Quintin responds: "How possibly would we know something about those feelings without the aid of a human mind? And why should we care about it? The director=B4s cut becomes the story of replicants told by replicants. Then is trivial that they fall in love to each onother, and nothing really disturbing happens, while in the producer=B4s cut it does. By the way, what if I manage to convince Riddley Scott of the soundness of the above paragraph? Then he can make another version, perhaps called "seconds thoughts of the director" cut. This would probably open the gate for an endless chain of cuts. The result will be that nobody in this list or elsewhere would be able to discuss about Blade Runner, because everybody would be talking about a different version. I don=B4t like director=B4s cuts= , in particular this phony one." Without getting into the mechanics of the replicant mind in the context of the film, one of the questions that might be aroused is what we are to make of the difference between "replicant" and "human." These are issues that writers like Philip Dick tried to explore (although in his novel they are n't explored nearly as deeply as in the film) and that are further raised as we find new interfaces between humanity and technology. From critics like Donna Haraway to the figures of Data in STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION and the "holographic doctor" in STAR TREK: VOYAGER, the question of what it means to be "human" or "machine" or something else is a vexed one and likely to become increasingly so. On a related matter, there is a new book by KW Jeter, titled BLADE RUNNER 2: THE EDGE OF HUMAN that reportedly tries to reconcile differences between BLADE RUNNER and DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? I haven't read it yet myself, but watch for the movie! (Director's cut?) Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN) ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]