Females perceive visual appeal differently to males.

Trigger warning: This analysis presumes cisgenderism in human beings in the sense of brain structure regarding attraction. 

There is a trick that many movie directors have mastered over time to make certain movies appeal far more to females and others to males. The trick is to do with fashion, angle, lighting, facial/bodily and expression choices in the actors.

Movies that are designed to attract females actually psychologically are more boring for males to watch because of scenes consistently having colours that blend well together and the actors wearing outfits that, again, fit too nicely together. You will often find that when watching a female-targeted movie or series you almost feel like every episode is too visually similar and/or that the way the actors move during the scenes is almost too 'smooth'. This is because the female brain is, for whatever reason, put off (whether they are aroused or not is irrelevant this is about interest and genuinely grabbing their attention.

What females find makes them unable to look away from something tends to be that it is just so smooth and hypnotic.

Males tend to want something rather different but not the opposite. If you analyse male-oriented movies and series, you will find that the ones that really hit big consist of bursts of fluidity followed by 'bam'. It doesn't have to be fighting and action, it can even be a romance movie/series that happens to somehow still pull in a significant male audience (Suits comes to mind). Furthermore, these male-oriented series and movies consist of strong, bold outfits on main characters with the side characters consistently blending into the background. The male brain seems to like this as it makes it easier for them to know 'oh so that's what I should be focusing on.' It actually is why male series tend to have less eye candy than female series, despite the stereotypes. If you watch a series geared towards women, it's extremely difficult to find characters that are ugly or offputting because they would cause imbalance in the general aesthetic, whereas in series geared towards males or gender-neutral appeal, there is generally a balance between attractive and offputting actors (it's politically incorrect to use the term actresses anymore, 'actor' is gender-neutral now).

The reasoning behind this is still unknown to neurologists but it is very consistent. The strangest aspect of this is that songs geared towards women tend to have strong imbalance where the chorus slaps hard but the verses are tender and inconsistent with the chorus' vibe. In contrast, songs geared towards males tend to have the similar vibe and tonality throughout (chorus similar to the verses etc) so it is not as simple as it being a brain difference in a consistent manner, what is apparent is this is specifically to do with sight. I wonder what the reasoning is.

Men and Women, on average, are fundamentally different. 

I disagree with you on that, this was not the point I was making.

They are more similar than different.

I don't think I buy this, generally.  Any scholarship on this subject?  How about some examples of female movies vs male movies?

Are these movies female or male?

Shrek

Most recent Dune

Becoming Cousteau

The French Dispatch (or any Wes Anderson movie)

Tbh I am altering a ridiculously hyperfeminist (not egalitarian, hyperfeminist, there us a difference) nonsense concept thar was made mainsteam in 2021 that demonised male gaze manipulation which involves sexualised women in cinema (often depicted as either staring at the male protagonist or flaunting something sexy and looking towards the camera from a side angle consistently in scenes).

This idea drove the idea that female gaze is just subversive and rebellious against male gaze. It also oversimplified the male gaze entirely, not noticing what else male-oriented movies do.

I believe I am a genius so this thread is made out of that arrogance as well as curiosity at what people would reply. In my life, I have spent a lot of time analysing what female relatives and strangers even find dull af vs entertaining af vs myself and other men in my life and strangers.

I noticed that this so-called patriarchal male gaze is amusingly more open to have less attractive characters even in starring roles, tha  female-gaze ones are (meaning females are actually perpetuating superficial sexual undertones way more in their media).

You will not find a female-geared series or movie that doesn't put massive effort into both casting, wardrobe and lighting, angles etc to make each and every scene appear very blended in.

This is also why Mean Girls has so much FEMALE eye candy... that movie was not geared to men at all, yet the least attractive character(s) on it are probably some of the men (matter of opinion, I saw it and thought this).

In malegaze media, you will find even a wonky faced Sylvester Stallone hailed as the almighty man's man Rambo. You will find plenty of unappealing females and males casted into movies and series for men because men do not want everything and everyone in scenes to not enable very standoutish visual characters. This is a huge reason why Fight Club is so clever because they went out of their way in scenes to always flaunt the sexy, macho, bright-fashioned, bright+spiky haired Brad Pitt and consistently juxtapose it to... less typically attractive portrayals of Edward Norton and Helen Carter.

They are both similar and different.

We know that.

Largely similar,

But subtly different.

The necessities of human procreation,

As it were.

We know that.

But we make up all sorts of other stuff too.

However, going beyond the article below, men are more visual oriented than women, in so far as, men are more easily excited by curves of woman, than woman is

by the less curves of  male.  Generally speaking

..." Sex differences in response to visual sexual stimuli are widely acknowledged, although poorly documented. A common presumption in society and the media is that men respond more strongly to visual sexual stimuli than do women. "....

Here is another differrence that relate to both of the above; .....women need a reason, men just need a place....

..." Further, navigational success, as defined by both speed and accuracy, is higher [--for men--]  when navigating based on cardinal directions compared with landmark directions in virtual environments (Hund & Minarik, 2006), but women tend to navigate based on route strategies more so than with cardinal directions (Fields & Shelton, 2006). However, when men and women are both primed to navigate with landmarks, the gender differences shrink (Hund & Minarik, 2006), suggesting that priming for cue use can influence navigational outcomes. "

My wife and both enjoy using map, but I tend to recall a pathway based on visual cues in memory of specific image ergo men are more spatial/visual oriented with their brains.

Women less so with the visual and more something else. They way the feel.  Women tend more toward a way a location made them feel and less of the visuals.