An open letter from Andrew Garfield to Andrew Luck..

[Malakai432]

Hey Guys,

Here is a pretty interesting letter that Andrew Garfield (co-star of The Social Network and the new face of the Spiderman franchise) wrote to Andrew Luck. It pretty much just talks about how they're both in similar situations taking over big franchises and gives Andrew Luck some nice motivational advice.

I'm not 100% sure if this is legit or not, but if so it's pretty interesting. Perhaps Andrew Garfield is a Colts fan, or an Andrew Luck fan??

Link:

http://blogs.nfl.com...ts-andrew-luck/

Note to mods: If this has already been posted in another section of this forum, feel free to merge, move, or trash thread.

[Andy]

I never thought that Spiderman and playing quarterback could have anything in common.

[Gavin]

Very interesting letter but I caught at the beginning where IF he was to write to Andrew, it doesnt sound like he did

"When Andrew Garfield heard about our Movies & Football Series he submitted this letter … Ok not really, but here is what the new face of the “Spider-Man” franchise may have offered up to the new face of the Indianapolis Colts."

[Malakai432]

Very interesting letter but I caught at the beginning where IF he was to write to Andrew, it doesnt sound like he did

"When Andrew Garfield heard about our Movies & Football Series he submitted this letter … Ok not really, but here is what the new face of the “Spider-Man” franchise may have offered up to the new face of the Indianapolis Colts."

Yeah I noticed that as well. It's kind of odd that someone would conjure up an article like that but it kind of does make some sense since they are in similar situations, albeit in different professions though.

[subvet]

Yeah, pretty obvious it isn't real, but still a nice thought.

[Gavin]

Yeah I noticed that as well. It's kind of odd that someone would conjure up an article like that but it kind of does make some sense since they are in similar situations, albeit in different professions though.

It does for sure, both roles could make or break there careers, for Garfield he is taking on a huge comic superhero that everyone has heard of on the other hand Luck is taking over for a legend both Garfield and Luck could make or break there careers

[Malakai432]

It does for sure, both roles could make or break there careers, for Garfield he is taking on a huge comic superhero that everyone has heard of on the other hand Luck is taking over for a legend both Garfield and Luck could make or break there careers

Yeah definitely, I actually do like Andrew Garfield for his performance in the social network plus the new spiderman movie looks good. In terms of Andrew Luck I definitely like him, wish the best for both fellas.

[TKnight24]

Batman >>> Spider-Man lol. But in all seriousness I like that people are trying to make Luck feel comfortable instead of the people who're throwing negative statements around

[Gavin]

Yeah Ill pick Batman, I also loved Jack Nicholson as the Joker, the greatest Joker of all time in my opinion, even better then the original I think

[mark5362]

If it's out there,It's out there.

[shakedownstreet]

If it's out there,It's out there.

[JoKeR]

It would make me facepalm if some young actor was really trying to give Andrew Luck advice.

[dgambill]

It would make me facepalm if some young actor was really trying to give Andrew Luck advice.

Yeah when I opened the thread I thought it was real...I was going to be so ticked off...really...there is no comparison. Spiderman while a successful franchise went way down after the first one. Besides, the actor if he messes up they just shout "Cut" and he redoes it. Luck can't throw a pick six and ask for it back lol. There is really no comparison. Luck has a much harder job. This kid...no issues...if its bad..he didn't write the script or responsible for any of it. Luck will definately be held responsible if he struggles or the team does.

[Tony Sullivan]

Hopefully Luck can take over for the franchise in a more positive way than Garfield is for Spiderman. I haven't heard good things about this movie.

[Malakai432]

Hopefully Luck can take over for the franchise in a more positive way than Garfield is for Spiderman. I haven't heard good things about this movie.

Can't be any worse than the last two spiderman movies. I was never really big into Toby Mcguire. I'm a big movie buff so I'll probably go check it out anyways.

[Carlos Danger]

Yeah Ill pick Batman, I also loved Jack Nicholson as the Joker, the greatest Joker of all time in my opinion, even better then the original I think

I disagree completely. Respectfully, of course (to each his own). IMO Nicholson, while the most talented actor to play the Joker, was not the best because the adaptation of the Joker in his movie was still much more cartoonish and comic than the Joker ever should have been. The Batman television show from the 1960's nearly completely ruined the franchise, so on that point (about the Nicholson Joker being better than the original) I agree. The graphic novel (original) adaptation of the Joker was a sad, ironic character who never fully felt the joy evident in his maniacal laughter. The Heath Ledger Joker was by far the most representative of the most intriguing aspects of the original character. His Joker was also just cooler and more sinister than the other two most famous versions (again IMO). While the most recent Joker may have surpassed the earlier graphic novels in terms of darkness, the more recent comic book versions of the Joker (last 10 years or so) have mostly been even more menacing and even less "funny" than Ledger's performance. The 60's t.v. show was a go-go comedy with awful, just awful storylines and villians that forced us Nick At Nighters not old enough to have seen it in its day to sit through the bad dialogue of a villain explaining his overly convoluted plan to the heroes as they dangle over something dumb like spikes or sharks. I guess if that t.v. show is where you first became aware of Batman, then you might tend to disagree, but I take Batman over Spiderman because of the tragedy of his and his adversaries' back stories and the inner conflict between the side of him that wants to protect the innocent and the part that wants revenge. I am aware that this also applies to Peter Parker, but those graphic novels really have gotten overly cartoony at times. I'm sure its not as important of a distinction to most as it apparently is to me. Wow... just realizing the true depth of my dorkdom.

[Gavin]

I disagree completely. Respectfully, of course (to each his own). IMO Nicholson, while the most talented actor to play the Joker, was not the best because the adaptation of the Joker in his movie was still much more cartoonish and comic than the Joker ever should have been. The Batman television show from the 1960's nearly completely ruined the franchise, so on that point (about the Nicholson Joker being better than the original) I agree. The graphic novel (original) adaptation of the Joker was a sad, ironic character who never fully felt the joy evident in his maniacal laughter. The Heath Ledger Joker was by far the most representative of the most intriguing aspects of the original character. His Joker was also just cooler and more sinister than the other two most famous versions (again IMO). While the most recent Joker may have surpassed the earlier graphic novels in terms of darkness, the more recent comic book versions of the Joker (last 10 years or so) have mostly been even more menacing and even less "funny" than Ledger's performance. The 60's t.v. show was a go-go comedy with awful, just awful storylines and villians that forced us Nick At Nighters not old enough to have seen it in its day to sit through the bad dialogue of a villain explaining his overly convoluted plan to the heroes as they dangle over something dumb like spikes or sharks. I guess if that t.v. show is where you first became aware of Batman, then you might tend to disagree, but I take Batman over Spiderman because of the tragedy of his and his adversaries' back stories and the inner conflict between the side of him that wants to protect the innocent and the part that wants revenge. I am aware that this also applies to Peter Parker, but those graphic novels really have gotten overly cartoony at times. I'm sure its not as important of a distinction to most as it apparently is to me. Wow... just realizing the true depth of my dorkdom.

well said I didnt think about it like that although I never have seen the Heath Ledger version

[Carlos Danger]

well said I didnt think about it like that although I never have seen the Heath Ledger version

Definitely worth a look... The Dark Knight (2008) Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Morgan Freeman.... can't really lose with that cast.

[MR. Blueblood]

I disagree completely. Respectfully, of course (to each his own). IMO Nicholson, while the most talented actor to play the Joker, was not the best because the adaptation of the Joker in his movie was still much more cartoonish and comic than the Joker ever should have been. The Batman television show from the 1960's nearly completely ruined the franchise, so on that point (about the Nicholson Joker being better than the original) I agree. The graphic novel (original) adaptation of the Joker was a sad, ironic character who never fully felt the joy evident in his maniacal laughter. The Heath Ledger Joker was by far the most representative of the most intriguing aspects of the original character. His Joker was also just cooler and more sinister than the other two most famous versions (again IMO). While the most recent Joker may have surpassed the earlier graphic novels in terms of darkness, the more recent comic book versions of the Joker (last 10 years or so) have mostly been even more menacing and even less "funny" than Ledger's performance. The 60's t.v. show was a go-go comedy with awful, just awful storylines and villians that forced us Nick At Nighters not old enough to have seen it in its day to sit through the bad dialogue of a villain explaining his overly convoluted plan to the heroes as they dangle over something dumb like spikes or sharks. I guess if that t.v. show is where you first became aware of Batman, then you might tend to disagree, but I take Batman over Spiderman because of the tragedy of his and his adversaries' back stories and the inner conflict between the side of him that wants to protect the innocent and the part that wants revenge. I am aware that this also applies to Peter Parker, but those graphic novels really have gotten overly cartoony at times. I'm sure its not as important of a distinction to most as it apparently is to me. Wow... just realizing the true depth of my dorkdom.

Heath Ledger definitely gave a performance of a lifetime in that movie. While I'm not as into the comics etc that you are I don't have quite the reference material to draw from as you do, but I agree 100% that the more sinister version played by Ledger trumps Nicholson's Joker. BTW I still get a kick out of the extreme CORNINESS of the tv show and movie from the 60's. I hope I never get so senile that I lose the images of Batman dancing in an episode of the show or using the anti-shark spray in the movie, or Ertha Kitt urging her cohorts to hop in the Cat-a-lac so they can escape. BAM! POW! BANG!

[Kyle]

well said I didnt think about it like that although I never have seen the Heath Ledger version

u r missing out, it is a must see flick. the Dark Knight series is far superior to the old batman movies. I am hoping the new spidey movie goes the same direction. I am guessing we see a little more bad a.. Spiderman this time and he will join in the next Avengers movie also.

[oldunclemark]

I never thought that Spiderman and playing quarterback could have anything in common.

Me neither..one is scripted..and one is most definetly not.....

...and its no big deal is he is a major bust as Spiderman......

If Luck is a major bust.....we may be the Los Angeles Colts in 5 years..

[JCPatriot]

The 60's t.v. show was a go-go comedy with awful, just awful storylines and villians that forced us Nick At Nighters not old enough to have seen it in its day to sit through the bad dialogue of a villain explaining his overly convoluted plan to the heroes as they dangle over something dumb like spikes or sharks.

Holy exploding shark, Batman!!!

(I still use that one in conversation with friends when something surprising happens.)

[southwest1]

Holy exploding shark, Batman!!!

(I still use that one in conversation with friends when something surprising happens.)

JC,

My favorite Batman villain was Egghead. "Eggcellent!!!" It was so cheesy; it was hilarious. See Below:

I still love his diabolical cackle myself. Vincent Price is the epitome of evil in my book.

[Dtman513]

At least he's a Colts fan

[Boiler_Colt]

Did he give him the whole "With great power comes great responsibility" spiel?

[Gavin]

Did he give him the whole "With great power comes great responsibility" spiel?

If he didnt, that would totally be a waste of a good speech dont you think?

[Smonroe]

Did he give him the whole "With great power comes great responsibility" spiel?

No, that was in the open letter from Amy Winehouse to JaMarcus Russell.

[Malakai432]

No, that was in the open letter from Amy Winehouse to JaMarcus Russell.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe we should inspire the NFLblog to do one of those...

[Malakai432]

Snoop Dogg to Michael Vick would be pretty interesting.

[funktacious2]

I really like Andrew Garfield. He was fantastic in "The Social Network" and "Never Let Me Go".