doesn’t relate to my point.

There are 7 versions, Serpento. Seven. Go back and watch the other two, then come back and start crying again about the practical production design and cinematography on 2049.

I know full well the 5 version of Blade Runner and I’ve seen them all, you are an imbecile.

I’m not the one who didn’t know there were multiple iterations of Blade Runner, so I’ll take your claims of my ignorance with a very large grain of salt.

No your comment and ignorance is pathetic. It doesn’t matter which cut because all of the cuts were shot in film sets and real locations giving a sense of weight and reality to the film which is impossible to achieve with digital and which the new film doesn’t have, no matter how many digital apologists are they yelling to the contrary, the results speak for themselves.

If that is so then why does the new Blade Runner is just blue and orange and pasty like every other z list digital film out there?

It probably does matter, being shot by Roger Deakins, arguably our finest living cinematographer, certainly one of the greatest in the history of cinema. He might know what he’s doing? You keep digging yourself some big holes!

Oh so you mean the theatrical cut the studio forced to be fixed and released against Ridley Scott’s wishes? Not Ridley’s director’s cut from years later? Or the final cut Ridley got the money for re-shoots recently? Not the like, 6 other versions? Few movies get messed with more than Ridley Scott’s and none of his more than Blade Runner, so your comment is pretty funny.

I was referring to the original Blade Runner

using film doesn’t matter if it’s going to be color corrected and processed digitally.

by original are you talking theatrical or dvd final cut

What “digital garbage”? You do know that the vast majority of this was shot practically, right?