Who Does Sapphire Belong to in Memory? 'Princess Knight' and the Rewriting of Classic IP

Looking at the reactions surrounding the new work based on 'Princess Knight', it is difficult to dismiss this simply as 'rejection by fans of the original'.

Of course, at the pre-release stage, the success or failure of the work itself cannot be judged.

One cannot definitively state what the story will handle or where it will land based solely on trailers, visuals, titles, cast, and the original work credit.

In the actual work, there is a possibility that issues present in the original, such as gender roles, royal succession, self-determination, and the conflict between roles assigned by institutions and one's own identity, will be carefully handled from a different angle.

Therefore, what can be questioned here is not the quality of the work.

What can be questioned is the pre-release announcement strategy and how the entry point is created.

What does the work put to the forefront, which name does it borrow, which memories does it connect to, and what kind of first impression is it trying to create?

Works dealing with classic IP are criticized by their presentation even before the main story begins.

The current distrust also arises from there.

The sense of discomfort first comes from the visuals.

I do not think the current backlash arises as a logical argument from the start.

In many cases, what comes first is a sense of discomfort with the visuals.

This is not a simple reaction of 'I don't like it because the art style is different'.

In manga originals, there is already a character image drawn by the author.

In the case of 'Princess Knight', Sapphire is not just a character with a name and settings, but an existence remembered through Osamu Tezuka's lines.

When one sees new visuals as something connected to that Sapphire, if the necessity that makes one think 'is this the new Sapphire?' is not visible, the recipient first feels a distance.

Being modern is not the problem itself.

Even with modern visuals, if there is a face unique to that work, or a silhouette that must belong to that character, the reception changes.

However, if the character design visible at the announcement stage looks like an extension of mass-produced modern anime, it becomes difficult to connect 'Princess Knight' to it.

The current sense of discomfort is not simply a matter of 'it's different from the old art'.

In the past, deformation was a symbol unique to each work.
However, current character designs sometimes lean more toward familiar genre conventions than the unique lines of the work itself.
As a result, even when looking at the faces, the characters don't come to life, and all one sees first is the 'typical look of modern streaming anime'.

Modernization is not about conforming to existing molds.
Reinterpreting old art with current techniques and sensibilities is different from pouring characters into existing conventions.
The moment it becomes the latter, Sapphire ceases to be Sapphire.

Lovability, nobility, fragility, and charm. The qualities that Tezuka's lines possessed are difficult to retain once absorbed into genre conventions.

That is where the sense of discomfort lies this time.

This is not to say that old art must be preserved exactly as it is.
However, if the reason for being that character fades as a result of making it look 'modern,' it feels like a replacement rather than a reinterpretation.

The distance of 'original concept' and the power of the original title

After the rejection of the visuals, the term 'original concept' appears.
The term 'original concept' is convenient. It is not the original work itself. It can be explained as an adaptation, a reinterpretation, or a work created as something else.

On the other hand, in terms of promotion, the name 'Princess Knight' is used.
There is tension here.

While maintaining a distance that allows one to say it is not the original work, the fame, searchability, memory, and fan reactions associated with the original can be utilized.
If the work is accepted, it will be evaluated as a new interpretation.
Even if backlash occurs, that backlash itself leads to buzz.

Once this structure becomes visible, fans of the original work become wary.
There is, of course, the opinion that one should not criticize without watching the main story.
However, even from the information released before the premiere, one can see what kind of entry point the promotion is creating.
The distrust toward that arises not from the evaluation of the work itself, but from how the promotion is perceived.

It is not the original work. Therefore, it is changed freely. Yet, the name 'Princess Knight' is used.
This way of maintaining distance further intensifies the initial visual rejection.

If you use the name 'Princess Knight,' it is no longer just a new anime at that point.

Manga adaptations already have visual standards

'Princess Knight' is not a novel. It is a manga drawn by Osamu Tezuka.
This difference is significant.

If it were a novel, there would be room to create new visuals at the stage of adaptation.
The imagination of characters and scenery differs from reader to reader, and films or dramas emerge as one interpretation of that.
Of course, if the adaptation is powerful, the way it is read afterward changes significantly.
For example, like 'Harry Potter,' even if it was originally a novel, the actors, costumes, castles, and music from the film version can become established as the official image.

However, in the case of manga, it becomes even more complex.
Manga already has a face drawn by the author themselves. It has hairstyles. It has costumes. It has body proportions. It has expressions, lines, and the atmosphere of the panels.
Sapphire, too, is not just an existence of settings. She already exists visually as Osamu Tezuka's art.

Of course, as long as you are adapting a manga, adjustments to the art style and redesigns are unavoidable. This is not to say that Tezuka's art must be reproduced exactly.
Rather, there are parts that should be changed to make it work as a modern visual production.

However, if you are going to change it significantly, that change needs to be seen as an interpretation of the work, not just a replacement for a trend.
Why these visuals? Why this title? Why use the original name at this distance?

If those things remain invisible and only the impression of being far removed from the existing image of Sapphire comes to the fore, the receiver feels an 'overwriting' rather than an 'interpretation'.

'Princess Knight' is not a work that will not reach people unless it is modernized.

'Princess Knight' is a classic. However, it is not a work that fails to reach modern readers.

Sapphire, who is a princess but treated as a prince. The heart of a man and a woman. Succession to the throne. Social status. Romance. The roles assigned by the system versus one's own way of being.
There are points of discussion there that can be re-read even in this day and age.

Gender, self-determination, the imposition of roles, kingdom drama, and its significance as the origin of shojo manga history. No matter which entry point you look at it from, there is room to connect with modern audiences.
In fact, if you dig carefully, there is much that can be seen precisely because it is now.

That is precisely why, when the impression that 'this is quite a different thing' comes to the fore at the announcement stage, a backlash occurs.
This is not about saying that one dislikes it if it is not exactly as it was in the past.

Even though the original work still has the power to be read, it seems that only the symbols that are easy to react to are being pushed to the front without it being clear how that power is being handled.
At that moment, the recipient perceives it not as a 'project to open the original work to the modern era,' but as a 'project that uses the strength of the original work's name.'

The problem is not the act of changing it.
It is that the reason for changing it is not sufficiently conveyed at the announcement stage.

Resonating with modern people and the necessity of using the original work are two different things.

There is a possibility that a new work could reach modern audiences.

In fact, as long as it is made with visuals, pacing, cast, and story design tailored to the current market, it might resonate with a demographic that does not know the original work.
If viewed as a modern transformation hero work, there would likely be a certain level of acceptance.

However, resonating with modern people and the necessity of using 'Princess Knight' are two different things.
If you confuse these, classic IP becomes a convenient signboard for creators to push through their own self-expression.

The phrase 'reaching modern audiences' sounds positive at first glance.
However, the moment it appears to be an excuse for creators to push what they want to do, rather than a phrase explaining the connection to the original work, existing readers feel alienated.

The name of the work I loved is being used.
But that work is not aimed at us. Moreover, even that sense of discomfort is collected as part of the buzz.

The fact that it appears that way is what is raising the temperature of the backlash.

Lupin III as a success story

There are examples of manga adaptations that were significantly changed and became successful. An easy-to-understand example for the general public is 'Lupin III'.

Monkey Punch's original manga is rougher, more adult, and has a drier feel than the anime version of Lupin that many people think of today.
However, through the TV anime and movies, Lupin was widely accepted as a lighthearted and stylish entertainment work.
This is an example where major changes led to popularization.

However, in the case of 'Lupin III,' the anime version became a wide entry point at an early stage.
Before the image of the original manga was strongly fixed in the general public's mind, the anime created a different image of Lupin.
And through a long series development, the work of Lupin itself came to be accepted as a vessel that changes depending on the creator.
The original manga, TV series, movies, and TV specials. Each Lupin accumulated, and the variations themselves became the history of the work.

Therefore, Lupin did not succeed because it was 'boldly changed.'
The anime version took its time to create another legitimacy.

This success story cannot be applied directly to other classic IPs.
The establishment of Lupin is related to the era, the medium, the length of development, and the degree to which the original image was fixed.

DEVILMAN crybaby as a Netflix-style success story

A frequently cited example of success in recent years is 'DEVILMAN crybaby'.

It reconstructed a classic manga with modern visuals, music, pacing, and physical expression, becoming a major topic as a Netflix release. It does not use the same art style as Go Nagai's original work. The expression is also quite modernized.

However, 'crybaby' succeeded not simply because it made an old manga look modern. It was because it did not weaken the poison that the original work possessed.

That humans become more demonic than demons. That love and violence are ultimately inverted. That the fear and hatred of the masses destroy the world. That individual goodwill is trampled by collective madness. Even though the surface changed, the cruelty of the work was not weakened. Rather, through modern expression, the violence and tragedy present in the original were brought out strongly once again. Therefore, 'crybaby' was accepted not as a separate project borrowing the name of a classic IP, but as a work that rebooted the dangers inherent in the original for the modern age.

The authorial intent was strong. The self-expression was also strong. However, that self-expression appeared to be a direct continuation of the original. This is important. It does not mean that if you take a classic IP, give it modern art, and release it to the world on a streaming platform, you will achieve the same success.

The success of 'crybaby' did not lie in the bold changes themselves. It lay in the discernment of which parts to change and which parts to keep. It was only because what the creators wanted to do and the dangers inherent in the original work were in sync that it succeeded as a reinterpretation.

If one were to do the same thing with 'Princess Knight', the question would be: what part of Sapphire should be preserved for the modern day? Her loveliness. Her nobility. Her fragility. Her charm. The wavering as she searches for her own way of being while being confined by the system. Without such things being visible, if only symbols like heroes and transformations become stronger, the sense of continuity with the original will fade.

This is the core of the distrust at the present moment.

What is visible and what is invisible before release

It is not yet known what the new 'Princess Knight' will ultimately depict.

In the main story, intentions that are not visible in trailers or visuals alone may become clear. There is also a possibility that it is re-examining the issues present in the original from a completely different angle. Therefore, it is too early to conclude at this stage that it 'does not understand the original'.

However, there are things that are visible at the announcement stage. The name Sapphire, ribbons, heroes, transformations, calamities, celebrity casts, and the sign of being based on Osamu Tezuka's work. While these symbols that are easy to react to are at the forefront, how it will face the complexity that 'Princess Knight' originally possessed is not yet sufficiently conveyed.

The backlash occurring in this state is not because people have decided the work is a failure. It is because the announcement strategy appears to be lining up elements that are easy to react to before building trust in the original work.

An era where later works steal the entrance to the original

What is even more troublesome is the difference in the amount of information in the internet age. The older the work, the more limited the information on the internet. Tankobon, past anime, criticism, memories, old materials. Such things are weak in today's search space.

On the other hand, new works are strong. Official websites, trailers, key visuals, news articles, cast comments, social media posts, controversies, analysis, fan art. A large amount of information circulates in a short period of time. Whether it is criticism or defense, the same work title and images are spread. As a result, the later work becomes the entrance for search results.

Although the later work should originally be on top of the original, it is reversed on the internet. For the younger generation or those who have not read it, the later visuals have the potential to become the first Sapphire. This is not just a difference in interpretation. It means that the arrangement of cultural memory is changing.

Even for novel adaptations, a strong visual adaptation significantly overwrites the reader's internal image. Even more so for a work where the visuals already exist as a manga from the beginning, the impact of a large amount of later visuals circulating is not small.

Remakes and adaptations do not just increase the number of works. Sometimes, they change the entrance to the original work.

What is being criticized is not the main story, but the entrance.

One cannot determine that a work is a failure before it has even been released.

However, there are things that can be criticized before release: the way it is announced, how the original title is used, the distance maintained by labeling it as an 'original concept,' the initial visual impression, and what kind of trust it is attempting to build with existing readers.
I believe the current backlash is less about evaluating the work itself and more about a distrust of the entry point.

If you are going to use the name 'Princess Knight,' it cannot simply be treated as a generic source material.
There is Osamu Tezuka's art, there are past readers, there is its place in the history of girls' manga, and there is already a visual memory of Sapphire.
By using that name, any subsequent work must bear the burden of answering 'why it is being done in this form.'

At this stage, no conclusion can be reached yet. But it is certain that the way it is being presented before release is inviting that very question.
I am not denying the act of remaking itself.
There is meaning in reinterpreting past works with the sensibilities of a new era, and there are works that reach different audiences through expressions that differ from the original.

However, if at the entry point the replacement of the original seems more prominent than the connection to it, the audience will distance themselves before even watching the main work.
Even if one can reserve judgment as a critic, the interest as a viewer is lost at that point.

The phrase 'you should just judge it after it's released' is correct.
But a work is already being seen before its release. The trailers, visuals, cast, title, and the 'original concept' credit—all of these become the entry points that determine whether or not someone will watch it.
The moment it creates a sense of discomfort there, the work has already lost some of its audience, even if it hasn't begun yet.

The reason 'Princess Knight' is drawing backlash is not simply because it is a masterpiece of the past.

Precisely because it holds a visual standard as Osamu Tezuka's art and remains a work that stands up to being reread today, the reason for using its name and the responsibility for how it is presented are being called into question.