For now yes. If it'll be revived and improved to be approved I don't know.
Last edited:
For now yes. If it'll be revived and improved to be approved I don't know.
Because originally it was.Why are you assumings that a Wreck-it-Ralph attraction necessarily involved VR?
Oh it certainly was a plan.I don't even think Wreck it Ralph was on Disney's plans, rather it was just a rumour that emerged from the internet.
What is the likelihood of it actually happening?? It would be a pretty cool attractionOh it certainly was a plan.
Welcome to the forums!
Right now? Pretty unlikely.What is the likelihood of it actually happening?? It would be a pretty cool attraction
What could Stich’s replacement be?Right now? Pretty unlikely.
I don't even think Wreck it Ralph was on Disney's plans, rather it was just a rumour that emerged from the internet.
More like SWAGs. According to Merriam-Webster, a rumor is "talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source." By extension, a "rumor" with a "source" becomes "news."If you don't have a source, it's not a rumor. It's wishful thinking. It's a presumption. It's a guess.
Otherwise, you'd have people flooding this forum with stuff like, "I'm sure WDW is going to create a Zootopia land in DAK."
Or did someone change the name of the forum to "WAGs"?
More like SWAGs. According to Merriam-Webster, a rumor is "talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source." By extension, a "rumor" with a "source" becomes "news."
Well, the title of the forum is "News, Rumors and Current Events," not "News, Insider Rumors and Current Events." And the rest of your definition says "uncertain origin" which means you don't have a definitive source for the information. Yes, I understand that an insider rumor might have more veracity than one reported by just some unwashed schlub of a Disney fan, but that slight taint of authenticity doesn't necessarily make it a "better" rumor (see Disneyworld Bus Driver*).I see your M-W and raise you an American Heritage:
1. A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay.
Unverified means we don't have a verified source. So, when our insiders tell us what's happening, they don't reveal their source, which makes it an unverified source.
So, we have another word with various meanings. Do you think that the context of this forum is in the sense of spit people make up because they want it to be true or are guessing it to be true and then purport it as real possibility?
Well, the title of the forum is "News, Rumors and Current Events," not "News, Insider Rumors and Current Events." And the rest of your definition says "uncertain origin" which means you don't have a definitive source for the information. Yes, I understand that an insider rumor might have more veracity than one reported by just some unwashed schlub of a Disney fan, but that slight taint of authenticity doesn't necessarily make it a "better" rumor (see Disneyworld Bus Driver*).
*no offense meant, @Driver
As is your right. And don't forget to thank the Phoenicians.Ok, then.
But, this being a discussion board, I'll discuss how an 'unfounded rumor' is unfounded, point it out, and roundly mock people reacting to rumors with no basis in actual sources, especially when they make up their own stuff as a launching pad for their moment of drama.
Anything would be better than Stitch. Such a waste of prime real estate, just like "golf course and cemeteries" I tell ya.What could Stich’s replacement be?
Is it Alien Encounter?
To back up this, I believe a while back @marni1971 actually specified it was originally AR, then VR, then 3D, then the project sort of dropped off. So there is/was weight to this rumor.Ok, then.
But, this being a discussion board, I'll discuss how an 'unfounded rumor' is unfounded, point it out, and roundly mock people reacting to rumors with no basis in actual sources, especially when they make up their own stuff as a launching pad for their moment of drama.
To back up this, I believe a while back @marni1971 actually specified it was originally AR, then VR, then 3D, then the project sort of dropped off. So there is/was weight to this rumor.
Plenty of Non-VR proposals have been made for the space.Seems like a small space for any sugar rush inspired attraction that wouldn't involve vr.
False. The project started VR, it's issues were exposed, then it became 3D, then 2D, then irrelevant.all rumors involved vr, even after Iger's statement. It got really ridiculous really fast.
Bingo. One sim per theater. Ft a Turtle Trek-Esque dome.unless if they gut the theaters and make them into motion simulator areas, then it might be enough space for one, but it depends on how large the motion simulators themselves are.
The goal was to maximize capacity, something Stitch doesn't do, and hasn't outside of its first months.so your saying cram a popular IP into a low capacity scenario and celebrate the 140 minute waits as some kind of good thing? sounds like TWDC would jump on that.
No. Or at least not the alien encounter, could be AE in name.What could Stich’s replacement be?
Is it Alien Encounter?
WALL-E fits. Why we have Monsters Inc and don’t have a WALL-E ride in Tomorrowland just seems silly to me (though I do love MILF when the mood hits).IMO Stitch "fits" in Tomorrowland much better than Ralph. If anything I'd rather Stitch stay. While they're at it I'd be happy if Monster's Inc. (another low performer) was removed. In any case Ralph doesn't belong. Monsters don't belong. TRON... barely fits. Why has Tomorrowland become the idea dumping ground for IPs that "sorta-fit-but-not-really."
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.