RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Around the time TFA was released I was using this same analogy (though with the ubiquitous Beatles) to articulate to my friends why I wasn't interested in a new Star Wars movie. We wouldn't accept anything other than those guys as the Ramones or as the Beatles but why are we okay with it in movies? I feel that way about Star Wars. When you have different actors, writers, composers, make-up/fx artists, producers, directors, etc., then can the ensuing work still be considered a true successor? Maybe? Maybe not? Obviously a few of those roles do change hands from movie to movie sure, and certain roles are more vital than others. But when you're so far removed from the originals (as well as the time when it was made) and virtually none of the original crew still exist outside of a handful, is it really true to call it "Star Wars" or "Ghostbusters" or "Indiana Jones" at that point?It's kinda like equating SW with say, The Ramones... There's only so many ways you can put those 3-4 chords together with that same attitude they began with, & no new album will give you what you got the first time you experienced them. So what we get today is if a company bought the Ramones as a property, then announced a new slate of music, written by a group of focus testers & produced by Justin Timberlake & Timbaland, because they both site The Ramones as HUGE influences in their careers. Then each album that came out had one original member replaced, until by the 4th one, it was an all new lineup making music that sounded like The Ramones.
I'm not counting movies based on any literary or comic book characters as those tend to be open to creative reinterpretation. Now that being said, if you're directly following a specific movie like say, "Superman Returns" was as a sequel to Christopher Reeve's Superman, than yes I would have to apply the standard I described above.