Twilight could be so much better

Joss Whedon, your help is needed — as in immediately.

The versatile, talented writer/producer/director needs to be involved with the Twilight movie franchise.

So far, we've had two filmmakers in charge — directors Catherine Hardwicke and Chris Weitz — who have botched the job.

Hardwicke's version of "Twilight" took too long to get started. And Weitz, who also made the leaden fantasy "The Golden Compass," was supposed to make "New Moon" a livelier sequel.

However, the film barely has 10 minutes worth of werewolves-vs.-vampires battles, as well as a couple of brief vampire skirmishes.

Most of what we get is painfully dull, angsty teen romance. Even attempts at humor — actresses Anna Kendrick and Ashley Greene are supposed comic "foils" — are awful. (They play Bella's closest human and vampire female pals, respectively.)

The third book in LDS author Stephenie Meyer's "saga," "Eclipse," is being adapted by director David Slade, who made the over-the-top vampire thriller "30 Days of Night." That does not inspire confidence, nor does the fact that screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg will be back.

The sad thing is, Twilight as a cinematic experience is not broken. It's just not living up to its full potential. This is where Whedon comes in.

He's already proved that this kind of material can work.

Remember a little something called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"? That television program ran successfully for seven seasons and was pretty much about the relationship between a human teenager and her vampire lover. (Sarah Michelle Gellar and David Boreanaz played the particulars.)

The difference was, it was done much better than these movies have been — "Buffy" had real humor, genuine pathos and occasional musical numbers.

And frankly, Whedon could use something high-profile and popular as well.

He's coming off the spectacular television failure "Dollhouse" and hasn't had a hit since "Buffy" went off the air.

OF COURSE …

It's already been shown that "Twi-hards" will go see these movies, no matter whether they're good or bad.

So there's no incentive for Summit Entertainment officials to change what they're doing with the franchise.

However, a more-exciting, funnier Twilight movie could open up the possibility of attracting broader audiences. I'm just saying.

BLAME THE MATERIAL?

The Harry Potter movies have already proved what can happen when a franchise is too faithful to its inspiration.

The first two Harry Potter movies — "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (2001) and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" (2002) — were too long and too dull.

And say what you will about the darker third movie "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004) it was a vast improvement on its predecessors.

It's also regarded as the least-faithful adaptation of the best-selling J.K. Rowling novels, I might add.

e-mail: jeff@desnews.com