MY Blade Runner as opposed to Ridley Scott's-rating reflects THEATER release!

Rating: 10/10 (27 February 2005)

From the moment that I saw this film in '82 until today, it's remained among my favorites. For the life of me, however, I cannot understand why the director eliminated the narration from this film.
Many of you may not know this, but there once was a movie genre called FILM NOIRE. These movies usually involved a really good, loner type detective, like "Sam Spade" or the like. He would walk you though the film using narration that highlighted what he was thinking while you watched him perform his investigative duties with a featureless "poker face" to fool the bad guys.
Periodically, and most often impersonated, the detective would "step out" of a scene he was in and talk to the audience instead of narrating over the action. Perhaps you've seen old Bogart films where he'd stand under a light pole in the rain and recite a monologue to the audience about how he felt the case was going or to highlight another character's actions, behaviors or personalities according to him. THAT is E X A C T L Y what Blade Runner was meant to depict in a futuristic setting. It worked WELL, and it is sorely missed from the director's cut.
Honestly, and many will agree, unless you've seen the original cut of this film, you lose a LOT of information that helps you understand the story to the fullest. If I'm "whining" or "don't understand the 'new school' " and you DISAGREE blindly, then don't you EVER use the CAST/CREW COMMENTARY feature on you DVDs again. YeahI THOUGHT so!!! So-perhaps those with the "power" can do what many of us are asking: Give us our movie backthe way it was MEANT to be seenthe way WE remember it.