Originally Posted by ThunderCat
It's telling that most of the examples of fanservice for men include things like armours with cleavage, bikinis in situations where bikinis make no sense, and contrived, implausible panty shots, but whenever the topic shifts to fanservice to women, the first examples people think of seem be no more than than the mere presence of an attractive man, with no mention of whether he's implausibly dressed or shown from improbable angles.
I counter that Matthew McConaughey being in a movie at all is basically one long series of improbable angles designed to provide fanservice. I defy anyone to find another reason why he's ever been allowed in a movie, let alone been paid
to be in one.
More seriously, the oeuvres of guys like Channing Tatum, Ashton Kutcher, Ryan Reynolds, &c. are full of contrived scenes clearly included to provide fanservice. I mean, it's not weird camera angles (since, as someone said, that would really only apply with kilts), but every time a guy with ridiculous abs takes his shirt off, think if there was really any reason for him to take his shirt off. Why is Ashton Kutcher having the conversation from a shower? How did Ryan Reynolds even get naked again? Does Matthew McConaughey get fired if he wears a shirt a set or something? Is there a trailer for the movie that doesn't feature the male lead in some state of undress? In other words, rather than being a scene featured for any purpose in the plot, the actor disrobes as a marketing tool to attract another demographic to the movie with sex.
Most media panders to anyone who has money. It's simply made by men who don't really understand how to pander to women, so its opinions to direct fanservice at those attracted to men are even more pathetically inept than its attempt to direct at those attracted to women. Some marketing director, somewhere, is absolutely certain buff, middle-aged dudes are the only reason any women saw The Expendables