Author Topic: NEW ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER COVER -- DOES IT LOOK SHADY??? (Read 8033 times)

Pollux · « **on:** January 19, 2007, 06:08:59 PM »

Do the arms look shady?

1991rs · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:10:15 PM »

yes, its dark, therefore there is some shade on his arms. Looks HUGE

amoney86 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:20:28 PM »

that same pic has been around for years so id say no. his arms were some of the best ever.

Pollux · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:25:23 PM »

1991rs...

I love your avatar.
The ~~True~~ Adonis looks like the mouse from that kids movie The Secret of Nimh.

GHGut · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:33:03 PM »

64 pages of classic Arnold, without an ad between them. Gotta love it.

Pollux · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2007, 06:59:08 PM »

Quote from: GHGut on January 19, 2007, 06:33:03 PM

64 pages of classic Arnold, without an ad between them. Gotta love it.

68... but who's counting.

alexxx · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2007, 07:09:30 PM »

Is that out now?

Pollux · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2007, 07:11:29 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on January 19, 2007, 07:09:30 PM

Is that out now?

MuscleMag states not until January 30.
But you know issues also come a few days before.

alexxx · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2007, 07:12:18 PM »

Quote from: Pollux on January 19, 2007, 07:11:29 PM

MuscleMag states not until January 30.
But you know issues also come a few days before.

AWESOME I GONNA CHECK IT OUT!!! THANKS!

Anal Iceman Lubeth · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2007, 07:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Pollux on January 19, 2007, 06:59:08 PM

68... but who's counting.

Did you make it to page 68 before *finishing*?

tommywishbone · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2007, 09:57:34 PM »

The pic is absolutely shopped. Sorry.

The sad thing is, the real pic is awesome.. no need for the nonsense.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2007, 10:29:36 PM »

Quote from: tommywishbone on January 19, 2007, 09:57:34 PM

The pic is absolutely shopped. Sorry.

The sad thing is, the real pic is awesome.. no need for the nonsense.

post it.

Tombo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2007, 10:53:46 PM »

lol i dunno about that, theres another pic around with a similar pose, and it makes his arms look f**kin huge

deadlift · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2007, 11:36:41 PM »

Nah, not shopped. Though I did think so at first. The reason it looks shady is cause the pic's flipped horizontally (I think). Here's a similar shot, the right way around and flipped:

Vince B · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2007, 01:42:22 AM »

That famous photo was taken by Robert Nailon at Tony's Gym in Sydney in 1974. Someone took a flash photo at the same time that gave it that impressive lighting.

kmhphoto · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2007, 02:37:51 AM »

They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.

Rami · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:31:20 AM »

Quote from: kmhphoto on January 20, 2007, 02:37:51 AM

They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.

What a dumb move.

kmhphoto · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:40:39 AM »

Quote from: Rami on January 20, 2007, 03:31:20 AM

What a dumb move.

And they didn't do it very well.

Pollux · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:55:00 AM »

Quote from: Vince Basile on January 20, 2007, 01:42:22 AM

That famous photo was taken by Robert Nailon at Tony's Gym in Sydney in 1974. Someone took a flash photo at the same time that gave it that impressive lighting.

Cool. Thanks, Vince.

Pollux · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:56:27 AM »

Quote from: kmhphoto on January 20, 2007, 02:37:51 AM

They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.

That's fuckin' lame. I like the natural look he has -- high as a kite.

GoneAway · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:12:20 AM »

Yeah, shouldn't of done the eyes. Pure is the way to go.

Bluto · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:39:26 AM »

Looks to me like they edit the photos more and more, where we gonna end up with all this? If Playboy can fix their models so they doesn't even show a birthmark and looks like plastic dolls, then surely they can edit photos of bodybuilders and start editing midsections etc. maybe even bring up lagging bodyparts to have the bodybuilders improve on their symmetry

And surely they won't stop at the cover, they'll fix all pictures. We'll end up with photos of Ronnies "monster calves"

Bluto disapproves.

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:17:49 AM »

to bad this picture wasn't brought up in the arnold vs frank thread

Steve Pulcinella · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:21:50 AM »

I would say without a doubt that cover was altered. It is obviously different than the other versions that were posted here. I also think the current cover of flex with arnold looks funny too. His pecs look like Dolly partons tits and I know I have seen that photo before and it didn't look like that. Editing photos in Playboy is one thing but doing it to bodybuilders just seems fucked up. Hell, if that is what we are going to do we should just all photoshop some 24" arms onto ourselves and post pictures everywhere.

BroadStreetBruiser · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2007, 06:16:07 AM »

Quote from: Steve Pulcinella on January 20, 2007, 05:21:50 AM

I would say without a doubt that cover was altered. It is obviously different than the other versions that were posted here. I also think the current cover of flex with arnold looks funny too. His pecs look like Dolly partons tits and I know I have seen that photo before and it didn't look like that. Editing photos in Playboy is one thing but doing it to bodybuilders just seems fucked up. Hell, if that is what we are going to do we should just all photoshop some 24" arms onto ourselves and post pictures everywhere.

but.... we look at playboy for the models bodies (or the articles if your a parent) and people look at bbing mags for the pictures so it's the same thing really