Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-1916997-20160712145426/@comment-5679696-20160713152809

Eskaver wrote: Rumple and Phillip don't split Disney's Beast in two. Rumple takes the beastly appearance,  castle, talking objects, the dance, the music, the outfits, Belle's love, obsession over a shiny object, Gaston, a rose, etc. Phillip's just some cursed prince who happened to be beastly to parallel to her situation with Rumple.

I strongly disagree. Just because Rumple got a lot more of the elements from the original Beast, that does not mean that Phillip's minor adaptation isn't one. Rumple is a much more important character, so obviously as the series develops they keep giving him elements from the Beast (the dance, the talking objects, etc.).

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.

So I think that if we can consider that both Ariel and Ursula are adaptations of the Little Mermaid; both Aurora and her mom are adaptations of the Sleeping Beauty; both Elsa and Ingrid are adaptations of the Snow Queen; both Gerhardt Frankenstein and Daniel are adaptations of the Creature; then we should definitely be able to consider that both Rumple and Phillip are adaptations of the Beast, in my opinion.