I didn't really pay attention to the dress at the end. She was honorable at least. I did have serious problems with Artemisia. What a biotch. She went through a lot as a child but she was just too coldhearted.

[–] spacecitystunna 11 years ago

She was the primary villain. If you hated her and were glad to see her die at the end, the writers (and actress) did their job well.

[–] lucero65 11 years ago

Agreed.

[–] eddiehasskills 11 years ago

Actually most ppl felt she was more of a victim. Leaving the audience even mode confused. Such a bad script.

[–] jacksakes 11 years ago

I honestly think it was just to give Gorgo more screen time since she was a prominent role in the original 300 and also to show that the army that was coming was the result of Gorgo finally listening to Themistokles and giving a hand. She was there as an icon, that's all.

[–] jacksakes 11 years ago

I think the first 300 did it perfectly: men were men, women were women; both respected and loved the other for their attributes; women were the birthgivers, nurturing and wise, men were the leaders (not bosses!), protectors and somewhat selfdestructive as I believe all men are.

The world is changing my friend. And movies are always reflective of their audience. Spiritually speaking, our genders matter less and less as we evolve. Female and male, like everything else in the world, is a symbol of duality (yin-yang) to merely show how two "opposite" sides can connect and fill each other in with values.

I, myself, grew up a bit androgynous. Not on the outside, I am clearly male, and I'm hetero, but I do know I'm a sensitive guy type who is also empathic. I've always been emotional and have always, I guess, displayed female traits. I'm also a caregiver in heart.

So for an audience of people like me, and I know I'm not alone on this, I enjoy seeing them mix it up.

[–] chaissonl 11 years ago

Well *beep* apparently the human race is evolving into hermaphrodites. Prepare for single gender films I guess.

[–] jacksakes 11 years ago

The reason is two-fold:

One, is there needs to be new ideas. Movies following the same formula with the same male lead hero doing outrageous super human things is getting boring to a lot of us. So it's time to mix it up a little bit.

Two, the PC society, whether by right or wrong methods, is working to equalize everything and employ diversity.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faithdk-907-18747 11 years ago

" women were the birthgivers, nurturing and wise, men were the leaders (not bosses!), protectors and somewhat selfdestructive as I believe all men are."

This in itself is sexist against both males and females lmao. You do realize a lot of "feminine" and "masculine" attributes are social constructs? As in they have been made up at one point and then spread? Several aspects and/or things that are commonly thought of as male or female have been neither gender or thought as belong to the opposite once upon a time (easy example is the color pink, considered to be feminine, when it was at first considered a masculine color. Now you got guys like you probably, thinking it make a man look "womanly" if he wears pink. Btw high heels were also for males at first, yet a guy wearing that would get so much crap today for acting "gay"). Do you even realize that the belief in rigid ideas about masculinity is one of the leading reasons for male suicide since it plays a huge role in causing anxiety in men? You whining over what? A female being assertive? Because that belongs only to men? That is utterly ridiculous. And lmao on women being "nurturing and wise". The idea that all women are nurturing is *beep* despite all girls being exposed to the idea that they should be since they are children (e.g. girls are almost always giving toys/dolls that they have to take care off, even if they have no interest). Guys are denied to be shown as nurturing as well as if there is someone wrong to care for others, especially their own children. No gender is inherently wise either. That is just a posterous idea.

"To me this is the same as wanting equal rights for gays and then showing they can be just as hetero as hetersexual people"

And this is here where you truly prove you don't know anything. You are mixing gender expression with sexuality as they are COMPLETELY interchangeable. Which they are not.

You also clearly subscribe to a very black and white view on male/female and allow no middle ground. All men must be stoic, destructive, broding, and definitely not nurturing or wise. No that belongs to the women solely, but they can not be allowed to lead, or protect or strive to be anything that may actually have them go after what they want.

I honestly hope I've replied to a troll post.

[–] Lin301 11 years ago

" women were the birthgivers, nurturing and wise, men were the leaders (not bosses!), protectors and somewhat selfdestructive as I believe all men are."

This in itself is sexist against both males and females lmao. You do realize a lot of "feminine" and "masculine" attributes are social constructs? As in they have been made up at one point and then spread? Several aspects and/or things that are commonly thought of as male or female have been neither gender or thought as belong to the opposite once upon a time (easy example is the color pink, considered to be feminine, when it was at first considered a masculine color. Now you got guys like you probably, thinking it make a man look "womanly" if he wears pink. Btw high heels were also for males at first, yet a guy wearing that would get so much crap today for acting "gay"). Do you even realize that the belief in rigid ideas about masculinity is one of the leading reasons for male suicide since it plays a huge role in causing anxiety in men? You whining over what? A female being assertive? Because that belongs only to men? That is utterly ridiculous. And lmao on women being "nurturing and wise". The idea that all women are nurturing is *beep* despite all girls being exposed to the idea that they should be since they are children (e.g. girls are almost always giving toys/dolls that they have to take care off, even if they have no interest). Guys are denied to be shown as nurturing as well as if there is someone wrong to care for others, especially their own children. No gender is inherently wise either. That is just a posterous idea.

I agree with you that some gender attributes are social constructs, but you can't deny there aren't any biological differences between men and women; I must admit I dont exactly know which is which (I don't believe a clear distinction can be made) but I do like to discuss this topic with women and most say they believe they act more from their emotions than men, which act more from their ego (which makes some sense I guess evolution-wise). The examples I gave in the part you quoted where just the ones I felt were set up in the world of the first 300, where women were respected for ''giving birth to real men'' and the men were heavily trained in the art of combat. Sexist or not, that was 300. Obviously these attributes don't apply today; I apologise for not being more clear about that. I also didn't mean to say women can't be assertive; as Gorgo was assertive in the first 300 when she stabbed that corrupt politician dude and she obviously had some control over Leonidas as he asked for her permission to kick the Persian messenger down the pitt. I actually thought she was a strong female character in that movie. My main beef was with how Rise of an Empire broke with these roles set up in the first movie and we suddenly see Gorgo on the front line waving a blade around. Notice that I didn't mind Artemesia as a assertive female warrior, just how they changed Gorgo for whatever reasons; as I mentioned in the op my best guess was to conform more to modern gender roles, which is exactly what I hate in a lot of movies these days (or ever)

[–] jingizu_z 11 years ago

You know, at first I was rather offended by your post, especially your archaic views of women as "nurturers" and men as "leaders". In today's post-modern world that view just does not hold water any more (western and some Asian cultures anyway). Yet when I read further, and especially considering the above post, I must say that you are right in this respect.

Spartan women had more freedom than any other women in the world at that time. They were not just able to own land for example, they owned ALL the land. They ran the country while the men trained and fought (economy, commerce, farming, even politics behind the scenes).

The set up in 300 was perfect, with Leonides the warrior and Gorgo the political manipulator behind the scenes. They did ruin that somewhat with her suddenly leading the charge!

It is strange really how some comments here blame Hollywood PC for the change, when in truth Hollywood has been reluctant to let go of its male-domination.

As to history, well in that kind of time frame, although a few hundred years later, Roman women actually had the most freedoms. There were also Chinese noble women, more than one, who were military leaders (yes, Mulan is actually based on a real historical figure) and empresses in their own right and power. And so forth. But it was certainly not the norm.

As to the Spartans, they never "ruled" Greece. They were the victors of the Peloponnesian War, though so depleted it didn't really mean much. First the Persians annexed them again, then Alexander conquered and "liberated" them, then the Romans colonised them. There was also never in those times a country called "Greece". They were independent city-states and the region was called Hellas. The Spartans also kept many many slaves, far more slaves than the citizen population, so I laughed heartily in the first 300 when they talked about fighting for "freedom" and Xerxes' "slave army".

A good point you make. Though Artemisia was indeed historically a naval commander and warrior in her own right. Still, 300 and its sequel was never meant to be historically correct... though perhaps they felt Lena Headey had too little screen time.

[–] lucero65 11 years ago

Despite the violence, I did enjoy the movie. The naval tactics that both sides used were interesting to me. I did think that it was ridiculous to have these two women be so masculine and Artmesia just over the top evil and coldhearted-but that was explained in the movie. I think there were some women warriors in history but they were basically the exceptions. While watching I did believe this was somewhat farfetched that they would be that masculine and that good at fighting--especially considering that these men were in pretty good shape and the persians were trained warriors. (unlike some of the Greeks who were just ordinary town folk).