Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-264749-20130218073608/@comment-1658198-20130313005003

Fractuared Fairytales wrote: Aside from Red (and that can be argued, with some versions of the story) you're talking about nuances (and I don't count Phillip, because the soul-sucking happened after he rescued Aurora, which was pretty much Phillip's purpose in any of the Sleeping Beauty stories)... not changing an -entire- characterization. Neal being Peter makes no sense, personality wise, not even chronologically (Peter was taken as an infant, after hearing his parents talk about how he was to become a man when he grew up). We're just supposed to assume a fourteen year old boy came to Neverland, knowing perfectly well who he was, took on an alias, took over the Lost Boys (who were just totally cool with some random guy becoming their leader), lived a 100+ years of adventuring and then suddenly decided he'd had enough and up and left, to live in the real world?

Even if it wasn't by choice, it just doesn't work. Peter would jump at the chance to be fourteen again. Neal was disgusted by the idea. Peter Pan is an iconic character, and to just decide to entirely rewrite him, to be a brooding, moody, sad teenage boy who's only in Neverland to hide from his wacky dad negates his purpose. He's the boy who doesn't ever want to grow up. Youth and happiness - that's how he's describes. That is NOT Bae, by a long shot. The writers aren't typically single minded. If they change a character, it's for a distinct reason - not just to toss in another Fairytale. Neal being a Lost Boy is entirely understandable... even Neal just -being- in Neverland and having no association with the Lost Boys makes sense. Him being Peter is just bad writing. I agree with Fractuared Fairytales. But I feel Peter is also much more complex than anyone realises, he may not even be a boy. The clues are in the original book themselves:

1) He was said to guide the souls of dead children, as said by Mary Darling once (no normal boy could actually do this)

2) The weather changes on Peter's presence or lack of in Neverland (again, no normal boy could actually do this)

3) Peter is actually more bloodthirsty in the original book, gladly wading through pirate blood (yes, even though it is a children's book, in real life the pirates would bleed)

4) The animals, fairies and even the Lost Boys are afraid of Peter, hence why they partly leave Neverland, to be rid of him

5) When he says, "I am youth, I am joy..." J.M. Barrie himself states that Peter is talking utter nonsence as he even doesn't know what he is

6) J.M. Barrie states that "whenever a Lost Boy found himself growing up, Peter would 'thim them out'", which could either mean he killed them (which is highly unlikely) or he banished them from Neverland, which seems plausible.

It would take OUaT people a lot of time and effort to try get Bae/Neal to be Peter Pan (I don't believe he is a normal boy), and also there are copyrights on Peter Pan so it seems more likely Bae/Neal was a Lost Boy, to me anyway