I have to admit... Some of the reactions this thread has created is definitely some of the funniest things I've read on these forums. The thought that some people are genuinely bothered about this thread is downright hilarious.

Haha. Hey now! Mine were more than fair!

Alright, I admit it, I picked a rather unflattering picture of Jake Gylenhaal. So:

Vs.

Much better comparison. I'd still pick Matthew Fox.

edit: Now, I'd give Gylenhaal the edge in acting, but Matthew Fox hasn't necessarily been given the opportunity to show off his talents (He is pretty damn good in Lost though).And I suppose there is a bit of bias coming into play as well as I can already imagine Fox as Drake, because of the setting in Lost.

However, none of this matters if we're simply talking eye-candy. If you're into boyish-looking eyes and dorky haircuts, then sure, Gylenhaal wins easily. Otherwise, Fox wins hands down!

this is not funny. What some of you are saying and posting here is downright immoral to put it lightly

I can do wet and shirtless too!

Yeah but nobody cares but you and the brigade, take it somewhere else!

Halogamer? Is that you?

Immoral? How so?

I, for one, am being more than serious when I say that Matthew Fox is an attractive male and could, at the very least, portray the physicality of Nathan Drake convincingly. I'm pretty sure none (maybe a few?) are not mocking the gay community here.

I do admit, however, that it is somewhat humourous that it bothers several people so, but I certainly would not call that immoral.

So, what do you mean exactly?

Just another homophobe, I suspect.

@ seece: See edit above.

@ Pearljammer - Jake is the biggest hottest geek going and I love him for it *grins*

I especially liked his geek-ish role in Zodiac opposite of Robert Downey Jr.

Fantasizing about anyone is morally wrong according to the Bible so we're all going to hell. If I'm going there when I die then I might as well enjoy myself while I'm alive!