I disagree. Palpatine has the motive for being evil. He simply follows beliefs of the sith that "their" way is the correct or pure one. Like in the American Civil War, there was no good guy or bad guy. It's all a point of view.
We're comparing the original Star Trek TV series with the Star Wars OT. It started by arguing about who was a better captain, Kirk or Solo, then who was more logical C3P0 or Spock and it escalated from there it was more of a comparison of characters than the actual shows/movies.
I'm trying to prove a point to a friend. Please give me as much input as possible. Even compare characters (Example: Darth Vader > Nero, any why).
I must admit i like some aspects of the idea of the old republic. But i somewhat dislike how it was portrayed, however little, in the PT. Though it gave you a basic gist of what it was. It gave you no base to start your imagination.
Saw it. Loved it. How many times do you think George Lucas actually screwed over his fans?
Okay I'm glad others share my opinion. It's just the sheer amount of information given by the EU just obliterated the the epicness of the original trilogy. You want to think that that section in history in the Star Wars universe was the pinnacle of history or the climax of their time. But now knowing that so much happened before it all. Even the character back-stories takes away from the experience. And all of the holes that the prequel trilogy created just made it worse even though they were supposed to be part of the natural flow of the story.
I believe the expanded universe put a damper on the original trilogy's thunder. It tool all of the fans imagination out of the plot. What's your perspective?