The PW Photo Thread **DO NOT QUOTE PICS, NO CHAT, POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

beakerjoe

With the mask off he always looks like a jolly fellow.

rovert

beakerjoe wrote: »

With the mask off he always looks like a jolly fellow.

Looks like my Secondary School Vice-Principal Mr.Brady

B.A._Baracus

rovert wrote: »

Looks like my Secondary School Vice-Principal Mr.Brady

Did he shout "IT'S TIME! ... IT'S TIME!" as you were walking into school? :pac:

gerrybbadd

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Did he shout "IT'S TIME! ... IT'S TIME!" as you were walking into school? :pac:

^^^

Brilliant!

Jimmy Bottlehead

rovert wrote: »

Vader selfie:

Looks like Santa shaved his beard

rovert

Amusing screencap of the Paul Heyman DVD of when Paul was writing Smackdown

MitchKoobski

Now I'm just dying to know what the dips were for!

rovert

MitchKoobski wrote: »

Now I'm just dying to know what the dips were for!

Stephanie's Raw writing.

Moneymaker

RAW was seriously atrocious during that period though. Roster was threadbare and you had the likes of the Katie Vick angle.

Not even a returning HBK or Bischoff could save it. Wasn't until 2004 or so it got slightly better, even then you had HHH feuding with Eugene(I mean ffs) and similar rubbish.

Hashtag_HEEL

Is imagine this DVD says Smackdown five instead of Smackdown six yeah?

gnfnrhead

Smackdown during that period had the likes of Angle, Benoit, Mysterio, Edge, Guerrero, Lesnar and Cena putting on great matches almost every time they stepped into the ring. The tag division was very strong and the Cruiserweights were treated as an actual positive rather than a joke. It was hard to find a negative with the shows.

Raw meanwhile had Triple H opening every show by telling everyone just how great he was for about 30 minutes.

I stopped watching Raw but watched Smackdown every single week. It's a shame WWE now refuse to use Smackdown as anything more than a Raw recap show.

Moneymaker

It is a shame alright. Some of the matches on there are as good as anything WWE has put on in recent years too. The likes of Rollins v Cena, Cesaro v Ambrose were excellent matches. You have to credit the wrestlers for putting in the kind of effort they did in those matches on what's essentially an afterthought.

Smackdown barely even gets mentioned on RAW. It's silly really. They may as well not even bother at this rate.

gnfnrhead

Moneymaker wrote: »

It is a shame alright. Some of the matches on there are as good as anything WWE has put on in recent years too. The likes of Rollins v Cena, Cesaro v Ambrose were excellent matches. You have to credit the wrestlers for putting in the kind of effort they did in those matches on what's essentially an afterthought.

Smackdown barely even gets mentioned on RAW. It's silly really. They may as well not even bother at this rate.

Anything good on Smackdown is just redone on Raw anyway. It's a pointless show from the viewers perspective. If you don't watch Smackdown once all year, chances are you won't miss anything.

Riddle101

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Smackdown during that period had the likes of Angle, Benoit, Mysterio, Edge, Guerrero, Lesnar and Cena putting on great matches almost every time they stepped into the ring. The tag division was very strong and the Cruiserweights were treated as an actual positive rather than a joke. It was hard to find a negative with the shows.

Raw meanwhile had Triple H opening every show by telling everyone just how great he was for about 30 minutes.

I stopped watching Raw but watched Smackdown every single week. It's a shame WWE now refuse to use Smackdown as anything more than a Raw recap show.

In fairness that was back during the days of original draft, when Smackdown and Raw were supposed to be separate entities. Both brands had their own storylines, their own creative team and wrestlers assigned to both brands. It was a great way to give the illusion of a war with both brands competing against each other, like the Monday Night Wars. Except of course it was all done within WWE so at the end of the day, the true winner was WWE itself.

I think Paul Haymen was part of the Smackdown creative team too, and was the one responsible for the Smackdown 6, so maybe Haymen gets the credit for why Smackdown was so good.

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Anything good on Smackdown is just redone on Raw anyway. It's a pointless show from the viewers perspective. If you don't watch Smackdown once all year, chances are you won't miss anything.

In reference to what I said above. Before the brand split, Smackdown was pretty much the recap show as well. Everything that happened on Raw was basically redone on Smackdown. I remember how every Smackdown would open to a video montage of what happened on Raw the night before, and then a promo at the start of the show to kickoff the nights event and to help further the storylines/fueds going on at the time. But that was back around 2000/2001 when WWE was great. WWE today is not nearly as good as it was so maybe that was Smackdown sucks now.

But to finish off what I'm saying. Raw has always been the A Show, Smackdown the B show. So it's probably why WWE focuses most of it's attention on Raw, and uses Smackdown as a recap show. But Smackdown is also supposed to be a wrestling show, while Raw is the entertainment show. So Smackdown is more about wrestling matches more then anything.

gnfnrhead

Smackdown was originally a continuation of Raw. Something happened on Raw, Smackdown would follow up on it, then Raw would follow up on that and so on. It wasn't until years later that WWE decided they didn't want to put the effort in and instead made it a recap show for the most part. If you don't watch Smackdown today, you're not missing anything important.

xpletiv

Eire-Dearg

Hashtag_HEEL

Vince looks sickly! Jesus!

rovert

Seconds earlier:

Ape Lincoln

Suppose this means Vince is off the gas.

the groutch

Vince Luger

Insect Overlord

Hi body building days are over!

krudler

He's probably still in better shape than me lol

Reebrock

*Obligatory Newcastle United joke.

KingJamsie

Vince is almost 69, so he still looks great for his age!

Guitar_Monkey

KingJamsie wrote: »

Vince is almost 69, so he still looks great for his age!

Has been sick or something ? That photo is quite shocking.

Moneymaker

I'm not seeing Vince looking bad there?

Not his best photo sure, but the man is pushing 70.

Looks grand to me.

Lord TSC

Weird lighting, no make up, extreme close up and out of character all means he looks different. Funny seeing the two together.

Wish Vince would just go and buy a club :pac:

Guitar_Monkey

Moneymaker wrote: »

I'm not seeing Vince looking bad there?

Not his best photo sure, but the man is pushing 70.

Looks grand to me.

It could be the lighting, angle etc. He looks like he's lost a lot of muscle and bulk.

Palo Alto

Levels of growth hormone in men taper off quite quickly once you hit 60, plus if he's juiced a lot then it'll wreck your body's ability to produce it anyways, it's not particularly surprising. I think he looks well.