At least half a different versions of Blade Runner exist, but the two best-known versions are the original 1982 version and the 1992 director's cut. Their differences are subtle but they significantly alter both the plot and theme of the work. Which do you prefer?
Regardless of which version of the movie I'm gawking at, I think its aesthetics are some of the coolest ever filmed. I love absolutely everything about its look and tone.
I prefer the theatrical version. Deckard being a human doesn't detract at all from the movie's exploration of the definition of humanity, but if he's a replicant, I don't see how that fact doesn't not create a plot hole. Why would Tyrell -- a guy who can create replicants at will -- try to save himself from a group of rogue replicants by creating one deliberately weak and fragile replicant, needlessly crafting an incredibly elaborate fake life for it just to trick it into thinking that it's human for absolutely no apparent reason, and then just kinda sitting back and hoping that maybe, just maybe, with some luck, it'll get the job done? What am I missing? XD
On the other hand, I very much like Blade Runner 2049, and it's definitively a sequel to the director's cut, not the theatrical cut, since its plot hinges on Deckard being a replicant.
On the other hand, I very much like Blade Runner 2049, and it's definitively a sequel to the director's cut, not the theatrical cut, since its plot hinges on Deckard being a replicant.
Regardless of which version of the movie I'm gawking at, I think its aesthetics are some of the coolest ever filmed. I love absolutely everything about its look and tone.
