Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-264749-20130218073608/@comment-140.247.0.14-20130304152412

I think it's important to remember that not only are there different interpretations to the story, but there are a multitude of ways in which the story itself could be tweaked. Just to reference to numerous assertions that Neal can't be Peter Pan, we have to remember that none of the fairy tales have been cut and dry. Little Red is the big bad Wolf. Prince Charming isn't a legitimate prince. Jack from Jack in the Beanstalk was a grown woman with bad intentions. Given these examples (and there are many), there are no significant pieces of evidence that prevent Neal from being Peter Pan as far as the show is concerned. It's important to remember that OuaT never gives us the story as we know it. They take quite a few liberties with the way they present the characters and their back stories. The way we remember them remains intact, but there are enough changes to keep it interesting. That's the real beauty of the show. In fact, I think given the nature of the show, there has been nothing but hints that he IS indeed Peter Pan. He might not be Peter Pan in the long run, but there's defintely a large opportunity for him to actually be Peter Pan. It could've been an alias of sorts, we all know his real name isn't Neal as does he. It could've been his nickname... Rumplestilskin is only the crocodile because Hook calls him that. So for everyone using the text to legitimize claims that it's impossible for Neal to be Peter Pan: In OuaT, nothing's impossible. Who knew for a fact that Neal would be Baelfire? Rumplestiltskin never even had a son in his story.