And I don't think a continuation was the right approach here. Donner's Superman was a movie made in the Bronze Age of comics with Silver Age sensibilities. In the interim, Superman in comics had been radically transformed, with new and influential ideas introduced to the mythos, such as Clark as the real person -- and Lois's love interest -- rather than Superman, or Luthor as a ruthless corporate magnate. Those new ideas were adopted by numerous screen adaptations of Superman, from Lois & Clark to S:TAS to Smallville. They became key aspects of the mythos. So for Singer to go back a quarter-century and try to resurrect a movie built around the pre-Crisis version of Superman felt backward and atavistic compared to what other screen adaptations had been doing for many years. It was ignoring a whole generation of the franchise's evolution, decades' worth of new ideas. And I found that a missed opportunity.
I agree Singer didn't modernize things for SR as much as he probably should have, but I still thought the style and tone were radically different
enough from the Donner movies to still make it feel like it's own, unique thing.
And that somber tone and art deco design aesthetic are what stand out to me the most
about SR. Which is why I'm always surprised when all others can seem to focus on are the homages and vague story similarities. To me those were just minor background things.
Heck, if anything I'd say SR was more nostalgic for the stylized, golden-age Fleischer
Superman than the Donner one. It's all over the look and design of the movie-- even more so than the few Donner elements we see.