I guess when they got him in shape for the movies they didn’t worry about his legs because you never see them
WOW what the heck?! His arms are bigger than his thighs…
If it was a blurrier photo I would say photoshop 
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I guess when they got him in shape for the movies they didn’t worry about his legs because you never see them[/quote]
Absolutely mate. Just looks weird as fuck.
I remember when BB.com ran an article on him and stated he could leg press about 1,000 lbs
lol
Not much difference from 80% of the guys in the gym and 98% of Male actors.
His trainer has tiny little legs too - what else was gonna happen?
I guess the scientists worked their way down, but ran out of adamantium right past the waist.
His forearms look really small too considering that’s one of the better poses/angles for making them look their best.
What it comes down to is that he’s an actor, and he’s probably just doing what was asked for him to perform the role(shoulders, chest, arms), even if more diehard fans would want a complete physique it’s certainly enough to get marketing going.
His biceps are bigger than his quads!
tweet
my legs are fine
<----------------------
[quote]Teledin wrote:
I remember when BB.com ran an article on him and stated he could leg press about 1,000 lbs
lol[/quote]
saw that as well
[quote]red04 wrote:
His forearms look really small too considering that’s one of the better poses/angles for making them look their best.
[/quote]
Forearms are usually the muscle groups that are relatively hard to grow and generally take more time under the bar than others. So if you would start going to the gym for the sake of a movie role, and ofcourse take steroids to amplify results, your forearms would naturally be smaller in relative size, I think. This is just my observation.
I can’t believe his legs are really that thin, especially above the knee. So I’m thinking Photoshop (I’m hardly an expert, I was taken in by the eagle carrying off a child)
I tried to find some other pics of his legs but there are surprisingly few despite there being millions of his upper body.
I did find this one of him trying to kick a defenseless child in the face. His legs look a bit bigger here.
Maybe he’s training his upperbody for X-men while at the same time preparing his legs for his next role, the sequel to The Machinist.
If your #1 priority is to put on muscle size for a movie where your legs are covered then it makes sense they would be lacking. If the extra energy or recovery time could be better spent on upper body then extra leg training makes no sense.
That has to be fake. He makes Bradley Wiggins look like a 1000 pound squatter.
Painful to even look at.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I guess when they got him in shape for the movies they didn’t worry about his legs because you never see them[/quote]
Yep…it’s sad but that’s the simple, correct answer.
So long as the biceps are big the audience will consider an actor “huge” and “muscular”
If those are his real quads that’s rather sad. Weird, too. I do hope that is a doctored photo. Yeesh.
And what are all those weird looking red and black pieces of equipment? Is that for kickboxing? Punching? Drumming?
[quote]Toohard wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
His forearms look really small too considering that’s one of the better poses/angles for making them look their best.
[/quote]
Forearms are usually the muscle groups that are relatively hard to grow and generally take more time under the bar than others. So if you would start going to the gym for the sake of a movie role, and ofcourse take steroids to amplify results, your forearms would naturally be smaller in relative size, I think. This is just my observation.[/quote]
There also one of the body parts more dependent on genetics kind of like calves except not quite so much.