Blade Runner was intended to be seen on 70mm film in a cinema. People who saw it at a 35mm-only cinema (the vast majority) would have experienced a slightly inferior picture quality.
The 4K scan of the film may or may not match the quality of the original film depending on the graininess of the film, but from a 70mm source it will probably be slightly inferior to the film version, however grainy 35mm prints have grains bigger than a 4K pixel, so the transfer is about the same quality.
Someone watching the film on a VCR (or even a DVD) isn't getting anywhere close to the original intended experience. They may still get a lot of the atmosphere from the experience, but it was always a sub-par experience compared to the cinema, and most people who who watched films on a VCR were only too well aware of that as even most commercial VCR tapes weren't up to the standard that was possible for broadcast OTA TV especially for PAL.
In contrast, running a video game designed for NTSC or PAL TV's, usually somwhere between 320 and ~350 horizontal pixels that were then encoded to NTSC or PAL, so keeping the original pixel accuracy on the luma component of the colour, but smudging colours to a lower accuracy in the chroma (each line was ~280 colour clocks, but some of these weren't visible, so maybe estimate 200 pixels horizontally), and finally output to a TV with a different arrangement of pixels again depending on the mask in the TV.
It was pretty much accepted that single pixels wouldn't be the colour they were supposed to be, and many pixel games used dithering to create new colours and colour gradients to make up for limited palettes from the hardware and usually even more limited palettes from the colour look-up tables (because memory was a premium, systems were often 4 colours from a choice of 16 or similar). Even well before the advent of LCD TVs, some games looked a bit ugly when using a higher quality RGB computer monitor (e.g. the 1080 for the Amiga) compared to using a TV, even though the monitor was vastly superior for applications.
To compensate for the relatively low refresh rate of interlaced broadcast TV, the phosphor on the screen was designed to decay in brightness slowly so that the alternate lines would fill in the gaps left from the previous field to give the impression of a higher vertical resolution (this is why NTSC is usually called 480i30 and PAL 576i25) but in practice, most games treated each field individually and depending on the timing of the signal they output, it might not even be actually interlaced at all, so games really ran at 240p60 (NTSC) or 288p50 (PAL) with some blur between frames from the phosphor which wasn't designed for that. As an aside, this is why live TV broadcasts (i.e. using an old TV camera rather than a film scan) look so jaggy on a modern TV - although they are interlaced, the two fields aren't independent when the camera or subjects are moving as the image is captured twice in different positions. This looks OK on a TV, because the phosphor has decayed a bit and the newer image is slightly brighter, but also because the image is effectively blurred across a couple of frames anyway. Later studio cameras in the digital age captured the whole image at once and output a genuine interlaced signal where the odd and even frames were coherent.
When you try to play a game designed for CRT on a modern LCD TV, first of all, you don't get any of the effects mentioned above, you just get a crisp square that fills the entire pixel space. Some TVs allow a "clarity" or "crispness" adjustment that blurs the image a bit, but fundamentally the image is never what was intended originally, nor how it was perceived when seen on a CRT. Attempts to up-scale these low-resolution images to take advantage of the higher-resolution from the LCD can often lead to even weirder artifacts - e.g. you might like an upscaler to recognise a diagonal edge and create a smooth diagonal, but this can lead to weird diamond patterns in dithered areas. And some TVs might also try to de-interlace the image, leading to the jaggies I mentioned above from live TV cameras.
All in all, games from a certain era were designed to look good on the output technology of the time, and modern TVs generally do a terrible job of replicating that experience unless you go through a specialised CRT filter which tries to replicate in software the effect you'd get if you stuck a hi-resolution digital camera in front of an old CRT displaying the signal. Some of these are actually pretty good, but vastly different from what you'd get plugging your old game directly into a TV.
Films were generally designed for watching in the cinema, and were broadcast on TV at a lower quality, and sold on VCR at an even worse quality. Watching a high quality transfer on a blu-ray is much closer to how they were intended to be seen, and not only doesn't create any weird artifacts by being better quality than you'd have seen on your CRT showing a VCR tape, it'll actually reveal new details that were always there in the film that were just missing on the VCR version.
