Who was the true genius behind Blade Runner? because it wasn't Scott.

Blade Runner is a result of several strong ideas and aesthetics coming together... Larger than the sum of their parts... From the Philip K Dick's interesting source material and Hampton Fancher's script to the Vangelis score, but all filtered through Ridley Scott's attention to the aesthetic, his appreciation for these ideas and his commercial cinematic sensibility...

We can't ignore the positives of Ridley's infuence, just because we don't like some of his flaws... These flaws are a result if him reaching beyond his grasp... A less ambitious director wouldn't make those mistakes, but would not achieve such greatness in other parts of the film...

He has several other high quality movies... Including the iconic Alien, which it is popular for fanboys to try to discount his work there as well... So that's 4 aclaimed movies that are flukes? It doesn't add up.

Yet Scott, keeps making interesting movies, as well as scores of less iconic, but highly entertaining and aesthetically interesting movies. He's a working, commercial director, but one who has his own aesthetic and artistic sensibility... He makes movies that are made to be seen by audiences, not just critics and yet he does it in a manner that elevates these films visually and (lately) philosophically... This is very rare these days.

Another great thing about Blade Runner is that it is shot and edited in the Golden Age Hollywood style, which is the best and most effective style to shoot a movie because it is seamless and its main purpose is for the audience to forget there is a camera or a crew or even a director. And it works. In other words, no abrupt cuts, no annoying closeups of mundane inconsequential tasks that aim to remind you that an auteur is directing. This again, cannot be credited to Scott for he introduces these unnecessary shots in the disastrous Final Cut, and his entire filmography is just the current, clumsy editing and shooting style that destroys suspension of disbelief.

Also, “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbon is considered to be the single most exhaustive history of that time period ever written. Why wouldn’t someone who’s making a film about ancient Rome use it as a source? It would be foolish not to.

Has followed the trends? Please show me any movie of that time that looked like Alien or Blade Runner.

Thats a really good question. Scott doesnt understood at any point in time how important the fact is, tht Deckard is a human. He was even stupid enough to put hints into the Directors Cut that Deckard isnt a human (thats why the Directors Cut is just a piece of trash). But its not fair to attack Scott about this, cause he was a tv commercial director (Apples 1984 was done by him).

But still ..... like you mentioned ..... this is an epic masterpiece which still shines after many, many decades. My theory is that this was some of the rare occurencies when studio executives did some awesome job for the movie itslef. Scott didnt understood the postmodern character of the Philip K. Dick novel and thats why the studio executives "forced" him to include the voiceover (which is so important as an ingetrated part of the postmodern setting) and removed every dumb hint that Deckard isnt human (cause otherwise the complete novel wouldnt work at all anymore. But Scott didnt got this point even today). They also did something questionable by putting a Happy end to the movie ..... but then again ..... who cares :) .

The theatrical cut of Blade Runner was one of the best movies of the 80s (which was beside the 20s, 50s and 60s the best decade for movies in the last century and still is the best movie decade since then). This is a movie which creates a complete new world and give us an amazing story about life and death and love (Avatar built also a complete new world, but forget about the second half ;) ).

He's not a writer, so like most directors his filmography can be a bit hit and miss sometimes, depending on the subject matter.
But he's hardly a charlatan, the guy made hundreds of commercials before his first film.

Let's face it. Ridley Scott is not a good director, as a matter of fact, he's a bit of a charlatan and he has the filmography to prove it.