Michelle Trachtenberg ALMOST casted as Bella Swan in Twilight Movie

[Abbeycat]

Buffy‘s kid sister as Bella? That’s what Michelle Trachtenberg claimed nearly happened. The Gossip Girl star formerly known as Dawn Summers says she was up for the role of Bella Swan in Twilight. “There was definitely interest here and there because there’s only so few pale girls in Hollywood,” she quipped. See how Trachtenberg came about the near-miss — and imagine Twilight without Kristen Stewart — after the jump.

Trachtenberg said she knew Twilight helmer Catherine Hardwicke from when the director was in pre-production for Thirteen. “I was actually supposed to star in that, but I was onBuffy at the time,” she explained. So when it came time to cast Edward Cullen’s love interest, Hardwicke turned back to Trachtenberg. Alas, “I guess schedules never worked out,” said Trachtenberg. Though she didn’t seem too broken up about it: “I already have Buffy. I’ve already done the vampire thing.”

Just for funsies, let’s allow this imaginary world to play out. As anyone who’s seen Georgina Sparks in action, Trachtenberg can bring a deliciously evil flare to her work. Try to picture Trachten-Bella holding her tongue as Robert Pattinson’s Edward covered his face at the scent of her. And how would she read physically? Stewart has certainly grown more beautiful with each Twilight (with the notable exception of — SPOILER — her anorexic zombie look in the final half of Breaking Dawn — Part 1), but part of her allure in the first film was that she did have a sort of plain-Jane look that worked with Bella’s niggling insecurities. Would Trachten-Bella be too pretty? Finally, Trachtenberg definitely wouldn’t bring K-Stew’s multitude of tics to the table. Would you miss Stewart’s constant hair mussing, for example, or would you say good riddance?

Can you imagine Trachtenberg headlining Twilight, PopWatchers? What do you think she would have brought to the role? Would she have the same chemistry with Pattinson? What would you miss about Stewart’s performance?

Source:

 

[Seeing Red]

I would think it would be hilarious is Michelle Trachtenberg played Bella. The irony in it would be priceless, then again I would probably be waiting through all on the movies for Buffy to swoop in and slay Edward for ever thinking about touching her little sister. Then again, maybe sleeping with vampires runs in the Summers genes? 😉

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Interesting.

I don't doubt that Michelle would have done a great work as Bella, but I'm glad she wasn't chosen for the role. Kristen Stewart isn't a bad actress, but Bella is such a dull character that it'd be hard for anyone to make much of that role. That role is going to follow Stewart forever. She's always going to be known as Bella, and sadly, as a result it's probobly going to be hard for her to find serious roles after being associated with a teen franchise like that. I'm glad that didn't happen to Michelle.

 

[BuffyElevated]

I like the "Twilight" saga, but I don't know it would be to see Michelle in the role. I have no doubt she'd be good, but knowing the way Bella is written in the books, it would be strange to see how Michelle would interpret that on screen.
I wonder if Michelle is kicking herself, though, for missing out on all the money she would have made??

 

[Living Dead Boy]

Oh wow. That sucks, because now that I think about it, she would've definitely brought some life into Bella's character. I think Kristen Stewart is a horrible, horrible actress. I understand the INTENTION behind her character, especially in the books, but Kristen's monotone voice and uninterested acting does nothing for me. Boo!

 

[BuffyElevated]

Oh wow. That sucks, because now that I think about it, she would've definitely brought some life into Bella's character. I think Kristen Stewart is a horrible, horrible actress. I understand the INTENTION behind her character, especially in the books, but Kristen's monotone voice and uninterested acting does nothing for me. Boo!

I agree. I think Kristen is very pretty, but I hate her flat, monotone voice and 2 facial expressions. :\ When I read the books, I didn't imagine her to speak that way, and now when I read the books it's hard 'cause I imagine her and it makes them less enjoyable.

 

[Seeing Red]

Interesting.

I don't doubt that Michelle would have done a great work as Bella, but I'm glad she wasn't chosen for the role. Kristen Stewart isn't a bad actress, but Bella is such a dull character that it'd be hard for anyone to make much of that role. That role is going to follow Stewart forever. She's always going to be known as Bella, and sadly, as a result it's probobly going to be hard for her to find serious roles after being associated with a teen franchise like that. I'm glad that didn't happen to Michelle.

I agree with you completely. I feel that if Michelle could have done a decent job had she played Bella. Though, if she was offered and accepted the role I feel that people would scoff at the name, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" even more then what happens now.

 

[Willow My Love]

I think I might've actually stomached the terrible plot lines, horrible story, and annoying sparkly people had MT been in it.

 

[Taake]

Wow I cannot imagine that. I don't see her as Bella at all. I always thought that Kristen Stewart had the perfect Bella look (even though I really disliked her acting in the first movie) so I'm kind of happy that Michelle wasn't casted... I think she looks a little too 'glamourous' too to be Bella.

 

[TeamSunnydale]

Twilight would be 1000% better if MT was Bella! I love twilight, but sometimes, I do get disappointed because I don't think Kristen Stewart is a very good actress.

 

[Taake]

[MENTION=2801]Old Master 3.0[/MENTION] agrees:

Well, I've never read the books, but it is to my understanding that the Bella character is supposed to be a lot more glamorous-looking than she's depicted in the films.

Not really, she's kind of every-day looking, not interested in fashion, more or less forced into new clothes by Alice just like in the movies. That's why I liked them to start because Bella wasn't described as this beautiful glamorous girl, she was just a normal girl, pretty but utterly normal (except for being extraordinarily klutzy 😉)

 

[hazzard]

seems like i'm pretty alone here, but i'm glad michelle wasn't bella. i don't think she'd have been right in that role at all. i actually think kstew is a really good actress (in spite of the twilight franchise), and she has actually been in some of my favourite movies--such as "speak," "the safety of objects," "the runaways," and "welcome to the rileys." i think she's way way underrated and underestimated. i wish she hadn't done twilight, actually, because then i think people might focus more on her other roles and other movies, which are actually quite substantive.

 

[AmazingMrCross]

First of all, I am slowly making my way through the first Twilight for the first time with Rifftrax holding my hand. I hate it. I think it's horrible (the movie, not the Rifftrax - the Rifftrax is all kinds of awesome.)

Second, because of Buffy I am much more familiar with Michelle T. than I am with Kristen Stewart, so I want to say seeing her as Bella would be more pleasant - but Bella is just such a (ugh) empty-headed zombie I don't see how Michelle could do much with her character. Plus it would be weird seeing Dawn fawning over some pale emo twisted stalker who hates himself.

(I apologize to Twilight fans for the above remarks. But Buffy did the tortured soul/forbidden vampire love thing WAY better. 😉 And I hate, hate, hate Edward.)

 

[Dagenspear]

(I apologize to Twilight fans for the above remarks. But Buffy did the tortured soul/forbidden vampire love thing WAY better. 😉

By emotionally tormenting her, right?

 

[AmazingMrCross]

By emotionally tormenting her, right?

I was talking about the show, not Buffy herself, which is why I put it in italics. No, I'm saying the show handled he vampire love story stuff (Buffy/Angel, and in a very different with the Spuffy thing) way better than Twilight does.

 

[dexeded]

By emotionally tormenting her, right?

Yeah. It's much more believable, seeing as it's a romance between a human and a vampire.

 

[Dagenspear]

Yeah. It's much more believable, seeing as it's a romance between a human and a vampire.

Please explain your conclusion.

---------- Post added at 06:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 AM ----------

I was talking about the show, not Buffy herself, which is why I put it in italics. No, I'm saying the show handled he vampire love story stuff (Buffy/Angel, and in a very different with the Spuffy thing) way better than Twilight does.

How so? And I understood that you were refering to the show.

 

[dexeded]

Please explain your conclusion.

Traditionally, vampires are evil, unholy creatures. You have many variations on vampires, and I can accept that. But having a story with a perfect guy, whose only faults are underestimating himself and being dark and mysterious (which isn't even a fault), and not being subject to the natural darkness of vampires (bloodlust doesn't count, since it's a given) is ridiculous. It doesn't portray the negative sides of being in a relationship with a vampire whose nature is inherently evil. It just shows--inner struggle inner struggle inner struggle but I will ultimately never give in! No negative stuff that comes from me! The 'forbidden love' isn't even forbidden. Also, the solution to their relationship problems is ultimately to turn Bella into a vampire? Not. A. Good. Role. Model.

You might argue that this is the same for Angel because he'd never hurt Buffy, but at least there's a reason for that--he has a soul, after all. He's an anomaly among vampires.

(...But to each his own, I guess.)

 

[Dagenspear]

Traditionally, vampires are evil, unholy creatures. You have many variations on vampires, and I can accept that. But having a story with a perfect guy, whose only faults are underestimating himself and being dark and mysterious (which isn't even a fault), and not being subject to the natural darkness of vampires (bloodlust doesn't count, since it's a given) is ridiculous. It doesn't portray the negative sides of being in a relationship with a vampire whose nature is inherently evil. It just shows--inner struggle inner struggle inner struggle but I will ultimately never give in! No negative stuff that comes from me! The 'forbidden love' isn't even forbidden. Also, the solution to their relationship problems is ultimately to turn Bella into a vampire? Not. A. Good. Role. Model.

I always hated forbidden romances. Never understood them. And the Volturi forces Edward to turn Bella. He's dead set against it.

---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

And last I checked TWILIGHT wasn't The Bible. It's not meant to be emmulated. It's meant to be fun.

 

[dexeded]

I always hated forbidden romances. Never understood them. And the Volturi forces Edward to turn Bella. He's dead set against it.

---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

And last I checked TWILIGHT wasn't The Bible. It's not meant to be emmulated. It's meant to be fun.

Yeah, I'm not one for forbidden romances, but the saga is touted as one. And last I heard, Bella wanted to become a vampire. Suicidal, much?

Um, yeah, it's not the Bible. So what? TV shows, movies and books are meant for entertainment, but the best ones use the medium to teach people valuable life lessons in a non-preachy way. (Just look at BtVS: importance of friendship, high school is hell concept to teach teens how to cope, parallels between Dawn's Key-ness and adoption... the list goes on.) The best shows and books make you think. I'm fairly sure I saw a thread debating this floating around somewhere...?