With the criticisms thrown at the acting abilities of the members of the "Twilight" cast, and I admit I've thrown many of those criticisms myself, it's interesting to think about what could have been in the town of Forks.  It would have been seriously ironic to see an actress who spent years killing vampires on TV being in a movie about falling in love with and becoming a sparkling one.  But we're not talking about Buffy herself.

Michelle Trachtenberg, who played the role of Buffy's younger sister Dawn, admits that she was originally up for the role of Bella in "Twilight", having known the director Catherine Hardwicke. 

"I've known [director] Catherine Hardwicke since the movie Thirteen," she said. "I was actually supposed to star in that, but I was on 'Buffy' at the time." 

Had she been cast in "Thirteen", that would have definately helped her chances for the role with the experience with not only the director of "Twilight", but she would have co-starred with "Twilight" star Nicki Reed, who also co-wrote "Thirteen".  However, Trachtenberg doesn't regret missing out on the "Twilight Saga", telling US Weekly,

"I already have 'Buffy'," she added. "I've already done the vampire thing."  Trachtenberg also said, "[Hypothetical answers mean] you're not living in the moment and you're looking negatively at what you're doing now."

Now we have to ask the question, what would have happened if Trachtenberg was able to take the role?  Trachtenberg has been acting longer that Stewart, and can emote without resorting to lip-biting.  Would the "Twilight" series have received better acclaim and have been taken more seriously with a different actress, such as Trachtenberg, in the lead role?