Donner's RETURN take?

[Captaindemotion]

Jesus, did I derail this thread by referring to the Bond series, or what? Sorry, original poster!

I suppose another comparison would be the revived Doctor Who. Showrunner Russell T Davies has made it clear that it's a sequel to the original series but he's also been quite brazen in making it clear that he'll pick and choose what he wants from the original series. Retaining what he thinks will work in the new one and ignoring bits that don't suit his purposes.

Okay, it's not an exact comparison as the original Dr Who ran for 20-something seasons as oppose to the 2 original Superman movies and Dr Who involves time travel and thus continuity changes can be explained away more easily. But the general principle of following up a predecessor, retaining story and continuity elements that suit and discarding those that don't, are the same. I don't understand why people will accept this approach in one franchise but not another.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Now there'll be a long discussion about Doctor Who.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Probably!

 

[Shazam!]

I'll start:

Nah, Doctor Who is more of a continuation than Superman Returns is, even going so far as to bring in the original actors for roles seen in the classic series.

Superman Returns is a seperate entity using the Donner films as basis for backstory. I don't think anybody views the Donner films as literal prequels to Returns and if anyone does, they're basically idiots.

 

[Harvey]

...Although Superman Returns did retain Marlon Brando, through archive footage, and wasn't the photograph of Mr. Kent on the farm a picture of the actor who played him in Superman: The Movie?

 

[Shazam!]

That's true, but they were more homage than continuity.