I feel like the new Boba Fett is almost lacking an identity of his own. The pre-prequel stuff he's in seems almost like it's out of context as it relates to Fett; his grudge against Solo doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and in TUF he even says he never had one at all -- this is despite it having been a major part of his character prior to the prequels.
So it seems like everything set during the movies and after up to the NJO involving Fett is unreliable in its depiction of him, because his actions don't really fit his current character, and I feel like his characterization afterward is almost essentially Jango Fett, except with daddy issues.
I think Jango went through a similar psychologically traumatizing event involving the death of his father at the same age as Boba, so that that has become the defining characteristic of Boba seems wrong to me.
And from a purely film standpoint, it seems like George Lucas was sort of pandering to fans with Fett's inclusion in the prequels. A large part of Fett's popularity was his mystique; he's the Star Wars equivalent of the Man with No Name. The subsequent EU gave at least two, I think three different accounts of his backstory. Why nail down any particular backstory as true?* The question is more interesting than the answer.
IMO, Boba would have been more interesting if he wasn't in Episode II at all, but that it featured a Jango Fett, thus implying that perhaps Boba was a clone of Jango, but perhaps not.
I definitely can appreciate liking Fett's current characterization better than his previous one as it ties to Jango and so forth, but to me he was a lot more interesting when he was a mystery. Daniel Keys Moran's depiction of him is the best, IMO.
*I think the way SW fandom has become with Wookieepedia, we can't handle ambiguity at all. We need the facts codified in Wookieepedia and there can be no ambiguity.
Here's an interesting two part interview with Daniel Keys Moran: