Crossing The Line: Apple and the RI/MPAA

What is the last straw for you? What is the breaking point before you cut any ties to a company or organization and move on? I've been looking for this line in regard to some of the big businesses out there and it seems like the public just keeps pushing it back. There are two groups that I'm at the near breaking point for: Apple and the RI/MPAA.

Let's start with Apple. As a company I despise them. They champion the walled garden/closed system/big brother approach to everything and while this makes for a tight and stable product it is a system you are not allowed to interact with. Much the same way people say "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time," you can say that Apple makes a solid piece of software. The problem is anything that you run on a lot of their products is by their choosing. Sure, it may be nice but if it's not then it's already too late to look for competition. They have created a computer ghetto. It's a lovely community but you are stuck there whether it is to your taste or not.

The most recent slap in the face in terms of their operating procedure is the rejection of all Google Voice applications for the iPhone. If you were running Windows Mobile then you wouldn't notice what Microsoft thinks about an application; it's an open system that you're free to install anything you'd like on. If it was on Android (technically, it is since Google has their app in their own OS, but pretend we're talking 3rd party) then as long as it's not malicious is would stay in their app store. But with Apple they have this sliding scale of what can or can't be sold. If it's malicious it's out. If it's in poor taste it might be out at some point. If it duplicates a feature on the iPhone then it might be out. And if it produces competition to Apple or one of Apples partners then it will most likely be pulled.

Because Google Voice gives users many options that normal phone carriers don't it has been pulled. Apple says it's because it duplicates iPhone features but it doesn't. The iPhone has no feature that lets you switch numbers on the fly, send free text messages through your alternate number or transcribe your voicemail and forward it as an email. But since it has a number dialer it competes with the iPhone's dialer and that is forbidden. Bullshit. This is Apple trying to stifle competition for AT&T. With Google Voice you can jump carriers on a moment's notice and take your number with you without having to deal with a support line.

So now Apple is using the walled garden to stifle competition. And that's bad business. What's the motivation for improving products and services if you know that your user base is trapped. I'm not saying Apple is going to stop all updates but whatever they offer is clearly on their terms and not in response to demand. There's a demand for Google products. There is a freeze on the supply, however.

And now Google Voice is available for the iPhone free of charge but only if you have a jailbroken phone. I've been following the iPhone with a very close eye. Following the saying "hate the factory, not the machine" I recognized that the iPhone is an amazing piece of hardware run by a dictatorial company. With the iPhone 3GS I saw almost no reason to jailbreak other than for cosmetic purposes and came damn near close to getting one. But this has crossed the line. If a product has to be hacked and cracked and warranty-voided the moment you take it out of the box then there's something wrong with that product. In the case of the iPhone and Apple it's all software. But is that the kind of company you want to invest your time and money in? A company that will take out legal programs because it means more work to continue to innovate? A company that rather than participating in a creative dialogue with the user and 3rd party developers simply cuts the cord and forces its customer base to take whatever is doled out and no more? That is a broken system that will only breed dissent and stagnation. And that crossed the line.


Now we come to everyone's favourite villain: the RI/MPAA. The cartels that represent music and movies have taken the following stance:

"We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

What that means is they think it's unreasonable to expect their products to last forever. Sort of. If you re-read the above you may notice that the statement (made by the lawyer representing the RIAA and MPAA to the Copyright Office) tries to make the concept of "product" and "service" interchangeable.

"We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works."

No one is asking this of them. Books do not remain in print forever. Magazines close production or require you to renew your subscription. But what magazines don't require is for you to pay to keep access to the issues already delivered to your home. It's not a question of continued access to the creative works as intellectual property. It's the continued access to creative works in hard copy. Your music files should not expire after you have bought them. Your e-books should not vanish one you have legally purchased them.

Of course no one expects electronic devices to work "properly in perpetuity". That would require your warranty to never expire! But you can expect to keep the hardware forever. My friend had a laptop who's cooling fan died. Instead of the unit expiring I cracked the case, peeled out the innards and made a wi-fi equipped 14 inch digital picture frame. When the battery dies on your cell phone you still get to keep the phone and replace the battery (unless it's an iPhone). Corey Doctorow lists a bunch of "creative works" of various ages that still work for him:

I've got 78RPM records from my grandparents' basement that play just fine today -- and I've got Logo programs I wrote in 1979 that I can run today. I own a piano roll from 1903 that I can play back if I can clear the space for a player piano. I've got books printed in the 17th century that can still be read -- and if they can't be read, they can be scanned and the scans can be read.

I personally do work arching documents and converting them to digital form. We've done legal documents, museum catalogues, technical journals… and they all still work. I've opened books from nearly 100 years ago and not a single one ever demanded that I authenticate the most recent purchase of the rights to read the text. They were bought and they work. End of story. Unless you have a closed system like DRM that treats the legal customer with distrust and possibly contempt. It is not the responsibility of the customer to prove their self to the product. It is the responsibility of the producer to provide a product that proves itself worthy to the customer. And that, MP/RIAA, is how you've crossed the line from producer to extortionist.


In both cases you have the huge, deal breaking issues that are made simply because the company in question treats the consumer as a child at best and a criminal at worst. And in both cases the fair option to regain your consumer rights falls in what is now legally dubious territory. If you want your iPhone to work like a real computer product you have to jailbreak. If you want your music to actually play on all your devices, as fair use dictates, then you need to pirate DRM-free tracks after you have legally purchased the music. Is that piracy? Is that fair use? Today it seems to be both.

So what about you? What company or group has crossed the line you've drawn in the sand? What company is getting close? Or do you keep finding that you push that line back inch by inch, giving away more of your rights and a consumer, only to be left with crippled products?

DVD review: The Day the Earth Stood Still

A smarter remake would have been based on the political ideals of its predecessor: fighting against the cynical cold war mentality of the time and trying to find something inspiring that humans have to offer the world and beyond other than fear and destruction. Instead, this version assumes that we’re worth saving but never explains why. At one point an alien agent tells Keanu Reeves (played by Keanu Reeves) that he has found the human race destructive and dangerous; humans need to be killed. But also, he has decided he really likes us and wants to stay. Do you get it? Neither do I.

Other than a couple of inane scenes like the one I just mentioned there is very little else I can recall about this film. I know Jennifer Connelly is in it and she has an adopted/inherited child who’s a bit of a spoiled dick. I know they visit John Cleese who pokes huge holes in Klatu’s (Keanu Reeves’) plan and Klatu ignores him. I know that Gort, the robot, unleashes a swarm of matter-eating bugs. Then they go away and Klatu leaves Earth and then the movie ends. Also, Klatu has magical powers that pop up in order to make life very convenient for him and avoid any suspense.

After watching The Day the Earth Stood Still I’m left with the same feeling as if I had just read high school poetry: vague feelings of banality and awkwardness. It’s rare to have an action film that can balance dullness and lack of plot so perfectly that one is left without a gist of disappointment or spectacle. The Day the Earth Stood Still manages to reach that perfect balance and creates the sense of being gorged on nothing more than air.

On a scale of -5 to +5

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a -.5

A review of the EXPERIENCE of seeing Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

This is not an ordinary film review. I am not going to be reviewing the actual movie Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. Instead I will be reviewing the movie-going experience. And that experience was awful and just for a little context I’ll start with the good and work towards the bad.

The good is that most of the audience was your typical midnight premiere fan base. They laughed when there was a good joke, gasped when there was a scary moment (well, during the one scary moment) and cried when Dumbledor died. Oh, spoiler alert. But really, the book came out 4 years ago. I think that spoiler’s expiration date has passed.

The medium is the guy who was sitting on my left. I don’t blame him for this as it is a long movie, clocking in at around 2 and a half hours. He fell asleep. Twice. And for long stretches. The first time he started to breath a bit loudly and the girl he was with poked him. He woke up and watched the movie for about 20 minutes before drifting off again. He was quiet and didn’t move around. Overall it was more amusing than distracting. He was obviously there to make his girlfriend happy and was probably less fidgety than if he had tried to keep himself awake. The movie started late so it was actually over just after 3am. Dark room, early AM hours and a movie he’s not interested in. Can you blame him for quietly dozing off?

The bad. This one is the deal breaker and the real story of the night. This is the story of how I was nearly punched in the face and one man probably lost the respect of his child. During the film at some point there was a scene where Hermione is crying and Harry is trying to talk to her. It was at this moment that the man behind me and one seat to my right started making loud snoring/snorting noises because he was bored with character development. I turn around and see a man in his mid 40s sitting between his wife and child (I would guess to be around 13). I shush him. He leans down so his head is just above mine and starts snorting/snoring even louder to make some kind of point. I then tell him to “shut the fuck up”.

I thought that would be the end of the situation. Obviously he is here for his kid so you’d think he’d be aware that there’s at least one person in the theatre he cares about who wants to see the movie. Wrong. He kept making very loud breathing noises sporadically throughout the rest of the film.

The movie ends, people applaud and the lights come up. Everyone either stands to leave to turns to their party to discuss the movie. I look back and see father has been staring at the back of my head, honing the fine art of being exceptionally creepy. I turn to my wife and state “the movie was pretty good, except for the fucking mouth-breather behind us” and motion back. And then the real fun began.

He feels it’s his duty to inform me that “this isn’t your living room”. I am aware of this because if it were he’d be more likely to be tied up to a tree outside then let inside our living room. Instead I tell him that it’s not his living room either. He then goes into a small self-righteous speech where he complains that he makes one noise and gets shushed and this isn’t my living room and what the hell, it’s not my living room. Obviously his brain-needle has reached the end of his brain-record and is just repeating the last line he can think of. I respond by telling him it’s not his living room either however I did pay $10 so that should guarantee I can watch the movie peacefully. He points out that he paid $10 as well, but he should know since this isn’t his living room he doesn’t really have the right to ruin the movie for other people. He looks at me and asks “What do you want?” I say “I wanted to watch the movie. What do you want?”

It’s at this point that he turns to walk away. Every few moments, since the exit line is moving so slow, he turns back to make a threatening gesture here and a dirty look there. I look at him. I look at his kid. I say “Wow, great role model.” And just to prove my point he shoves past his wife and makes a lunge over the back of the row to punch me in the face. I see this coming and don’t flinch; thinking how spectacularly this will prove the point I’m trying to make. And his young son grabs his dad’s arm and is dragged forward as he tries to hold his dad back. This guy is the very definition of class. And this whole time he is trying to hit me I can’t help but marvel at the fact he thinks this proves that he is a good role model. That or he just doesn’t care about his family.

As he’s literally dragged away by his wife and son we all stare. He keeps making faux lunges and shouting at me to “come up here” (he indicates the row where his is, one up from us). I’m not looking at the rest of my group but my wife and I are staring at him agog. His son is still hanging from his father’s right arm this whole time. And I have to because it’s so ridiculous. I laugh. This just leads to him lunging again and being held back by his now very embarrassed wife and his son who looks to be on the verge of tears. This pretty much continues as he’s walked/dragged down the stairs towards the exit. My group is just sitting and staring. Other people are walking and starting. His wife keeps looking at us and shrugging. I don’t know if she’s confused why we said anything or if she’s apologizing so I just look confused (which I am) and shrug back. This whole time the father is shouting at me to do many things, sometimes contradictory. “Stand up and come over here!”, “Yeah, just keep sitting” and so on. And then he vanishes around the corner and is gone.

I was pretty shocked at this whole thing, both at the time and now. Yes, I know I could have kept my mouth shut and my head down but then someone else would end with him behind them at another movie, I’d venture to say at least at the next two Potter films. Someone else would have to endure him making obnoxious commentary through bodily noises. And he’ll never learn a goddamn thing about proper behavior. So instead I did open my mouth. And now his wife will be at the least worried and most likely embarrassed the next time they go to a movie together. And his son will probably not forget this for a very long time. So while I was nearly punched in the face at Harry Potter he emotionally scarred his son for years to come. I’m OK with that.

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince is the first time a director (David Yates) has done more than one Harry Potter film since Chris Columbus began the franchise. The fact that there is now such a strong and consistent style to the films proves both comforting and a bit disappointing.

First off, I enjoyed this movie. Not only does Yates have a wonderful visual style (I’m a sucker for those shiny black ceramic bricks that foretell danger) but he also has a knack for getting very good performances out of young actors in this series. He nicely balances the bizarre world that Alfonso Cuaróne crafted in Prisoner of Azkaban with the high school drama ­Mike Newell brought to the franchise in Goblet of Fire. It’s also fortunate timing in the franchise as Yates seems the most adept at incorporating the larger visual effects. Since the movies are getting darker and more intense these are much more common in the last 3 books than anywhere else in the series.

The one thing that bothers me is, fittingly enough, the one thing he seems to borrow from Chris Columbus and that is a closer adherence to the source material. In films 1 and 2 the films are almost direct adaptations of the books, simply abridged for time. These are also the two weakest films in the franchise to date. The point of adapting something from one medium to another is to add something to the story. All Columbus did was take a bit away. It was nice to see things movie but it really wasn’t a standalone product. It was a companion to the book. Complain about tone shift and changes to detail all you want but Prisoner of Azkaban was the first attempt to make a real movie out of the books. Yes, things were cut, rearranged and changed but in the continuity of the films (which is different than the books, like it or not) it was a necessary and marvelous leap forward.

Now Yates has taken a half-step back, doing more of a close reading than an inspired adaptation for the story. To be fair some of this blame can be put on the editing and/or the script but Yates is the director and shoulders the responsibility. In Order of the Phoenix there are some minor adaptations but for the most part plot points are shortened and then smoothed over, not rewritten. So while the Yates movies are much closer to the original text I feel that is their greatest weakness. Overall his films feel a bit choppier and cut up than either Goblet or Prisoner. When comparing the book to the movie for Half-blood Prince I can easily see most of the changes and they aren’t shifts for pacing and continuity. For the most part they are actions and subplots being condensed for time, and once aware of it this really shows.

Dumbledor, for instance, is a lot more upfront with Harry from the get go about what he wants. Yes, this does make the movie move faster it also cuts out a lot of the development that happens between them in the book. I know that looks like I just complained it’s not close enough to the novel but that’s not the point at all. The point is Yates doesn’t take that Dumbledor/Harry development and move it elsewhere. He just leaves it on the cutting room floor. The same goes for a lot that happens with Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. There’s a lot more that’s simply stated in dialogue than shown in action and because Yates shows so much craft in other aspects of the film it really feels like he rushed in the areas he changes.

The real loss here is that Yates proves he’s capable of pulling the emotional depth out of his actors to show these relationships rather than tell you what’s going on. Someone as ham handed as Columbus doesn’t earn that respect in his movies and even Cuaróne’s film seems much more interested in world building a universe of intensity rather than subtle crafting of high school relationships. But Yates follows on the heels of Newell in terms of how he treats the students and staff of Hogwarts. This is the only aspect where he skimps but it does lead to a choppy feel.

Do not misinterpret this criticism. This is a highly enjoyable movie. In terms of this franchise it’s a good one. And sticking so close to the original text will probably be a huge plus to many fans out there. But it does come at an artistic cost. The reason I’ve gone into such depth with this single complaint is that Yates is signed on for the final adaptation, both parts. So this is partially a preemptive review of the Deathly Hallows as well. It’s a double-edged sword; that the comforting fact Yates is more than up to the task of creating appealing and deserving films is paired with the disappointing realization that this will come at the cost of many small character driven moments and subplots.

On a scale of -5 to +5 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince gets a +3

PS Does anyone else find it a little odd that other than the counter still being in the great hall “house points” have all but vanished from the movies?

Netflix: WTF - The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror!

SPECIAL NOTE: For a podcast review of this movie and an interview of Netflix: WTF check out my special guest appearance on the About12Minutes podcast here!

So this time around I was stuck watching a movie called The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror. And terror abounded as I prepared to watch the movie. You see, it was up against some stellar competition, including a Steven Segal vampire flick as well as the Stephen Baldwin picture Sharks in Venice. Not only that, but my friends and I have been burned before. There was a “movie” “about” a zombie rabbit we tried to watch and simply couldn’t. I use quotes since it was only a movie in the sense that any motion picture is a move-ie and I hesitate to use the term “about” since it wasn’t really about anything. I don’t even think I posted a review of it since we got through about 20 minutes and then had to turn it off or risk seizures. I feared this may be the same quality, come to kill me.

And in that context I feel safe saying I was pleasantly surprised by The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror. It wasn’t good but it actually pulled off campy moderately well. The premise is that a group of gay couples all end up at this bed and breakfast run by a psychotic right wing Christian mother and her sexually repressed daughter. It’s done on video tape but the quality is relatively good. The couples show up one after another and each one is a pre-made stereotype. You have the young guy with his older sugar-daddy, there’re the two artsy lesbians, the two lipstick lesbians, a butch leather couple, a resident fag-hag. They’re here to be killed, not to break stereotypes.

And break stereotypes the do not. There’s some nearly anonymous cheating, illicit rendezvous in the pool house and then the killing begins. And it’s actually kind of funny. It’s so over the top bad, with over the top crappy props and over the top bad acting that it actually is campy. A lot of movies fail at camp because they try to be a funny movie on no budget. This succeeds because the parts you aren’t laughing with, you’re laughing at.

By the end there are a couple of what would be called twists in a normal movie but in this are really just the logical evolution of “what can we do to make this a little sicker”. Think Ed Wood raised on John Waters and this is pretty much that bastard child.

On a scale of -5 to +5 The Gay Bed and Breakfast of Terror gets a +2 for entertainment. If it were trying to be a real movie it would be a -2 but that is surely not the case here.

Tim Burton is a slow learner

Many things can be said about Tim Burton. He has a great eye for fictional geography, he loves the style of old German silent films and, unlike the oft attributed Zach Snyder, he fits the definition of “visionary”. But one thing that cannot be said of Tim Burton is that he’s a fast learner.

Let me go back a little bit. The some days ago the first photos from his new movie, Alice in Wonderland, were released and a few thoughts went through my head. The first was that the lead actress (Mia Wasikowska) is made up a bit like Helena Bonham Carter, with her hair a bit like a bird-nest(watch out Helena, he might trade up again like on the set of Planet of the Apes). Second, I was put off by the fact that Depp as the Mad Hatter looks like a steampunk Willy Wonka. Finally, I wondered when Tim Burton would learn not to direct other people’s material.

That is the lesson I wish he would learn because it is getting a bit pain for the people who have to watch him slowly stumble towards this inevitable conclusion, one movie at a time. I like Tim Burton, don’t get me wrong. However, I am not completely enamored with him and his style. He makes a good deal of mistakes. These range from casting to project choices. Some of his movies age incredibly well (Beetlejuice) and some not so much (Batman). One of the few consistent facts about his career is that when he directs his own material it tends to be much better than when he takes on someone else’s work.

Let's take a look:

Original ideas	Any good?
Beetlejuice	Great
Edward Scissorhands	Great
Ed Wood	Great
Mars Attacks	Crap
Corpse Bride*	Good

Adaptations	Any good?
Pee-wee’s Big Adventure	Good
Batman	Good, but flawed
Batman Returns	Very flawed
Sleepy Hollow*	OK, great design
Planet of the Apes	Shit
Big Fish	Fair (averaging between the fact that I find it terrible and others find it sappy but watchable)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory	Crap
Sweeney Todd	Good, though the strong points are the costumes and the actors’ performances (minus HBC’s singing), not the direction

* Technically, these are based on existing stories but are so far removed from the original stories that they could be put into a 3rd category.
**No, he didn’t direct Nightmare Before Christmas

Even if you disagree with some of my mini-judgments there’s still an overwhelming pattern to this list. His best works is all his own and his worst tend to be adaptations. Why is this? Most likely because he has such a strong vision of his movies that it doesn’t matter what the content is; it must fit into his style. This works perfectly fine if the material is his to begin with. But when it’s a story that already exists he sometimes has to do a number on it in order to force it into the box that is his style.

And now we get his version of Alice in Wonderland. Granted, it’s neither Alice in Wonderland nor Through the Looking Glass but rather a bastard sequel set years after the second visit. However, they are still someone else’s characters and someone else’s world. This all makes me worried about the project. Will it look great? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good movie. And with his past performances I don’t know if I trust him anymore. I may or may not see this one in theatres but if I do go it will be with reservation. And if it doesn’t completely blow me out of the water then Burton will become relegated to “Netflix Only” status, along with Michael Bay and other directors I wouldn’t mind seeing but would mind paying for, because I have absolutely no interest in his next project.

What is it? A full length remake of a perfectly serviceable half-hour short he made decades ago: Frankenweenie.

Leia: Who's your daddy?

NOTE: Credit where credit is due. This is actually co-written with my wife. We totally geeked out and this was born.

Return of the Jedi has been on twice today and it raises a shitload of questions about continuity. Actually, it doesn't raise them. It brings up inconsistencies between the original trilogy (the real Star Wars movies) and episodes 1,2 and 3 (glorified, and sloppily written fan-fic). The one point that we'll be focusing on is Leia and her actual lineage.

In the original trilogy we are told a great many details about the Skywalker family tree

• Luke is Vader's son
• Luke is Leia's sister
• Luke an Leia are twins
  (I was doubtful that this was in the original trilogy but both Obi-wan and Vader mention it briefly)

What strikes out as strange is that there are multiple instances where Leia and Vader are emotionally distant to each other despite expectations. Leia meets Vader face to face after he ship is captures in A New Hope and there is not emotional recognition. This seems odd since we know that both are strong in the force and that Vader's relation to Luke let them sense each other later in the series. But we'll come back to the "Force paternity test" later.

The second thing that seems strange between Vader and Leia is that Vader searches the force and feels that Luke has a twin sister: Leia. He then goes on to refer to her as "your twin sister" and "your sister" (to Luke). Never once does he even acknowledge her as his own daughter.

Third, Leia doesn't attend the ritual burning of Vader's body on the forest moon of Endor after the destruction of the second Death Star. At this point Luke as told her that they are sibling and that Vader is his father. He never says Vader is her father and she isn't shaken by the fact that he seemingly is hers as well. Shes doesn't feel the need for closure with Vader, either for the destruction of her home planet Alderaan or to deal with the death of her possible father, by attending his funeral.

From all of this is seems that Luke and Leia, while twins, do not share the same father. And this is a point that has bothered me for a while now. There is absolutely no connection between Leia and Vader but there is between Leia and Luke. How can this be? And it becomes even more evident when the "Force paternity test" is brought up.

What is the Force paternity test? It is the ability of one strong with the Force to simply know biological relationships between people. We see Luke use it to tell whether Vader is being truthful about their father/son relationship. Luke feels that it is true. We see Leia use something similar to verify that she and Luke are siblings in Return of the Jedi. We possibly see Vader use it to tell that Luke has a twin sister (though it could just be him pulling out the memory of Obi-wan telling Luke) and furthermore we may see it in the fact that Vader seemingly refuses to call Leia his daughter. The last instance I'll postulate this occurs is when the family tree is revealed to Leia. She searches the Force and sees that she and Luke are related but never even hints at a suspicion of being related to Vader.

At this point I need to note that I will not be accepting the Episode 3 events as fact. If anyone doubts that Episodes 1-3 are in a different continuity than 4-6 all one has to do is look at the fact that Luke asks Leia :

"Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?"
She replies: "She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

And if you're going to tell me that Leia remembers that from her birth (that's ridiculous) and Luke does not (that's doubly ridiculous) you're a fool. And if you need more proof, how is it that Obi-wan doesn't know of Leia's existence until Yoda tells him about her, though he was present at her birth in Revenge of the Sith?

So without the actions that take place in episode 3 we don't know that Luke and Leia share the same father. From all evidence in A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi it truly seems as if they only share a mother. And that's possible.

There is a medical term "hetero-paternal superfecundation" or bi-paternal twinning. This refers to an event when a mother carries two children at the same time from two different fathers. Most often this is when the mother releases two eggs (dizygotic) and has intercourse multiple times, leading to each egg being fertilized by different fathers. It is also possibly that an egg can be released during an already existing pregnancy and that egg can be fertilized by a second person, though this is much rarer. This is all true and it really does happen.

Theory: Luke and Leia are a result of bi-paternal twinning. According to the original trilogy this answers every question raised about the family of Vader, Luke and Leia.

• It answers why Leia remembers her real mother.
  Because she is kept by her real mother and Luke is sent away in order to protect Leia if Vader ever comes looking for his son.
• It answers why Leia feels no connection to Vader though she does feel a conncetion to Luke.
• It answers why Vader never aknowledges any relation to Leia, even when searching the Force on the second Death Star.

And this makes the most sense to me. The fact that I went out to hunt down this information (my wife actually mentioned the medical phenomina from it's inclusion in a One Life to Live plot line) rather than accept the story fed to me by Revenge of the Sith just goes to show how terrible a movie Episode 3 really is. And with that I close my case.

What follows is pure speculation. I would guess, without knowledge of episodes 1-3, that Obi-wan is Leia's father. It seems that she does have a conncetion with him the way Luke does with Vader. When she is captured by Vader and the fate of the rebellion is in jeopardy she trusts her gut instincts and sends a message to Obi-wan, a man she has never met before. It also fits that she has been told of Obi-wan, though not enough to make her think that they are related. Also, when Alderaan is destroyed not only would Obi-wan feel the destruction of the planet but the emotion that he experiences would seem to be shared between he and Leia. He is visibly shaken by the even even though he has never been to that planet to our knowledge. He seems to be feeling it through Leia.

Is it crazy to think that Luke and Leia's mother was involved with Obi-wan and that Anakin raped her after he turned to the dark side? It fits into original trilogy continuity. However it is just a theory. And while it fits it is not hinted at to nearly the degree that the other theory is; That Luke and Leia are twins that share only a mother.