As you already know, October is Villain Month here at Cinematical. Since we're reveling in all things evil and villainous, I thought I'd share a little tidbit from Movieline and get our creative juices pumping. At the end of an interview with actor Peter Sarsgaard, the site asked about franchises and comic book sequels. His response:

Yeah, I've faced situations where I thought, "This is gonna be a lot of time for not very much reward," or "The rewards in this are purely financial." It's OK for that to be the reason to do something, but then I start to look at time, and I go, "Oh, but it's three years of my life." If I were just to do something for money, I would make sure that it didn't take an enormous amount of time out of my life. So, yeah. No comic book villains for me.

That certainly makes sense -- why grab a purely money-making movie if it's going to cost you a number of years and some more worthwhile projects? Then again, not every comic book movie is bad. There are the piles of dreck, but there are also flicks like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2. Let's not be completely reductive, Peter! Furthermore, your lovely wife was a great addition to TDK, so I would've thought you'd be cooler with the idea.

Naturally, now I'm wondering if there is a comic villain he'd be just perfect for. Is there one that's ripe for Sarsgaard? Will his comic distaste rob us of a great villainous performance?
categories Cinematical