Akton said:
Han Solo IRL said:
I don't think fan reverence for Darth Vader should be projected on to characters in a film who don't even know of Anakin's future.
Well, George Lucas seemed to think that pretty much every other kind of wanky fanservice nod to Vader's popularity needed to be artificially projected backward onto the character of Anakin. He never seemed to miss an opportunity to ham-fistedly browbeat the audience with jarring, gratuitous, wink-wink-nudge-nudge reminders that Anakin's future as Vader was on the horizon:
- "We're going to be watching your career with great interest!"
- "Why do I get the feeling that you're going to be the death of me?"
- Vader breathing at the end of TPM.
- Anakin casting a Vader shadow in the TPM poster.
- Vader's face in Anakin's cloak in that wretched ROTS poster.
Hell, the whole Anakin-as-Chosen-One theme so central to the entire prequel trilogy is just such an artificial projection. It makes absolutely no sense in the greater scheme of the saga; it's simply a lazy, contrived imposition of gravitas and importance onto a character for no other reason than that he's a pop culture icon in the real world, utterly apart from the universe he inhabits.
What I mean about preserving the character's mystique is this: Leave some mystery to his origins. There's no reason to introduce him to us as a child. Han Solo retains so much of his mystique because we are introduced to him fully formed, yet still prime for a transformative character arc. That would be greatly compromised if we were subjected to a ten-year-old Han prancing and gamboling about the forests of Kashyyk or wherever (which very nearly happened, by the way). Did Han's grandmother call him "Hanny-poo?" I don't know and I don't want to. We don't need to. It would add nothing of value to the character and, in fact, would detract much.
And what I mean about preserving Vader's dignity is this: Give his younger self character traits consistent with his future self. An abiding intellectual interest in fascism (as opposed to ignorant indifference); a deep-seated hatred for the galactic republic in its current condition (apart from a single throwaway line); an innate tendency to violence and even cruelty (as opposed to an isolated indulgence in revenge) - all of these can conceivably lead to a character like Darth Vader whilst preserving the character's dignity. Presenting him as a churlish, whiny, lovesick and, frankly, not very intelligent man-child? Not so much (on either score). Respecting his dignity means showing him actually converting to the Dark Side, not being tricked into it. Respecting his dignity means not saddling him with a childish, effeminate nickname. Respecting his dignity means not going out of your way to craft an entire film introducing the character in his childhood (with all the various indignities concomitant with that) in which nothing at all of consequence to the saga happens that could not have occurred later anyway.
What I'm asking for is that the character be treated with the respect and consistency due to him in his own story, not the projection of an extraneous "fan reverence," which, with all his ham-fisted winks to the audience and his utterly false, tacked-on "chosen one" plot contrivance is precisely what Lucas actually did.
All this. Totally agree.
Fans aren't reacting to the name Ani/Annie just because they feel Darth Vader is due retrospective reverence in his backstory. As Akton just pointed out, that's exactly what Lucas did repeatedly in the form of horrible forced foreshadowing. That nickname would be cringey for ANY Star Wars character. For the sake of argument, let's say we had a character called 'Anableps Calrissian', and he kept being addressed as "Annie". It would still be horrible. Him having future significance doesn't come into it.
Explaining it away in-universe by saying "but it's a shortening of Anakin" doesn't change the fact it could (and should) have been written differently.
This isn't really the thread for this discussion though, I know.