Something that’s insane to me is that Lucas when making the Prequels’ attitude towards Darth Vader. He spends the entire trilogy neutering the hell out of him, telling us he was a brat and that his iconic badass suit was actually hampering him (which doesn’t make any sense with how he established the Force to work), and even making him pathetically whine “Nooo!” like a cartoon. He doesn’t do this to any other villain. But at the same time, he gave into how much of a sensation Vader is by plastering him all over the advertising and making the entire saga surround him. It’s like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a creator have such a contradictory mindset about a character.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think that your argument is not logical. In my opinion, it is influenced more by your strong attachment to Vader as a character, and by the fact that you want him to always be portrayed as cool and badass, rather than by a rational analysis of the broader narrative and character development that the story is trying to achieve.
To expect a character like Anakin to be consistently badass throughout the Prequel Trilogy is, frankly, an overly simplistic expectation. Characters with depth experience growth, regression, and internal conflict. Anakin was never supposed to be flawless or permanently in control. His youthful arrogance and emotional volatility were central to his character development, showing how his eventual descent into the Dark Side was driven by personal flaws, fears, and the manipulations of others. The fact that his iconic suit was portrayed as limiting is a reflection of how far he had fallen — once a powerful Jedi, he was now imprisoned in a life-support system due to his own choices and actions. This is not a contradiction of the way in which the Force was portrayed in the Original Trilogy, but rather a symbolic representation of how his anger and fear led to his own destruction. Also, this type of criticism is not new. In fact, very similar arguments were made when Lucas released Return of the Jedi. Many fans at the time felt that Lucas had weakened Vader by introducing the internal conflict between his role as a Dark Lord and his role as a father. Some felt that his redemption arc made him appear less intimidating, as they had only known him as the menacing figure from the first two films of the Original Trilogy. However, over time, this portrayal of Vader as a conflicted character struggling with his humanity became central to what makes him so compelling.
The idea that Lucas simultaneously “plastered” Vader all over the advertising while exploring his vulnerability does not seem contradictory to me. Vader was always meant to be a central figure, and his popularity as an icon is undeniable. However, being an iconic villain does not mean that the character should be static or devoid of complexity. Lucas’ decision to show Anakin’s flaws and weaknesses was not about diminishing the character, but about showing the human side of him — one that eventually succumbs to darkness. I find that labeling this as Lucas trying to “have his cake and eat it too” oversimplifies what he was attempting to achieve with these films. Characters are not meant to be eternally unchanging symbols of strength. Anakin’s journey was always intended to be a tragic one, and part of that tragedy lies in the fact that he was not always the infallible, imposing figure fans initially saw in the Original Trilogy. Ultimately, the Prequels show that even someone with incredible power can be brought low by their own decisions, insecurities, and inability to control their emotions. To me, this nuanced portrayal enriches Anakin’s character, rather than diminishing him.
Of course, it is undeniable that Lucas went too far with certain aspects of Anakin’s portrayal in the Prequel Trilogy, and is absolutely true that there are moments, particularly in Attack of the Clones, where Anakin’s character should have been toned down. However, despite these missteps, I still believe it is right that the younger version of Vader is shown with flaws and vulnerabilities. Anakin should not have been the same badass figure that we see in the Original Trilogy because his journey was one of growth — and ultimately failure. It makes sense that, as a younger man, he would be reckless, emotionally unstable, and struggling with his identity. These traits serve as the foundation for his fall to the Dark Side, which is the very heart of his arc. Anakin was, after all, human. It is fair that he should have weaknesses, especially in his youth, when he is still grappling with the immense pressures placed upon him by the Jedi, his own ambitions, and the temptations of the Dark Side. His insecurities and fear of loss are what drive him to make the choices that eventually transform him into Darth Vader. To portray him as badass or already as imposing as he is in the Original Trilogy would have undermined the depth of his character and the story Lucas wanted to tell.
In the end, I think that the decision to show Anakin as a deeply flawed young man, despite some over-the-top moments, makes sense for his character’s progression. It allows us to understand the gravity of his transformation into the Dark Lord we all know, and it gives us insight into the personal weaknesses that the Dark Side preys upon. On the other hand, it seems like you want the young version of Vader to be portrayed exactly like Vader in The Empire Strikes Back, with the only difference being that he is more good-natured. But this is not retroactive character development — this is simply depicting the same character in the exact same way, with a few minor alterations.