Damn: I got my blood up and ranted - then The Ghost came in and made everything all nice and reasonable again. Ah well. (tips hat - fucks off)
If the Author is dead, I say kill the Fans too because in most cases they're just as shit.
But "Death of the Author" is one of those arguments that people pick up and drop to suit their own bullshit. See Mass Effect 3 for the most recent version of that. It's a valid point of argument that the author may have created something "greater than the sum of it's parts" and he's now pretty much on-par with the audience that embraced it as this "unintended" thing. Donnie Darko worked because it could be so many things to so many different people (within a generational spectrum of course - it's the ultimate "Ritalin/Anti-Depressant" Generation movie). It turns out that nobody was really interested in Kelly's "intended" movie.
In Bladerunner's case, IT WAS A BOMB. Nobody was satisfied with the theatrical cut (it had a terrible rating in all the Guides of the day - Halliwell etc hated the shit out of it and every TV guide listing reflected this). Bladerunner's current "Classic" status/reputation is based purely on it's evolving reputation among geeks/buffs as a movie that contained greater depth than initially thought (the key element was Deckard possibly being a replicant), and when it came to light that there was indeed this alternate cut that confirmed what many of it's supporters had suspected it was like a lightning strike. It was no longer a "cult" movie but a full fledged classic. And it would NOT be that if it had remained un-touched as Ambler is asserting. This is a legitimate case of the director's vision being A: Interfered with and B: Superior (and it was Scott's vision, not the writers' etc - it's a classic "lightning in a Bottle" case of converging talents though, with Ridley steering the ship before the producers took over and ran it into the rocks), rather than a case (similar to The Thing) where only the timing wasn't right.
But basically, THERE ARE NO RULES. "Rules" in filmmaking are only ever guidelines. Changing one line of dialogue can fix (or fuck) a movie in one case, while changing entire scenes/reshooting/cutting half the movie can't fix another.
I'd add that this Bladerunner "re-birth" came about in a time when the Art House scene was on the rise and movies from the 80s were being revisited and a reasonable (ie: financially viable) portion of the movie-going audience were more open/receptive to the general themes at play in Bladerunner beyond the is he/isn't he question: that was the "hook" for revisiting it, but it's also the key to opening up the correct mindset in which to re-watch the movie with new eyes. So I don't think that the is he/isn't he question is what's important so much as that you understand why the movie wants you to think about it. It's essential to the correct viewing of the movie - it just so happens that this is also the "Author's Vision" of the movie.
Personally I have some dark suspicions about the continuing contrarianism of people wanting a return to the "Bomb Cut" of Bladerunner. And I suspect it's a thread of logic that ends with the title "BLADERUNNERS". Where an Aliens-esque re-visioning would be more welcome than Ridley returning to it with the eye of an artist: Replicants as Terminators - Arnie as a Replicant!!! (I HAVE heard that last one IRL BTW - fans back then were just as fuck stupid as they are now).
"Interesting idea, but I'm not fond enough of Blade Runner or invested enough in the Deckard/Replicant thing to bother doing that."