So I dug up my DVD copy of Blade Runner.

I haven't seen this film in a long while.

I looked up the trivia and production information on IMDB and I found out that there are

7

versions of this film.

I remember the theatrical version. That's the first version I watched at the movie theater during its original release.

Then I remember in the early 90's I watched a new director's cut without the Deckard voice over in the movie theaters.

But I didn't know there were 5 other versions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Blade_Runner

I remember finding a clip on YouTube a while back showing Deckard and Rachel making love - I think it was a deleted scene?

I don't remember that scene in any of the 2 versions I've seen.

And people complain about George Lucas. LOL
At least Lucas really worked on the updates, even if he messed up the Han thing.

Lucas also messed up the iconic Vader throwing the Emperor down the Death Star Core Shaft scene.

What changed? I just watch ep 4 & 5 more often than all 3.

Lucas added Vader screaming NOOOOO when he picked up the Emperor who was zapping Skywalker with his hand tasers.

Ah, ok. That's not as bad, I can see both sides of that decision.

The multiple versions is the result of Executive Meddling, not the director cashing in.

IMHO the "Director's Cut" is the best version of the film. No annoying inner monologue by Deckard spoon-feeding the plot and no happy ending.

The Final Cut is probably the one I like best, as it is almost identical to The Director's Cut but they digitally cleaned some things up, like cables on the Spinners and Joanna Cassidy's face during the crashing through the glass stunt.

I like the Final Cut much better than the Director's Cut because they took out some of the scenes again that were inserted in the Director's Cut which were strongly alluding to Deckard being a Replicant (that unicorn dream sequence, particularly). Okay, Deckard being artificial had been my interpretation since day 1, but still - leaving it more ambiguous made it a better film overall.

I agree that the "Final Cut" is the best version of Blade Runner - it's also the final product how Ridley Scott wanted it to look, and the small enhancements in color etc makes it look stunning.

Nah, the monologue added a lot of style to the movie. Taking it out was a mistake. There was very little of it anyway.
The unicorn was the silly and convenient factor IMO.

I forgot about the "Final Cut". That one is an even better improvement over the "Director's Cut".

I actually saw the Director's Cut in the theatre when it was released in the summer of 1992. I never saw Blade Runner during its original theatrical run in 1982.

I disagree, the entry monologue was a mistake. It adds just one more strong hint about Deckard being a Replicant rather than leaving the audience to make up their own minds. It doesn't even work as a "Noir style" gimmick because it only occurs during the opening shots, and the film is "Noir enough" without it.

Off monologues are almost always a mistake in cinema - show, don't tell.

IMO, with most films the original editing decisions were best. I can't speak to the different BR versions because I only saw (and loved) the original theatrical release as a kid. But I hate the CG additions to Star Wars Episode 4. And Apocalypse Now got really dull in the DC version, especially with the political diner conversation at the French plantation.

Hey, it's almost 2019.

Ready to take your chances in the off-world colonies, where a life of prosperity awaits you?

Yes, it's almost 2019 and we are nowhere near having flying cars as depicted in the film, nowhere near having artificial humans and nowhere near having human colonies outside of Earth. I'm thinking that scifi writers and thinkers were just a tad bit optimistic in 1982!

The predictions of sci-fi writers might be off in terms of chronological history, but there is something about their overall "feel" that keeps hitting the spot.

I don't really understand the point of having Deckard be a replicant. I always saw the movie as being about the rapport between humans and synthetic sentient life, while implying the pointlessness of distinguishing between the two. If Deckard was a replicant, I feel like the movie gains an us-versus-them note which only kind of muddles things up.

Being ambiguous about it is fine and serves the above point, but ultimately, if Deckard had to be one or the other, I think the story works best with him human. But this is just my interpretation.