<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[This entire revival is just a box ticking exercise that is so forced compared the chemistry and originality of the origi]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>t-l-s</strong> — <em>9 years ago(November 26, 2016 09:53 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">This entire revival is just a box ticking exercise that is so forced compared the chemistry and originality of the original.  Such a shame</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/263892/this-entire-revival-is-just-a-box-ticking-exercise-that-is-so-forced-compared-the-chemistry-and-originality-of-the-origi</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 05:33:03 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/263892.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 01:45:15 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to This entire revival is just a box ticking exercise that is so forced compared the chemistry and originality of the origi on Fri, 08 May 2026 01:45:16 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>jessdavies-99820</strong> — <em>9 years ago(November 26, 2016 09:57 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I totally agree. It didn't have the magic the original series had.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2240120</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2240120</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 01:45:16 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>