how did you feel regarding the conclusion of Blade Runner

I prefer the Director's Cut/Final Cut ending over the original theatrical ending. That forced 'happy ending' the studio wanted in the original cut just doesn't fit the film at all. People obsess over whether Deckard is a replicant when in truth it doesn't matter. Whatever he may be, Deckard learned a hard lesson in what it is to be 'human.'

Another question frequently asked is why Roy saves Deckard. I think it's clear it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. Watch the entire sequence again, from the moment he finds Pris dead. From that point on, Roy was never going to kill Deckard. There just wasn't any point. They came to Earth to extend their lives. He knows he can't and now his friends are all dead. Killing Deckard solves nothing, but one thing he can do is show Deckard the error of his (and humanity's) ways regarding replicants.

"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." Roy isn't just talking about Deckard's current position on the ledge, he's talking about the entire chase throughout the building. That's what it is to be afraid for your life; to simply try to exist while worrying about your inevitable doom as it creeps closer and closer. Nobody lives forever, but Replicants know the end is nigh better than anyone. All they wanted was a chance to enjoy the wonders of the life they were granted as much as anyone else. They became killers and criminals because their creators gave them no other choice. For the rest of his days, Deckard has to live with the fact that he hunted down and killed sentient beings whose only crime was wanting the life of freedom so many of us take for granted.

The DC/Final Cut is the superior ending not because it all but confirms Deckard himself is a replicant, but because you don't know the consequences of his actions. Does he get the happy ending? Will he and/or Rachel simply expire or will the police execute them as fugitive replicants? Regardless of his true identity, how is he better than the replicants he 'retired?' There's no voice over to lead the audience through any of the ambiguity in these versions of the film. Good sci-fi should leave you asking questions, and Blade Runner gives you plenty to chew on.

This is why I was deeply disappointed by 2049. The entire exercise was unnecessary. I didn't want to know what happened next with these characters. The story was half-assed and Leto's cartoon villain didn't even have a sensible motivation. It was visually impressive as far as cinematography but the set design was often generic futuristic fare, which also went against everything we saw in the original. Why is everything so clean, new and organized in 2049 when everything was falling apart 30 years earlier? What happened in Vegas, and how long ago did it happen-- because Vegas is pristine while Los Angeles in 2019 was an absolute dumpster fire. The character of K is intriguing, but his death(?) scene doesn't carry half the spiritual weight of Roy's; so why give him the Tears In Rain music? It's not a terrible film, it's just not a particularly good one. It's the sequel that wanted to be a remake, and was equal parts reverent of and intimidated by the original film's legacy. A considerable amount of effort was clearly put into the crafting of this film with the exception of the writing of the script. It's a soulless facsimile; a Replicant some might say.