Ah yeah as I suggested in my post dystopian films or books are the most interesting science-fiction stories. Just an anecdote about it. Jules Verne is known for his anticipation novels in the nineteenth century, which sold very well, now the best sold French author worldwide but those novels are really utopian and optimistic about technological progress as you all know but of course this was an era for that. He however wrote one dystopian book: Paris in the Twentieth Century. Paris in the Twentieth Century never got published in his lifetime because nobody would believe in his prophecies, said his publisher and so it only got published in 1994, 131 years after being written.
This being said, I haven't seen "Blade Runner". Alec Guinness referred to Star Wars when he said "fantasy world of childish banalities". Star Wars is by no means dystopian. I've forced myself to watch the first episode so that I can make a judgment but it really is about new technology and political centralisation.
However it still begs the question why making science-fiction films in order to reflect upon human personalities and social realities while it requires such a huge budget and it's so "easy" to make a simple film set in the real world that could be equally as good (not to say much better)? The best films I've seen are usually low-budget films.