Was Gerald Butler from the movie '300' on steroids ?

Was Gerald Butler from the movie '300' on steroids ?

  • Total voters
    436
Hey could you delete the quotes or post's about what I said GMG.I'm getting nervous cause the mods have banned people for their avi.Like this one guy who had a girl who shot herself in the head.I don't want to get in trouble for sick,dark,twisted humor.Thanks man.
 
pantera101 said:
Hey could you delete the quotes or post's about what I said GMG.I'm getting nervous cause the mods have banned people for their avi.Like this one guy who had a girl who shot herself in the head.I don't want to get in trouble for sick,dark,twisted humor.Thanks man.
Click to expand...

No worries. I don't think I realized until now the crowd I was speaking to either. I'm not here to offend anyone, and I think my humor isn't up everyone else's alley.

I'm done hijacking Reaper's thread. Sorry Reaper.

I still want to know what performance enhanicing drugs Mary J Blige was buying.
 
GMG760 said:
No worries. I don't think I realized until now the crowd I was speaking to either. I'm not here to offend anyone, and I think my humor isn't up everyone else's alley.

I'm done hijacking Reaper's thread. Sorry Reaper.

I still want to know what performance enhanicing drugs Mary J Blige was buying.
Click to expand...
crack?
 
Invalid Link Removed

OK I just posted this pic by coppying reapers URL.Now my question is how did he/you get that URL?I thought the url was what it said under the pic when saved to your pics.
 
GMG760 said:
No worries. I don't think I realized until now the crowd I was speaking to either. I'm not here to offend anyone, and I think my humor isn't up everyone else's alley.

I'm done hijacking Reaper's thread. Sorry Reaper.

I still want to know what performance enhanicing drugs Mary J Blige was buying.
Click to expand...


HGH.
 
Airbrushing each of the 24 frames per second of a film isn't as expensive as one would think. Especially with all the advanced CGI, etc. that's around these days. Airbrushing is quite an old method that surely pales in cost compared to today's advanced effects. That and 300 cost anywhere from 60-100 million dollars to make it's highly possible. Probable IMO. If you search, especially on IMDB you can find 'behind the scene' shots and/or pictures of almost any movie before the special effects were added. But I've looked everywhere and it seems behind the scenes photos of 300 were never released to the public for whatever reason.
 
GMG760 said:
I don't really get this "digitally enhanced" abs thing. Do you guys understand how many frames go into a feature length film? There is NO way that would be cost effective.

And yes, the big guys were really cut. It's just what they were using to get that big and cut that is the question here.
Click to expand...

every muscletech product ever made!!!!!! i found the secret
 
GMG760 said:
Wow dude. Be careful that Chris Hansen doesn't show up at your door.
Click to expand...


I like the older ones, remember...


Some of us DO get your humor, not sure why some are being such sticks in the mud.

:cheers:
 
GMG760 said:
No, no, no. I get how to they do it. And it is cost effective for a magazine layout. There are 24 frames a second though in soundsync motion picture. Do the math from there... 24x60x120(average length of a film... I think 300 was longer)... thats 172,800 frames. Not cost effective.

They were on the sauce or used some sort of prosthetic and/or makeup for their abs.

Often times the simplest answer is the correct one.
Click to expand...

The entire movie 300 was shot in-studio, and digitally altered in post-production. Even the scene with Xerxe's horses were digitally altered - that was filmed in studio. Not a single piece of scenery, whether it be rock, cliff, tent or otherwise was real. Literally the entire movie was CGI. Each frame was enhanced stylistically to impart that dark and orange hue. This produces shadows and contrast, thereby making each line appear darker.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
The entire movie 300 was shot in-studio, and digitally altered in post-production. Even the scene with Xerxe's horses were digitally altered - that was filmed in studio. Not a single piece of scenery, whether it be rock, cliff, tent or otherwise was real. Literally the entire movie was CGI. Each frame was enhanced stylistically to impart that dark and orange hue. This produces shadows and contrast, thereby making each line appear darker.
Click to expand...



I bet they still used steroids though.
 
GMG760 said:
No, no, no. I get how to they do it. And it is cost effective for a magazine layout. There are 24 frames a second though in soundsync motion picture. Do the math from there... 24x60x120(average length of a film... I think 300 was longer)... thats 172,800 frames. Not cost effective.

They were on the sauce or used some sort of prosthetic and/or makeup for their abs.

Often times the simplest answer is the correct one.
Click to expand...


Honestly, let's also too think about this. Even if they COULD get decent naturally (doubtful), why wouldn't they take a slightly easier route and juice instead ?


If I needed to get in shape for a role and could do it training naturally for 2 years or shoot very high amounts of steroids for 3 months, I'd do it for 3 months without a doubt.
 
nah, I'm liberal about hijacking. I could care less.



Best. Thread. Ever.


case in point though: Hollywood juices.
 
People who think Hollywood dosen't juice obviously does not understand the science behind steroids.


The actors in hollywood aren't Layne Norton or Jim Cordova. Not even close.
 
I can just never be convinced that every person that has a great, let alone decent, looking body has done roids...I had a strong, 'stout' build, and a deep 6 pack at 23 and I never touched any supps until I was 27...so...I dunno jist my experience.
 
hardknock said:
I can just never be convinced that every person that has a great, let alone decent, looking body has done roids...I had a strong, 'stout' build, and a deep 6 pack at 23 and I never touched any supps until I was 27...so...I dunno jist my experience.
Click to expand...


genetics are a huge factor as well.
 
hardknock said:
I can just never be convinced that every person that has a great, let alone decent, looking body has done roids...I had a strong, 'stout' build, and a deep 6 pack at 23 and I never touched any supps until I was 27...so...I dunno jist my experience.
Click to expand...

Dude, do you write romance novels?
 
Voted no. Every pic I have seen in this 13 pages is attainable. Are they all attainable in the time period stated....I'm not sure. But I certainly do not think its impossible naturally. Also most of the guys listed do not have any of the classic aas type look. There are a couple of things I notice right away that to me indicate aas use.

Also even with aas imho this is order of importance:

1. Diet
2. Training
3. Drug use

And Diet is significantly more important then drug use. I have no doubt these guys also worked their asses off for these physiques with or without drug use.
 
Royd The Noyd said:
Voted no. Every pic I have seen in this 13 pages is attainable. Are they all attainable in the time period stated....I'm not sure. But I certainly do not think its impossible naturally. Also most of the guys listed do not have any of the classic aas type look. There are a couple of things I notice right away that to me indicate aas use.

Also even with aas imho this is order of importance:

1. Diet
2. Training
3. Drug use

And Diet is significantly more important then drug use. I have no doubt these guys also worked their asses off for these physiques with or without drug use.
Click to expand...


A non-athletic male @ 40 yrs old needs to get into top physical shape in 14 weeks. Let's cut out #3, and only leave #1 and #2.


Do you honestly think you can get ready in 14 weeks @ 40 yrs old ?


When I mean get ready, I mean an actual tissue gain (LBM)...not strength, not 'what my current physique is', etc.....


If you really want to stretch the imagination you can, but I still believe that we can all agree they got their physiques with diet, training, and AAS. The AAS were a necessary catalyst.
 
ReaperX said:
A non-athletic male @ 40 yrs old needs to get into top physical shape in 14 weeks. Let's cut out #3, and only leave #1 and #2.


Do you honestly think you can get ready in 14 weeks @ 40 yrs old ?


When I mean get ready, I mean an actual tissue gain (LBM)...not strength, not 'what my current physique is', etc.....


If you really want to stretch the imagination you can, but I still believe that we can all agree they got their physiques with diet, training, and AAS. The AAS were a necessary catalyst.
Click to expand...

Yes I honestly do think someone could get to that point in 14 weeks. This is completely dependent on so many variable that I think you are looking past. This includes training history, genetics, lifestyle before/during/after.

You see transformations like this all the time when dealing with injury sidelined trainees.

You can come in here and say its impossible to gain more than .5 pounds of lbm/week however show me proof? There is not one size fits all when dealing with gains.
 
Do you think in your early 30's that you can diet down to a little over 100 pounds - and then gain 130 pounds of 100% pure muscle in 6 months without the use of any aas? 16-17 pounds of PURE muscle per month, every month - for 6.
 
Oh yeah, also you're packing on this 130 pounds of muscle and 'eating as many doughnuts as you could get your hands on'.
 
ReaperX said:
I take that back, hijacking is ok, except when it involves 2 am.com members of the same sex flirting with each other. In that instance, it is not ok.
Click to expand...

I think someone is jealous.
 
Royd The Noyd said:
Yes I honestly do think someone could get to that point in 14 weeks. This is completely dependent on so many variable that I think you are looking past. This includes training history, genetics, lifestyle before/during/after.

You see transformations like this all the time when dealing with injury sidelined trainees.

You can come in here and say its impossible to gain more than .5 pounds of lbm/week however show me proof? There is not one size fits all when dealing with gains.
Click to expand...


I'm sure there are scientific studys on this. We are all human and essentially the same. Yeah sure you see transformations like this all the time....In Muscletech and BSN Ads!.
 
Royd The Noyd said:
Yes I honestly do think someone could get to that point in 14 weeks. This is completely dependent on so many variable that I think you are looking past. This includes training history, genetics, lifestyle before/during/after.

You see transformations like this all the time when dealing with injury sidelined trainees.

You can come in here and say its impossible to gain more than .5 pounds of lbm/week however show me proof? There is not one size fits all when dealing with gains.
Click to expand...


You obviously don't understand science.



.......and that's ok.
 
T-Bone said:
I'm sure there are scientific studys on this. We are all human and essentially the same. Yeah sure you see transformations like this all the time....In Muscletech and BSN Ads!.
Click to expand...

You bring the crowns and heads of conquered kings to my city steps. You insult my queen. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Persian. Perhaps you should have done the same!
 
Well it took me forever to figure out how to post pics so I'm way late,but if you remember we were talking about cindy phillips a litle and heres a good pic.Thanks for the help reaper!
 

Attachments

  • DSCF0427.jpg
    DSCF0427.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 2,575
Ziquor said:
Dude, do you write romance novels?
Click to expand...
Dude you know what, as soon as I looked back at that post once I got to my computer(because I posted taht from my treo phone@work), I went...oh damn, im going to get flamed...

lol

Ironically, I used to write music(songs) of all variety and genre, so it's kinda the same...
 
pantera, cindy is good looking, but I'd take her form a few years ago over her form now

Both forms are nice, but i like the smaller, thicky-natural look, rather than the buff'd look...though both are acceptable on HER...and that's about the only (well, one of 4)females that are built that I care to say that for.
 
There's a girl at my gym who is on the sauce too. She's not quite as big, but she's ripped and very strong. I heard through the grapevine she competes so that'd make sense.


I should instigate something. I feel like fighting her too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top