Jane Means Pain

It’s finally official. Dakota Fanning will be playing the sadistic, but angelic looking, Jane in New Moon.

Summit Entertainment confirmed the news to People over the weekend. Absolutely no other details were given about the casting. Filming for the Twilight sequel is supposed to start later this month in Vancouver. However, Fanning will be playing one of the younger Vulturi who call Italy their home. Whether her scenes will actually be filmed there remains to be seen.

Nikki Reed, who plays Rosalie in the films told People, “”We did just get a script. We’re shooting the rest of the films back to back.” It’s the only possible option considering New Moon was given a release date of November 20th and the third film, Eclipse is meant to hit theaters just six months later in June 30, 2010. Hopefully it will also insure Fanning remains looking around the same age for the remaining films, seeing as how she’s supposed to play a child-like vampire and all. 
Like everyone else, I heard she was interested in the role but I wanted to wait for confirmation before I wrote about it. I am so excited for this casting. She makes the perfect Jane plus she’s a fantastic actress so I know she’ll be able to pull off the innocent yet evil routine expertly.
Now, who can we see playing her twin, Alec?

6 Responses to “Jane Means Pain”

  1. D0nnaTr0y says:

    Good to know. I may save them for summer reading. Sounds like the perfect beach accompaniment! (Not that I frequent the beach, but perhaps if I had a good book to read I would!)

  2. Christine says:

    Wow, she’s really gotten older!

  3. I consider it sort of a guilty pleasure. They are amazing to get sucked into but at the same time you know the writing is not perfect. I’d say read the first one and if you don’t like it then don’t bother reading the rest. If you like it, you won’t be able to stop, like me.

    There is a lot of teen-stuff in the books but you have to keep in mind it’s about a teenage girl, she’s going to have teen girl issues. I liked the book better because it went into much more detail about everything. Lots needed to be glossed over to make the movie work. That being said, I was happy with how the characters came out on screen.

  4. D0nnaTr0y says:

    True, for most cases. There are several movies that I prefer over the book, “Gone With The Wind” being the foremost example. In other cases I prefer to watch the movie then read the book so that the movie experience will not be ruined.

    With this particular series I’ve heard much of what gets criticized in the book, the “teen-agey” girly silliness gets cut from the movie. Which makes me wonder if this is one of the few exceptions of the movie being better than the book. Or even a case where it’s better to watch first, read second.

  5. Anonymous says:

    It’s always better to read the books than just see the movies…

  6. D0nnaTr0y says:

    So you’ve read these books? I bunch of my students love them as does my best friend and I must admit to curiosity. What do you think? Worth the read, or wait for the movies?