Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-264749-20130218073608/@comment-7173477-20130315075027

24.248.195.231 wrote: I read in another thread that they can't use Peter Pan because of copyright or something... it's not public domain... I'm not sure. I'm not on Disney's legal team. I agree with ^ above post: he's probably a Lost Boy. I think it would be too crazy if he was Rumple's son (Baelfire), Henry's dad, Emma's lover, AND Peter Pan. I mean Rumple has a couple of "identities" as the Beast and the Crocodile. I think Neal/Bae's character would be too overloaded if he was Peter Pan as well.

Also, I'm kinda creeped out by the idea that Emma has hooked up with a 300+ year old dude. Yeah, he doesn't look it, but that's the same kind of thing we make fun of Twilight for. (Although Baelfire is human at least)

Plus, there's been a couple of subtle references that he was connected to Never Never Land. He or Emma made made conversational mention of it in Tallahassee (I forget exactly what he or she said); Hook has mentioned the look on the Lost Boys' faces because they were abandoned like Emma (and now we find out Neal was one of those boys, supposedly); and Neal mentioned to Rumple in Manhattan how he had seen his father's face in his dreams "for more years than you can know" or something like that.

It could also explain how Hook knew about the dagger in FTL flashback in "Queen of Hearts." If Bae was in Never Never Land, he could have let it slip somehow.

I very much doubt that there is any legal reason they couldn't use Peter Pan. Disney owns ABC, and they even did that Peter Pan II: Return to Neverland sequel a few years back. Plus all those creepy videos about Tinkerbell and the other pixies.....