Board Thread:Off-Topic Fun/@comment-5367821-20130209055547/@comment-1758442-20130616172756

108.49.79.202 wrote:

And in the time period that story is set in, the bulk of the dominant peoples are light-skinned, because the darker-skinned were enslaved. It wouldn't work. 1. Since these stories take place in fantasy realms, Earth history doesn't really count.

2. Not all dark-skinned people were enslaved. There was a whole continent full of them.

3. Even if the fantasy world did have slavery, there's no reason why a famous fairytale character couldn't be retooled to become a freed or escaped slave. Quite a few famous fairytales are about escaping captivity.

108.49.79.202 wrote:

Same for Peter Pan. It wouldn't be the same if he wasn't blonde-haired, because the Lost Boys' appearance is a HUGE part of who they are. Personally, I think OUaT couldn't have done a better job there, they were fantastic and their outfits and appearances really capture what the Lost Boys are about. They even had a black lost boy, which worked fine, as long as Peter himself sticks to the image we know of him. Again, it's iconic, and it's meant to accentuate who he is. Peter Pan is, in the source material, a mischievous boy with magic powers who refuses to grow up. I don't see how being a white blond accentuates that in any way. I've seen Peter played by blonds and brunettes. The Disney version is a redhead. In most stage adaptations, he's played by a woman. I don't see why a black, brown, or Asian actor wouldn't be able to convey similar personality traits. And if the OUAT version is significantly altering their personality, as they seem to be doing with Peter, then why wouldn't changing his race work?