<?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[Looks promising, but…]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Marvel/DC</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Tsavo</strong> — <em>9 years ago(October 21, 2016 01:01 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I'll be honest, I was hoping they would find a way to continue the threads they set up with "The Wolverine" Involving Mariko and his new connections there.<br />
"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/69175/looks-promising-but</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 20:23:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/69175.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:06 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Looks promising, but… on Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:09 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Tsavo</strong> — <em>9 years ago(October 21, 2016 10:14 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I have to agree! I really enjoyed it as a character piece, and appreciated it for giving us the first real glimpse at Logan as a character (specifically in the extended cut). I would really like to see some sort of statement about it at any rate. It just kind of sucked that they managed to finally get Wolvverine over Jean, which I thought went on far too long, and I did think that Mariko was an interesting character. if they ust drop that without a word, I'll be a bit bummed. Don't get me wrong, the trailer for this film looks amaing, and I might have to fly to Hong Kong ust to be sure that I get to watch it in cinemas, but I'll still be a little disappointed.<br />
"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713113</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713113</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:09 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Looks promising, but… on Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:08 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>The_Wolverine_X</strong> — <em>9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:38 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It was a damn good movie.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713112</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713112</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:08 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Looks promising, but… on Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:08 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Jeepster7</strong> — <em>9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:29 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">The Wolverine was freaking great.  It's 3 times what the first dud of a movie should have been.  This will be worth it if it matches the quality of that film.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713111</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713111</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:08 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Looks promising, but… on Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:07 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>avlis-nec</strong> — <em>9 years ago(October 21, 2016 03:48 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Im glad they did not.<br />
The Wolverine<br />
was freaking odd</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713110</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/713110</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 03:24:07 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>