Great Move Ride was to be replaced by a Villains ride?

champdisney

Well-Known Member
Lol @ Wdw doing a holiday overlay of a ride in the 2020s
Yep, wouldn’t hold my breath on any attraction overlays. I specifically remember before Toy Story Mania opened, Imagineers had described TSM as being one of those attractions that could easily undergo a holiday overlay overnight... an empty promise indeed.

There are so many ride and land concepts never built. It could be it's own Disney+ show.
A show like that would be wildly entertaining, no doubt. However, we don’t want a situation where fans get hyped over an unbuilt attraction and go bat-shiet crazy over the internet like that one time Disney released old concept footage of Ariel’s Undersea Adventure in one of those special edition Little Mermaid DVDs. What we got as a result from that is probably the worst dark ride, ever. Imagine that happening again.

I know right? It's a Disney parks forum. There is nothing wrong with asking simple questions.
Yeah, folks around here are pretty special I must say. I guess, it’s cause of this Corony-virus. Still, last time I checked this has been a long going pandemic on this forum for years now!

I don’t know. Maybe we all just miss being a kid.
 

wedenterprises

Well-Known Member
At one point, California Screamin' was to be re-themed to Ursula.

Eventually there will be a ride built based on a villain(s).... it's something they toss around all the time. Just like we finally got a Mickey ride.
 

The Real Buzz Lightyear

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
In the Parks
No
At one point, California Screamin' was to be re-themed to Ursula.

Eventually there will be a ride built based on a villain(s).... it's something they toss around all the time. Just like we finally got a Mickey ride.
Wow that's interesting. I had no idea that was going to happen. I agree it's probably only a matter of time. Personally I would like to see it built as a land at Disneyland as an expansion to Fantasy land
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I have a question for Marni and anyone else who knows the truth.
Ah, but herein lies the rub. For what is truth?
Truth is a property not so much of thoughts and ideas but more properly of beliefs and assertions. But to believe or assert something is not enough to make it true, or else the claim that ‘to believe something makes it true’ would be just as true as the claim that ‘to believe something does not make it true.’ For centuries, philosophers have agreed that thought or language is true if it corresponds to an independent reality. For Aristotle, ‘to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true.’ For Avicenna, truth is ‘what corresponds in the mind to what is outside it.’ And for Aquinas, it is ‘the adequation of things and the intellect’ (adæquatio rei et intellectus). Unfortunately for this so-called correspondence theory of truth, the mind does not perceive reality as it is, but only as it can, filtering, distorting, and interpreting it. In modern times, it has been argued that truth is constructed by social and cultural processes, to say nothing of individual desires and dispositions. Michel Foucault famously spoke, not of truth or truths, but of ‘regimes of truth.’ Categories and constructs concerning, for example, race, sexuality, or mental disorder may not reflect biological let alone metaphysical realities.
According to the coherence theory of truth, a thing is more likely to be true if it fits comfortably into a large and coherent system of beliefs. It remains that the system could be a giant fiction, entirely detached from reality, but this becomes increasingly unlikely as we investigate, curate, and add to its components—assuming, and it is quite an assumption, that we are operating in good faith, with truth, rather than self-preservation or -aggrandizement, as our aim. Thus conceived, truth is not a property, or merely a property, but an attitude, a way of being in the world. Martin Heidegger appears to take this idea further still: 'Truth' is not a feature of correct propositions which are asserted of an 'object' by a human 'subject' and then are 'valid' somewhere, in what sphere we know not. Rather, truth is disclosure of beings through which an openness essentially unfolds. All human comportment and bearing are exposed in its open region.
All the better if we can actually do something useful with our system and its components. According to the pragmatic theory of truth, truth leads to successful action; therefore, successful action is an indicator of truth. Clearly, we could not have sent a rocket to the moon if our science had been wide off the mark. For William James, the truth is ‘only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as the right is only the expedient in the way of our behaving.’ If something works, it may well be true; if it doesn’t, it most probably isn’t. But what if something works for me but not for you? Is that thing then true for me but not for you? For Nietzsche, who made himself the natural ally of two-penny tyrants, truth is power, and power truth: ‘The falseness of a judgment is not necessarily an objection to a judgment … The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding …’
That a thing fits into a system, or leads to successful action, may suggest that it is true, but does not tell us much about what truth actually is, while the correspondence theory of truth is so thin as to be almost or entirely tautological. And perhaps for a reason. It has been argued that to say that ‘X is true’ is merely to say that X, and therefore that truth is an empty predicate. Truth then is not a real property of things. Rather, it is a feature of language used to emphasize, agree, or hypothesize, or for stylistic purposes.
[/postmodern prattle]
 
Top Bottom