i rather would like to see lucy, more mature and not as famous yet. i think dakota would hog the spot light

Everyone keep on forgetting that Jane almost is a Child!. Acording to Stephenie Meyer: Jane and Alec var almost to YOUNG to become vampires when he saved them form the village who wanted to burn them for witchcraft.

But don’t you know that Jane is discribed as a kid in twilight series !!! I think Dakota is the best person for this role !!!!!!!!!!!

She’s so much better as Jane than Dakota Fanning! Really! I can imagine her as Jane instead of Dakota Fanning who I can’t!! I like her!

I’m already quite skeptical about Dakota and now, you talk about Lucy Hale?! Well, my biggest pb is that they both look like teenagers and I’ve imagined Jane as a 20 to 25 year-old person!!
But if I have to choose between the 2, I’ll take Dakota cuz’ she’s already blonde, pale, and has a more “vampire” appearance than Lucy!

–> You’re a Twilighter like me? Want to know more about Twilight, New Moon, …?
Come to my blog: allmylights.skyrock.com (sorry it’s in French… but I accept all comments in English!! =D)
Hope to See You!!!!

Brenda is perfect for Jane… come on she is Jane in the making, Brenda SONG should be Jane in New Moon. Not this Lucy girl. Geez, Hollywood has lost it. No one wants Dakota to be Jane.

And again everybody ignores the fact that jane IS A KID. ALMOST to YOUNG to be a vampire (that means she is about 12 - 13 years, NOT 20 - 25)

You idiots, have half of you even read the books?
Yes, Jane is an evil vampire who’s centuries old, BUT she’s meant to look like a child, an angelic blonde child.
So no, Dakota is not too young or innocent looking for the role, Jane’s meant to look young and innocent…

i think she’d make a good jane. i wanna know what she means by “I’m not sure if it’s going to work out.”!!!! will it be rubbish

she would be amazing I am so mad

I think Lucy Hale wouldt fit the part as Jane…Many of u say Dakota Fanning is just a little kid yeah we know but if u havent noticed all the movies shes been i have been REALLY good…and also some peple say shes just a little imature kid..noooo i think she takes her job seriously because she is a VERY good actor and i think she would be the best option to be Jane….

I think she would be a better jane than dakota fanning. Dakota’s a great actress, but she just doesn’t seem right for the role. i think she is also too common of a choice, you know? When the question of who should play jane came up, people automatically said dakota fanning because she is the most well known serious actress in that age area.

In case anyone here tries to put out that they chose actors who are “not well-known” for the movies, the only thing I can really say back is you haven’t seen a lot of GOOD movies then because the actors that they picked have been in fantastic movies before twilight and are “well-known” in their own right. Kristen Stewart was certainly well-known for her brilliant acting in the Panic Room and Speak and likewise, Robert Pattinson did wonderful in the Harry Potter series. I personally believe these movies are mainstream enough to be well-known. So, I will retort back by saying Twilight DID hire actors who are well-known, not due to their celebrity or popularity status but rather well-known for their talent. So, if you’re going to judge actors based on their popularity status, that Dakota Fanning is too popular to be in Twilight, then that just shows how superficial it all really is, right? We’re looking for people who can accurately portray the characters in the books and DO IT WELL. Likewise, Lucy Hale IS QUITE WELL-KNOWN, having been in A LOT of shows, proving that people’s perception of popular and well-known is just plain whacked.

However they decide, I’m still watching the movie because I know they will pick great actors, whoever they may be.