They had to get permission to make Mary Poppins Returns so I imagine that’s not it, I’d guess it’s simply because they like to base everything off of the newest version.
They announced it because they thought they were going to build it. But then a worldwide pandemic happened.
I did not intend for my suggestion to be any more graphic, or pro-hunting than what's depicted in said cartoon.
Ironically, in the movie it's the Mary Poppins outing that Mr Banks finds the least objectionable.
My post was more about how you could have multiple, smaller outdoor attractions in that plot instead of spending a lot of money just to put one flat ride indoors.
Unfortunately, reviving Mr Toad seems too perfect in terms of theme and tone for them to even consider.
I cannot imagine Disney not including it in the contract.
Give the Twitter Mob some time they are busy canceling someone or something at the moment.
Plus it was a world-wide box-office hit and scored a mess of awards. Cinematically, it's probably Walt's crown jewel. It holds up beautifully to this day. It deserves a land of its own. A dark ride, shops, restaurants - all of that. (Although I don't know if today's Imagineers are up to doing a good job of it.) It's funny that Disney's version of Alice in Wonderland gets more theme park presence than Poppins, given that the former didn't achieve anything like the success of the latter. The lack of Poppins in the parks, as you say, is abysmal indeed. And with the soulless dunderhead Iger in charge of the company, we'll probably never see Walt's best film get anything like its due. Tragic.
It's been discussed in this thread that there is indeed something mildly problematic in MP with a minor character (and I'm not talking about the crazy claims which were universally dismissed). But no where near as problematic as Travers' original books.
It's too bad they didn't play the "a movie of its times" card to save Splash.
