Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-1916997-20160712145426/@comment-1916997-20160713182337

We should keep letting others way in, but Killian again states the point really well with the paragraph I will post below. Basically, what he says is that Phillip has aspects of the Beast that Rumple doesn't, much like Ariel and Ursula having different aspects of The Little Mermaid. He also points out how characters often don't "check all the boxes" of the traditional character, yet they are clearly that character, like Jack for example. I think those are both really important points in this discussion.

Phillip has elements from the original Beast that Rumple never got. He was a prince to begin with, cursed into a lion-like creature and saved by Belle. What does it matter that Belle didn't love him? Or that he didn't own talking candelabra? That's like saying Jack is not an adaptation of Jack because she's not a young boy, she didn't trade her cow in exchange for magic beans, her dynamic with the giant/s was reversed, etc. etc.