Sorry about the similar mistake I made to David (from the original quote in my last message). I never received the original text (it may have been deleted by my fiance so I took an excerpt from Quitin's post). Anyhow, David's last post on "more human than human" and the interplay between human and replicant is definitely explored at a greater level in Scott's cut. In both versions, however, there is an evident fight for survival from all the four replicants (not excluding Rachel, and Deckard for that matter) -- a very human trait I would say. Self-preservation is the name of the game. With that in mind, the notion of the four replicants searching for their "creator" to prolong their lives (and really for what reason...the milieu of Blade Runner -- the future -- is not exactly a pretty picture) and prevent their eminent "expiration" is, in my opinion, a much more bold human aspect to survive. To a degree, they are more human than human. The fact that Rachel believes she is human, causes Deckard to re-think his own past and the possibility that he may be a replicant as well. If she didn't know, how could he? Thus, the unicorn image intercutting his looking at pictures of his alleged, and questionable, past. As I said before, a thing of eternal beauty...untouchable, in myth...vision of perfection..."unreal", perhaps. To further this, the exclusion of Deckard's narration in Scott's version creates an atmosphere of anti-personalization and distance for the audience. The viewer is then asked to really decide for themselves if Deckard could possibly be a replicant. I really believe that is what Scott was after. If Deckard questions it, why shouldn't we? If the replicants are more human than human, how can we be sure of anything? Liz Fries [log in to unmask] ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]