Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@HappyEndings wrote:
I thought the writers said that we wouldn’t see PP this season, so the kid on the hood can’t be PP right?
I think the last update they gave us was that we’d feel PP’s presence or get a hint on his whereabouts still this season, wasn’t it?
[adrotate group="5"]@Phee wrote:
@Demileto wrote:
I guess it’s all in the eyes of the beholder, these doesn’t seem enough to me to offset the fact that Bae’s characterization resembles little to nothing of what one would expected from Peter Pan; he’s not boastful, careless or cocky and he doesn’t strike me as someone who would have leadership skills.
But we haven’t seen yet how Bae behaved while he was in NL. We’ve seen him before, we’ve seen him after, but we don’t know how the character behaved and evolved during his time in NL.
When he left FTL, he was a scared, angry, alone, teenaged boy. I could see a kid in that position get careless and cocky, especially if he wanted to be a brave hero type, the opposite of how he perceived his father. And then whatever transpired during all those years in NL could have affected him in such a way that he changed again and became the man we see in Neal. I think that making Nealfire be Pan opens up all sorts of possibilities and would give us a wonderfully layered character with a fascinating evolution of epic proportions.
Fair enough. Truthfully, though, I think Neal has enough on his plate with him being Rumple’s son, Henry’s father and Emma’s love interest; he doesn’t need to be Pan to be a more well-rounded character.
My biggest beef about the theory, however, is really that it’d downgrade his relationship with Emma, which as a SwanFire shipper I think of as true love, to a Peter Pan/OC one. Peter and Wendy are usually portrayed as a young but true love that never lasts because Peter is incapable of comprehending growing up is a part of life, I’d think Wendy’d be the one he’d want to be with should he ever be portrayed as an adult, one of her descendants being the next best thing (hello, 1991’s Hook). For me to be even remotely okay with Bae being Peter they’d have to do some very convolutely storytelling to show us that Emma IS Wendy, which given the show’s timeline is quite unlikely.
@Gypsy wrote:
Demileto wrote
How many of these hints were hints specifically to the Peter Pan character and not Neverland in general, though?Just the fact that his alias is “Neal Cassady” is a direct ‘hint’ to Peter Pan.
And the fact that they sressed Bea’s age as 14.I guess it’s all in the eyes of the beholder, these doesn’t seem enough to me to offset the fact that Bae’s characterization resembles little to nothing of what one would expected from Peter Pan; he’s not boastful, careless or cocky and he doesn’t strike me as someone who would have leadership skills.
Truth be told, considering the few disturbing bits I’ve learned today about the Peter Pan character that every adaptation seem all too happy to sweep under the carpet like his thinning out the Lost Boys ranks when they grow up and attacking both sides of a battle to make things interesting, both of which I’ve been clued suggest he kills his friends, I’ll actually be relieved if Bae doesn’t turn out to be him. Now I can understand why A & E are giving Hook a more sympathic portrayal than the usual epythome of evil one, it almost feels like Pan is no better than him. 😮
@ItachiIshtar wrote:
I’m glad we were at least able to get an answer that Tamara wasn’t anybody else. Neal likely not being Peter is actually interesting, if this is the case. Makes Peter Pan’s identity more mysterious. Knowing the writers, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if all of the Peter Pan “hints’ with Neal were really red herrings all along.
How many of these hints were hints specifically to the Peter Pan character and not Neverland in general, though? I’ve never given much thought to it because I hated the idea that Bae took a detour from his intended destination of The Land Without Magic, I only ever remember the “Neal Cassady being called the Peter Pan of his time” one. 😕
@Gypsy wrote:
Also, I find the statement from the interviewers a bit odd since K&H are on record as saying they don’t pay attention to fan boards.
That’s a new one to me, didn’t they mention they briefly considered not having Bae be Henry’s father because the fans already figured that out?
@Hookian wrote:
Oh really well isn’t it kind of obvious? I mean a pivotal part of the finale is the relationship between Bae and Hook so it would make sense they would not want any of that stuff revealed. I thought it was already known that it was young Bae under the hoodie.
Well, Vancity Filming took shots of the Lost Boys and Dylan separately and not only Dylan wasn’t wearing the cloak, but I also think the hooded guy seemed a bit too tall to be Dylan.
http://www.spoilertv.com/2013/03/once-upon-time-season-2-major-spoilers.html
Who knows…
Was it really portrayed as that? All I remember was that Peter was an orphan and Jimmy aka Hook was like the leader of their gang and then they all sans for Peter got transported to Neverland with Peter following afterwords. It’s not revealed till near the end that Hook killed Peter’s father because he took his mother away from him and then Peter cut off Jimmy’s hand which had his dad’s watch with it and it was swallowed by the crocodile.
Yes, it was, you might want to watch it again. It’s why it pained him so much to find Jimmy killed his father, he felt betrayed that the one person he cared about the most in the world was also the one who left him orphaned. In fact, I often compare Jimmy and Peter’s relationship and backstory to a what if Severus Snape raised Harry Potter.
@Hookian wrote:
Besides I thought it was already known that the character with the hood on was Young Bae and they didn't want it revealed that he was on set. That is whom the person whom visited the set was talking about whom was under a hoodie and they didn't want pictures leaked. HookedchoseEmma is the url tumblr. She revealed that she took pics with someone but could not reveal whom it was because of spoiler leaks but once she saw the pics of Young Bae across tumblr she confirmed that is whom was under the hood.
This is news to me, I haven’t seen it be mentioned in the spoilers forums I go like this one and FanForum’s before.
@RumplesGirl wrote:
I don’t think Hook is Pan either. Yes, they’ve made characters (like Rumple) have multiple roles (Rumple, the Beast, the Crocodile) but thus far they’ve all come from different stories. It might be too confusing for the audience to have Hook be both Captain Hook and Peter Pan.
Well, that’s not completely true. You’ve forgotten Red Riding Hood being the Wolf. 🙂
@Hookian wrote:
As far as Pan being Hook’s son that’s a little too out there for my taste. There is absolutely no indication nor even a hint to this. It’s quite interesting though far-fetch’d. I don’t believe it will happen at all. Like you said Killian didn’t give an inkling to a lost son and I’m sure that if I suspect that he was abandoned as a child he would never do the same thing to his son. So I don’t see this happening.
Isn’t Hook/Peter usually portrayed with a dark father/son undertones? The mini-series “Neverland” even made that more explicit by having Hook be Peter’s surrogate father, the latter’s mother being his former love.
I agree on Neal not possessing any of Pan’s major character traits, but I don’t think Hook will end up being Pan either. They’re hiding the identity of the hooded guy among the Lost Boys (presumably the one named Felix in the casting call) so much that I’ve come to think he IS Peter Pan. I don’t rule out, however, the possibility that Pan is Hook’s son, possibly with Milah; though Hook gave no sign of being looking for a lost son in “The Crocodile”, Milah was oddly two steps ahead of Rumple there, having captured Smee for his bean.
Regardless whether he’ll be revealed as Hook’s son or not, I do believe he could easily end up being revealed as also being Pinocchio’s Lampwick and Neverland being OUAT’s Pleasure Island; this’d definitely explain how August knew Neal was Bae, he met him as a puppet in Neverland.
@CrownedWithLaurels wrote:
Not saying that they don’t know about the theory, just saying that them saying they haven’t seen the right one doesn’t mean we don’t have bits and pieces correct; there are so many different variations of every theory and we don’t know what they’ve heard, so it makes it super hard to theorize, especially now..oh man!
Fair enough. 🙂
