[SpaceBallz]

But streaming? For sure you see that. Look at how Disney treated Peter Pan & Wendy.

To be fair, Peter Pan & Wendy was rough to sit through. And I loved Hook.

[RichardLess]

But streaming? For sure you see that. Look at how Disney treated Peter Pan & Wendy.

To be fair, Peter Pan & Wendy was rough to sit through. And I loved Hook.

It’s was awful. And look, I hate when people complain about “woke this” and “woke that” but having girls as part of the Lost Boys is so against the idea of Lost Boys that it boggles my mind. The book specifically mentions that girls are far too clever to become Lost Boys.

And yes I too love Hook. John Williams just knocks that shit out of the park. When Peter flies for the first time? I get chills just thinking about it.

Off topic but there’s a Peter Pan movie that almost no one has seen and it’s brilliant. It came out in 2003. It’s so good. Disney was suppose be a part of that movie but they pulled out after the Great Ormond Street kids hospital that owns the Peter Pan trademark was like “hey. Where’s the money you owe us from all the Peter Pan stuff you’ve done” and instead of paying the children’s hospital what they owe, they backed out and Universal took over.

[Alphagaia]

To be fair, Peter Pan & Wendy was rough to sit through. And I loved Hook.

It’s was awful. And look, I hate when people complain about “woke this” and “woke that” but having girls as part of the Lost Boys is so against the idea of Lost Boys that it boggles my mind. The book specifically mentions that girls are far too clever to become Lost Boys.

I have not seen this movie and can't speak of its quality, but let's be fair.
That's a stupid reason to exclude a gender.

I understand it's an old story set in a time where girls were supposed to be brought up a certain old fashioned way, but when a story gets retold there is no problem to change things up and be a little more modern and inclusive. Especially a story with themes about kids growing up and losing their childish innocence, imagination and sense of adventure.
We have moved on and it shouldn't be a problem 100+ year old stories evolve with us and adapt with the times.

[RichardLess]

It’s was awful. And look, I hate when people complain about “woke this” and “woke that” but having girls as part of the Lost Boys is so against the idea of Lost Boys that it boggles my mind. The book specifically mentions that girls are far too clever to become Lost Boys.

I have not seen this movie and can't speak of its quality, but let's be fair.
That's a stupid reason to exclude a gender.

I understand it's an old story set in a time where girls were supposed to be brought up a certain old fashioned way, but when a story gets retold there is no problem to change things up and be a little more modern and inclusive. Especially a story with themes about kids growing up and losing their childish innocence, imagination and sense of adventure.
We have moved on and it shouldn't be a problem 100+ year old stories evolve with us and adapt with the times.

I disagree. It’s not stupid. It’s not excluding a gender. There are females in the story(Wendy is in the title). But the idea is that “girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams” and…they are called “The Lost Boys”. It would be one thing if the movie or play was a boys only affair. But it’s not. The author of the play included that detail for a reason. To disregard it, the beautiful innocent way in which “girls are far too clever” I think is an important detail. This isn’t about sexism or anything of the sort. If that was the case? I’m with you.

Now when the detail isn’t important? Say having a multi cultural Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings series? That’s coo. I’m all for it. Or female Ghostbusters? Cool.

But when you go against the very idea of the thing, the central conceit on which the idea stands, you are updating it just to update it. And maybe, *maybe* if they had made it a modern Peter Pan I could accept it. But it’s still a period piece.

Stories do evolve and adapt with the times but I don’t see an evolution here. Again if there are some sort of sexist bend to the idea, I’d agree. But that’s not how it is.

The story is saying something about a bunch of lost boys who need a female, a mother figure, to tell them stories. It’s sad. Peter Pan is a sad story. I could probably go on and on about what the lost boys represent and why its an important, if not essential idea that they are boys but I feel like we are so far and away off topic already I should probably quit.

[Alphagaia]

I have not seen this movie and can't speak of its quality, but let's be fair.
That's a stupid reason to exclude a gender.

I understand it's an old story set in a time where girls were supposed to be brought up a certain old fashioned way, but when a story gets retold there is no problem to change things up and be a little more modern and inclusive. Especially a story with themes about kids growing up and losing their childish innocence, imagination and sense of adventure.
We have moved on and it shouldn't be a problem 100+ year old stories evolve with us and adapt with the times.

I disagree. It’s not stupid. It’s not excluding a gender. There are females in the story(Wendy is in the title). But the idea is that “girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams” and…they are called “The Lost Boys”. It would be one thing if the movie or play was a boys only affair.

What's the point you are trying to make here? The story includes girls in a few other roles so it cannot be sexist or non inclusive? Wendy is basically a manifestation of the mother role, the mermaids are just sexual desires and let's not touch on the racist implications of Tiger Lily and how she and her clan were portrayed and described in the old stories.
Please explain because I don't feel you mean it like this, right?

Anyway, it's very old fashioned to just go 'only boys want adventure, miss their mom and don't want to grow up while girls are sensible and do their duties. Girls can want that as well.

That's the point of the story and that's why I don't mind giving the other gender this lesson as well.
I feel the very sentence "girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams” is sexist because it generalises and devides by gender.

Nowadays both genders are a lot closer than 100+ years ago and it's ok to show that it has.

Maybe it's best to continue in a new thread if you want to continue debating this, unless the mods allow a little more back and forth to better explain our point of view?

[Davideverona]

I DO BELIEVE IN FAIRIES, I DO! I DO!

[RichardLess]

I disagree. It’s not stupid. It’s not excluding a gender. There are females in the story(Wendy is in the title). But the idea is that “girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams” and…they are called “The Lost Boys”. It would be one thing if the movie or play was a boys only affair.

What's the point you are trying to make here? The story includes girls in a few other roles so it cannot be sexist or non inclusive? Wendy is basically a manifestation of the mother role, the mermaids are just sexual desires and let's not touch on the racist implications of Tiger Lily and how she and her clan were portrayed and described in the old stories.
Please explain because I don't feel you mean it like this, right?

Anyway, it's very old fashioned to just go 'only boys want adventure, miss their mom and don't want to grow up while girls are sensible and do their duties. Girls can want that as well.

That's the point of the story and that's why I don't mind giving the other gender this lesson as well.
I feel the very sentence "girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams” is sexist because it generalises and devides by gender.

Nowadays both genders are a lot closer than 100+ years ago and it's ok to show that it has.

Maybe it's best to continue in a new thread if you want to continue debating this, unless the mods allow a little more back and forth to better explain our point of view?

Yeah I’m tapping out of this one. When you say the sentence “girls are too clever to fall out of the prams” is sexist because an immature boy who can’t grow up makes a generalization I feel you are just completely missing the point.

You know what? I will say this. Peter Pan and Wendy both represent the male and female id. Wendy, who is expected to become a woman with all the entrapments of Victorian womanhood. She wishes to escape that. And Peter who suppresses his manhood and always wants to be a boy and have fun. What does Wendy find in Neverland? A bunch of boys who see her for the mother they never had. Wendy is the only one to see Neverland for what it truly is. No matter where she goes, she can’t escape the trapping of the male want and need for a female to sooth them. To look after them. To be a mother.

Do females experience that? Yes. But it comes off differently and loses its meaning when a female is part of that need and want. It says something about boys and men and societies role for women. And it does it all in the guise of a children’s tome. Wendy cannot escape her role, even in Neverland. She’s sees thru the fantasy and the play.

Is there racial elements to the book? Yes. And that can go and isn’t a necessity. It’s not a theme of the book. “Redskins” was very much a parlance of the day. The Disney movie cartoon takes this is a while other racist level.

It’s an important detail that Lost Boys are boys. It’s an important detail that Wendy is female and that Peter is male(tho he was traditionally played by female in stage plays and movies, that was for different reasons).

But yeah we’ve probably taken enough room in the GB4 thread talking about Peter Pan.

I still highly recommend the 2003 version of the movie. It’s easily the best adaptation.

[timeware]

I still highly recommend the 2003 version of the movie. It’s easily the best adaptation.

I always preferred The Lost Boys 1984 reboot starring Correy Feldman.

[Alphagaia]

What's the point you are trying to make here? The story includes girls in a few other roles so it cannot be sexist or non inclusive? Wendy is basically a manifestation of the mother role, the mermaids are just sexual desires and let's not touch on the racist implications of Tiger Lily and how she and her clan were portrayed and described in the old stories.
Please explain because I don't feel you mean it like this, right?

Anyway, it's very old fashioned to just go 'only boys want adventure, miss their mom and don't want to grow up while girls are sensible and do their duties. Girls can want that as well.

That's the point of the story and that's why I don't mind giving the other gender this lesson as well.
I feel the very sentence "girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams” is sexist because it generalises and devides by gender.

Nowadays both genders are a lot closer than 100+ years ago and it's ok to show that it has.

Maybe it's best to continue in a new thread if you want to continue debating this, unless the mods allow a little more back and forth to better explain our point of view?

Yeah I’m tapping out of this one. When you say the sentence “girls are too clever to fall out of the prams” is sexist because an immature boy who can’t grow up makes a generalization I feel you are just completely missing the point.

You can't have it both ways. First you use this point as your main argument to explain why there aren't any girls lost in Neverland. Now you claim it's just something an immature boys says so it cannot be sexist. Boys can also be sexist, even if they don't realize it.
Either way it's the explanation the writer gave, and you used to exclude any girls being incapable to undergo the same emotional rollercoaster.

What point am I missing here besides you are hiding behind the worldview of a writer that's long since past?

You can adapt the story to include lost girls with the exact same themes.

Why does it lose any meaning according to you if little girls want a mother figure? Or any kid wanting a father figure for that matter since we have stay at home dads nowadays as well? Or both?

The story has aged. I would go even further: Adapt and improve to the current standards and social improvements where it's not just about the caring mother but about (a) caring parent(s).

[Kingpin]

While I don't see the alteration of the story as a problem, it seems unlikely a consensus will be reached... So it might be best to agree to disagree.

At the very least if you wish to continue this part of the discussion, it should be done in a split-off topic from here.

[RichardLess]

Yeah I’m tapping out of this one. When you say the sentence “girls are too clever to fall out of the prams” is sexist because an immature boy who can’t grow up makes a generalization I feel you are just completely missing the point.

You can't have it both ways. First you use this point as your main argument to explain why there aren't any girls lost in Neverland. Now you claim it's just something an immature boys says so it cannot be sexist. Boys can also be sexist, even if they don't realize it.
Either way it's the explanation the writer gave, and you used to exclude any girls being incapable to undergo the same emotional rollercoaster.

What point am I missing here besides you are hiding behind the worldview of a writer that's long since past?

You can adapt the story to include lost girls with the exact same themes.

Why does it lose any meaning according to you if little girls want a mother figure? Or any kid wanting a father figure for that matter since we have stay at home dads nowadays as well? Or both?

The story has aged. I would go even further: Adapt and improve to the current standards and social improvements where it's not just about the caring mother but about (a) caring parent(s).

I didn’t present anything as a “main” argument. There’s the in story reasoning and there’s thematic reasoning. I simply told you the stories reasoning and didn’t dig deeper lest it take up too much of this forums space(like now). I thought I was pretty clear on that. Peter Pan is an immature boy. That’s not having anything both ways. That’s who he is. His reasoning for no girls as lost boys is because girls are too clever. That’s our story reason. You said it’s a sexist generalization. I find it beautifully naive and innocent.

It sounds like the story you want told isn’t Peter Pan. At which point…just come up with something new that tells that story. They are called the Lost Boys. The story is given a reason both thematic and literal for this is. It would be like having Aragorn crowned Queen instead of King in Lord of the Rings. The fact that Aargorn is male & an heir to the throne is important in the context. Changing it to female would be making a change just to change it. Despite there being good storytelling and thematic reasoning behind it.

“You could present the same themes with Lost girls”. Maybe you could. But you know what it wouldn’t be? Peter Pan. But no I don’t think you could adapt the story to have those same things. Here’s an example. Changing the sex of the Adventures of Tom Sawyer(of either Tom or Huck) would mean you lose something. You could do it. It could be done. But would it be as poignant, as thematically apt, if it’s two girls or a girl and a boy? I think not. It’s the same idea here. Wendy being a mother figure to boys specifically is the point of the story and when you change that you lose the spirit of the thing. Boys have different psychological reactions to a mother than girls. It means something different. Anyone familiar with the Oedipus complex? Or take something as trivial as Twilight. Switching the genders of the main characters could be done. But you’d lose something in doing that.

And I take issue with your “hiding behind” notion. I’m not hiding behind anything. Quite the opposite. I’m shining a light on it so those of you in the dark can see.

“The story has aged”. There’s a way to make the changes you talk about. But having the same story just just with some lost girls isn’t how it should be done. Commit to the change. Have Peter Pan be a female. Patricia Pan. Don’t tell the exact same story the exact same way but changing an important detail that changes the stories inherent POV. Have it take place today. Wendy is addicted to her cellphone. John and Michael play video games. Instead of fairy dust, it’s a pill. Captain Hook is a Somali pirate or someone that downloads music for free. And Wendy doesn’t identify with the feminist ideals of today. She wants to be a stay at home mom, raise kids, go to soccer practise. I don’t know. But what I do know is the movie didn’t work, Lost Boys with girls doesn’t work.

EDIT: Sorry !Kingpin. I didn’t see your post until after I posted this. Sorry about that.

[Kingpin]

Split from the "Firehouse" discussion topic.

[Alphagaia]

You can't have it both ways. First you use this point as your main argument to explain why there aren't any girls lost in Neverland. Now you claim it's just something an immature boys says so it cannot be sexist. Boys can also be sexist, even if they don't realize it.
Either way it's the explanation the writer gave, and you used to exclude any girls being incapable to undergo the same emotional rollercoaster.

What point am I missing here besides you are hiding behind the worldview of a writer that's long since past?

You can adapt the story to include lost girls with the exact same themes.

Why does it lose any meaning according to you if little girls want a mother figure? Or any kid wanting a father figure for that matter since we have stay at home dads nowadays as well? Or both?

The story has aged. I would go even further: Adapt and improve to the current standards and social improvements where it's not just about the caring mother but about (a) caring parent(s).

I didn’t present anything as a “main” argument. There’s the in story reasoning and there’s thematic reasoning. I simply told you the stories reasoning and didn’t dig deeper lest it take up too much of this forums space(like now). I thought I was pretty clear on that. Peter Pan is an immature boy. That’s not having anything both ways. That’s who he is. His reasoning for no girls as lost boys is because girls are too clever. That’s our story reason. You said it’s a sexist generalization. I find it beautifully naive and innocent.

It was the first point you made in favor of just having lost boys. Hence it was your main argument. But either way, besides the point.

An explanation for just lost boys can be multiple things. In this case it is blatantly sexist reason as it's dividing by gender. Simple as that. Can you explain why is this reasoning is innocent and beautifully naive while it blocks a whole gender from participating? It's only called lost Boys because the writer excluded a gender.

It sounds like the story you want told isn’t Peter Pan. At which point…just come up with something new that tells that story. They are called the Lost Boys. The story is given a reason both thematic and literal for this is. It would be like having Aragorn crowned Queen instead of King in Lord of the Rings. The fact that Aargorn is male & an heir to the throne is important in the context. Changing it to female would be making a change just to change it. Despite there being good storytelling and thematic reasoning behind it.

“You could present the same themes with Lost girls”. Maybe you could. But you know what it wouldn’t be? Peter Pan.

You keep saying lost boys with girls doesn't work without explaining why it doesn't work or isn't Peter pan. Yes, you give examples from other fiction but we aren't talking about those. Explain why adding lost girls is changing the themes of Peter Pan.

[RichardLess]

I didn’t present anything as a “main” argument. There’s the in story reasoning and there’s thematic reasoning. I simply told you the stories reasoning and didn’t dig deeper lest it take up too much of this forums space(like now). I thought I was pretty clear on that. Peter Pan is an immature boy. That’s not having anything both ways. That’s who he is. His reasoning for no girls as lost boys is because girls are too clever. That’s our story reason. You said it’s a sexist generalization. I find it beautifully naive and innocent.

It was the first point you made in favor of just having lost boys. Hence it was your main argument. But either way, besides the point.

An explanation for just lost boys can be multiple things. In this case it is blatantly sexist reason as it's dividing by gender. Simple as that. Can you explain why is this reasoning is innocent and beautifully naive while it blocks a whole gender from participating? It's only called lost Boys because the writer excluded a gender.

It sounds like the story you want told isn’t Peter Pan. At which point…just come up with something new that tells that story. They are called the Lost Boys. The story is given a reason both thematic and literal for this is. It would be like having Aragorn crowned Queen instead of King in Lord of the Rings. The fact that Aargorn is male & an heir to the throne is important in the context. Changing it to female would be making a change just to change it. Despite there being good storytelling and thematic reasoning behind it.

“You could present the same themes with Lost girls”. Maybe you could. But you know what it wouldn’t be? Peter Pan.

You keep saying lost boys with girls doesn't work without explaining why it doesn't work or isn't Peter pan. Yes, you give examples from other fiction but we aren't talking about those. Explain why adding lost girls is changing the themes of Peter Pan.

No offense Alpha, but I’ve explained it multiple times. I don’t know why you can’t see that? Maybe go back and reread my responses. I do tend to ramble on so perhaps you missed that part? I don’t know. It’s all there.

[GuyX]

What a fascinating conversation. I think I’ve changed who I agree with so many times I’ve strained my neck!

I started out agreeing with Alpha. Yeah. Why can’t girls be Lost Boys? Is it really so sacrosanct?

But as Richard explained his POV I came around to seeing his side. Oh ok. Lost Boys should be boys because of how males relate differently to the mother figure. Yet There’s something more sad about Boys who refuse to grow up due to societies traditional role for them vs women. Wendy seeing through the fantasy of Neverland is an important detail.

But then like Alpha said girls experience those feelings too. Very true.

But then Richard mentioned the Oedipus complex & how a modern Peter Pan might work with girls, but a period piece, in Victorian England is how the story is told(and is the Disney version).

I think I’m leaning more towards Richards side. But I don’t think it’s impossible for girls to be Lost Boys. Just that in the telling of the Disney version, which is more an adaptation of the book, that it doesn’t work as well as boys only.

I’m not totally convinced but an excellent conversation on the merits of a traditional Peter Pan told with modern flourishes or a modern Peter Pan told with todays ideals.

I do agree that the movie wasn’t very good. Which was sad to see. David Lowery is always impressive but I feel like if you are going to make a Peter Pan movie in 2023 you must be able to top what has come before. And PJ Hogan’s 2003 version remains tops. I don’t think it’s as under seen as Richard claims. But it wasn’t the girls that bothered me(which aren’t even important. They are just..girls). It was the look of the film and the lack of whimsy and charm.

[deadderek]

Richardless wins. Flawless Victory.

[Alphagaia]

No offense Alpha, but I’ve explained it multiple times. I don’t know why you can’t see that? Maybe go back and reread my responses. I do tend to ramble on so perhaps you missed that part? I don’t know. It’s all there.

I really don't see it. The closest thing I see is towards an explanation is you are using the Oedipus statement and saying boys react differently towards their mom than girls. You don't say what makes it different and why girls cannot have the same experience with either mom or dad nowadays, however.

Only other thing I see is the period piece. Which I feel is superfluous to the actual story and themes, but is a reason why the writers views or male and female duties are so old fashioned.

You do have a tendency to ramble, no offense, but is that it? Or am I missing something? I agree there is a lot of fluff around the points you are making that I feel don't really matter, like the examples where you are changing the sex of certain well known characters. We are adding genders, not changing them.

Which is why I'm asking for a direct answer on the main question so we can keep the argument focused.

For the record, I enjoy the argument and especially the fact we are explaining or points of view in a civil and mature way as it's easy to devolve into a spitting match or pretend it's Mortal Kombat or something silly like that.

[RichardLess]

No offense Alpha, but I’ve explained it multiple times. I don’t know why you can’t see that? Maybe go back and reread my responses. I do tend to ramble on so perhaps you missed that part? I don’t know. It’s all there.

I really don't see it. The closest thing I see is towards an explanation is you are using the Oedipus statement and saying boys react differently towards their mom than girls. You don't say what makes it different and why girls cannot have the same experience with either mom or dad nowadays, however.

Only other thing I see is the period piece. Which I feel is superfluous to the actual story and themes, but is a reason why the writers views or male and female duties are so old fashioned.

You do have a tendency to ramble, no offense, but is that it? Or am I missing something? I agree there is a lot of fluff around the points you are making that I feel don't really matter, like the examples where you are changing the sex of certain well known characters. We are adding genders, not changing them.

Which is why I'm asking for a direct answer on the main question so we can keep the argument focused.

For the record, I enjoy the argument and especially the fact we are explaining or points of view in a civil and mature way as it's easy to devolve into a spitting match or pretend it's Mortal Kombat or something silly like that.

I think are definitely missing something. The period is not at all superfluous. Have you actually read the book we are talking about? The Lost Boys don’t even know what girls are. They don’t know what girls are and yet they all want and need a mother. Do you see the issue when a girl is added to that mix? There’s an unconscious psychological need for a female figure even when they don’t know what that is.

When you add in the “girls are too clever” story reasoning you see there a very specific reasons for The Lost Boys to be boys. Unlike when Barrie calls Indian Redskins, which has no story function. It was the ignorant parlance of the day.

I don’t think my examples were “fluff”. The Lost Boys are a group of male characters. By changing the sex you are changing the characterizing of what the lost boys are, what they stand for. I used those examples because it would be a similar, tho more specific, issue.

Also, I never said girls “cannot” experience those feelings. I’m saying Peter Pan and the Lost Boys take place in a universe and time where the delineation between boys and girls is very much a part of societies make up. Boys have a role and girls have a role. The story of Peter Pan is about running away from that. It’s about running away from that in a Victorian era context.

When you adapt a Peter Pan movie, keep all the same ingredients but change that one thing? You lose something big. Maybe not to you. Maybe not to others. But to me? Oh yeah.


Anyways, yeah. It’s been fun. I don’t expect you to agree or change your mind but hopefully you at least can understand my perspective on the matter.

[Alphagaia]

I really don't see it. The closest thing I see is towards an explanation is you are using the Oedipus statement and saying boys react differently towards their mom than girls. You don't say what makes it different and why girls cannot have the same experience with either mom or dad nowadays, however.

Only other thing I see is the period piece. Which I feel is superfluous to the actual story and themes, but is a reason why the writers views or male and female duties are so old fashioned.

You do have a tendency to ramble, no offense, but is that it? Or am I missing something? I agree there is a lot of fluff around the points you are making that I feel don't really matter, like the examples where you are changing the sex of certain well known characters. We are adding genders, not changing them.

Which is why I'm asking for a direct answer on the main question so we can keep the argument focused.

For the record, I enjoy the argument and especially the fact we are explaining or points of view in a civil and mature way as it's easy to devolve into a spitting match or pretend it's Mortal Kombat or something silly like that.

I think are definitely missing something. The period is not at all superfluous. Have you actually read the book we are talking about? The Lost Boys don’t even know what girls are. They don’t know what girls are and yet they all want and need a mother.

But there are girls in Neverland? The mermaids and Tiger Lily and even Tinkerbell. How can they not know what a girl is? What they actually want is a parental figure. Someone who loves them and protects them, sings a song for them and tucks them in when they go to sleep.

Do you see the issue when a girl is added to that mix? There’s an unconscious psychological need for a female figure even when they don’t know what that is.

I feel you are mistaking female for parental figure. Which, granted, especially in those times those duties are taken up by the mother, but that doen't mean female figure and parental figure are the same thing.
They simply need someone that takes care of them as they are afraid to grow up. Any girl in the group can easily want the same as well without changing the themes and narrative. Wendy represents growing up and taking care of things. With a parent figure present they don't need to grow up. In those times it was almost always a women who stayed home and did the parenting, so if you want to keep in that period that fine, but lost girls wanting the same thing isn't changing the story in a big way.

When you add in the “girls are too clever” story reasoning you see there a very specific reasons for The Lost Boys to be boys.

Eh, Peter steals kids to play with. Or the young kids run away when they are not being watched. (Depending on the story, he even kills lost boys that grow up.) He could just as easily have stolen/found girls as well, and with Wendy he even does and it's finally the kid that can act like a responsible parent which advances the plot. What is the specific reason? Girls are more sensible than boys? Again, that's simply not true and just like the racist implications in the book, something that really needs to be changed.

I don’t think my examples were “fluff”. The Lost Boys are a group of male characters. By changing the sex you are changing the characterizing of what the lost boys are, what they stand for. I used those examples because it would be a similar, tho more specific, issue.

But you aren't naming anything that would only affect boys. That's why I don't get it. They stand for not wanting to grow up and like being mothered. Also, you are also using examples where you are changing one persons gender, when we are talking about a group.

Speaking of gender swap: Peter Pan was often played by a girl in the plays, Barrie insisted on that.
(Unrelated sidenote: It's even said he believed Peter and Wendy are two parts of the same character that fight for domination: one representing childhood and the other growing up. There is a certain duality there. Which is why Peter and Wendy are the exact same height and they both faint after defeating Hook together. Wendy choosing to go home is accepting she wants to grow up).

Back to regarding swapping genders: A group it's much easier to change things around. Look at how the Lost boys evolved in the times. We started with a few white boys with different common characters traits, which later introduced other races, look at Hook for instance, and now even girls and a kid with down syndrome. The lost boys are also meant to represent the kids from the audience, and that chances with the time.

Also, I never said girls “cannot” experience those feelings. I’m saying Peter Pan and the Lost Boys take place in a universe and time where the delineation between boys and girls is very much a part of societies make up. Boys have a role and girls have a role. The story of Peter Pan is about running away from that. It’s about running away from that in a Victorian era context.

That still doesn't mean we cannot widen the story for a bigger audience without changing the story. Kids of either gender still have the same issues. Even,or perhaps even especially in those times. They might have different roles to play as they are older, but you can run away from both roles. I'm sure women were aching to be more than just mothers and not having a vote and wanting to teach their kids to think the same. At least it's good to see we agree girls can experience the same heartaches. I feel especially the old classic stories should change and adapt accordingly to show that. Simply because that's the stories people know and that's a good example to show we made progress.

Stories are always evolving: (Heck, even the story and it ending changed as it started as Peter Pan being a baby that could fly and took off thinking he could always go back to his mother untill he realized she got a new baby. Another variant led to Peter stealing babies and even Wendies child and/or him killing lost boys. It was dark.)



So in short: the story always evolved, and the Lost boys already became more inclusive with it as we went from white boys to a more ethnic enriched group, that is meant to represent the audience as well. By adding girls you lose nothing of importance to the main themes of (not) wanting to grow up, seeking a mother figure, fear of death (Hook and his fear that his time is almost up) and making the choice to become an adult regardless (Wendy leaving Neverland). Even in an older time period.