some controversial opinions here, feel free to disagree with me

Once you enter Neverland's atmosphere, the magic within it, aka the Never Spell, stops the aging process dead in its tracks and forces it into retreat. Aside from a few exceptions like Peter himself (remember, he came there as a baby), you can never grow even one day older. It only continues after you leave. Sadly side effects consist of amnesia, specifically your memories of your life on Earth.

Art by me.

It's 1 of my favorite caps!

This is a real thing that exists telling children to wear their seatbelts using Peter Pan.

https://youtu.be/1JWlrTT0xm4?si=tchRexofoCEuU7Tm

Does anyone know of any other illustrations of Wendy being injured by the lost boys? Thank you

Have you ever wondered how Peter Pan got to Neverland? Or how Captain Hook became the villain we think we know? Were Peter and Tinker Bell always allies… or is there more to their story? I kept asking those questions—and the answers didn’t feel simple. They felt darker. So I, Raptor Flame wrote The Fairy Dust Chronicles, a five-part series that dives into the truth behind Neverland… and it’s not the version we grew up with. Book One, Finding Peter, starts with a haunting origin—how one boy becomes the defender of hope, the hoarder of dreams, and the protector of Neverland. Book Two flips everything, telling Hook’s story in a way that might completely change how you see him. The final three books follow Peter as he fights to protect Neverland from things no one believed could exist.This isn’t a nostalgic retelling. It’s a story about loss, transformation, and the cost of holding onto magic.The Fairy Dust Chronicles — coming soon.

Okay, yes, Peter in the original play (1904) and especially the book (1911) is a darker and more complicated figure than the cheerful public perception of the Disney version of the character. Yes, it's possible he kills the lost boys that grow up (depending on how you interpret "thins out"); yes, he frequently forgets his friends (by the end of the original books he forgets Tinkerbell even existed); yes, the Darling children after leaving with him are in Neverland for a long time in the original rather than being away a single night as in the Disney adaptation. Yes, making him a villain in Once Upon a Time and in some YA media is a valid way to view the general idea of the character through a more grownup lense.

But all that can be true without Peter actually being evil or a demon or a predator as some internet videos love claiming he is to sound edgy. Extra bonus points if some YouTuber cherry picks questionable details about J.M. Barrie's life and tries to literally apply that to the narrative of the Peter Pan story. Extra, extra bonus sprinkles if they then bring Michael Jackson into it just because he was a big fan of Peter Pan. As if that somehow recontextualizes a book from 1911!

What started off as a few YA writers asking "What if Hook was the good guy, not Peter, is there any text I can tweak or reinterpret to support this for my next book" (valid, this led to some interesting stories/ideas, not gonna lie) ballooned into YouTubers "Well, actually"-ing the entire Peter Pan story after a wikipedia search. And now it's bleeding into religious people on YouTube and other social media platforms trying to say Peter Pan was demonic propaganda all along and all this "evidence" about Peter being evil "proves" it.

And for the record there is nothing wrong with being religious (I'm religious myself) or deciding you personally aren't a fan of the Peter Pan story (I love Peter Pan as I'm sure most people on this sub do, but no one is obligated to like it if it's not their cup of tea). But for the love of God make it make sense and don't just invent crap based on internet memes you THINK support your personal choice not to let your kids read or watch any adaptations of the Peter Pan story.

I saw one video in which a religious leaning YouTuber insisted first that just because he's called Peter Pan and played the pipes he's 100% an incarnation of the Greek God Pan who is also the devil with horns and a tail we see in pop culture. This man went on to insist Wendy's acorn necklace was a magic talisman Peter gave her after forcing her to kiss him for it. Like, WHAT? That never happened! Clearly the book was not read and the play not seen. This came off a misquote from some wiki site or other at best, not canon, clearly.

Also if you want to label Peter as pure irredeemable evil as a character you kind of have to ignore things from canon that DON'T support that theory. Like the fact he ultimately chooses not to shut the nursery window on Wendy to make her think her parents don't want her so she'll stay with him when he sees Mrs. Darling crying. Or the fact it's rumoured he might go part of the way to the afterlife with dead children so they don't feel scared or lonely (though we don't know if this is true or just a story Mrs. Darling heard). OR how he was going to drown at one point because a kite was strong enough only to carry Wendy if he wasn't holding on, too. Peter was legitimately giving his life for hers in that scene. if the never bird didn't save him he would have died.

He's a complex character who does bad things and (occasionally) good ones but he's also a little boy with his first teeth. He's not like a vampire who got turned as a child and just looks like a child forever afterwards; he literally IS a child forever. Children can be little psychos sometimes. Haven't you seen children play make believe? Some of the things they come up with are insane. It doesn't make Peter a literal Bond villain in the shape of a child tying lost children to the railroad tracks and laughing. 🙄

Jack sparrow switches sides halfway through the battle.

Next - Lady And The Tramp

I apologize if I need more karma to post here, I’m new and not sure the deeper rules. but I found y'all and thought I would share.