In recent years, Disney as a company has become more and more focused with monetary gain in its films and in its amusement parks. That is why Disney purchased the rights to Marvel Entertainment in 2009 and the rights to Lucasfilm and all of the "Star Wars" films in 2012. With the ability to garner wildly famous heroes like Captain America and Luke Skywalker in their parks, Disney has attracted a wider range of an audience and has made of a plethora of money not only from these attractions but also from the more recently debuted Marvel and Lucasfilm movies. What is also evidence of Disney's more recent money-making ploys are all of the live-action remakes they have made since the "Alice in Wonderland" remake released in 2010.

"Maleficent," a twist on the classic "Sleeping Beauty" tale was released in 2014, a "Cinderella" remake was released a year later, a "Jungle Book" remake was released in 2016, a "Beauty and the Beast" remake was released in 2017, "Christopher Robin" was released in August of this year and "Mary Poppins Returns" is set to come out in December of this year.

Some of the remakes based on earlier films, such as "Cinderella," functioned very well as a more fuller representation of the story. In the original cartoon, Cinderella and most of the other characters are pretty flat and do not have much character. The remake does a great job at fleshing out those characters. The kindness and gentleness Cinderella is supposed to have are really elucidated in the film. The stepmother is even more delightfully wicked, and the stepsisters are even more ridiculous. The film also has a beautiful set, costumes and film score. All of the changes made in this remake fleshed out the original film and only add to it.

Some of the other remakes, however, do not do as good of a job. In part that is because some of the original films that are being recreated do not need that recreation. "The Jungle Book" is known for its brightly colored and kitschy animation and its flavorful music featuring songs reminiscent of barbershop quartets and jazz standards. The live-action film takes away from that flavor, making "The Jungle Book" just another action adventure movie overrun with CGI animation.

The remake of "Beauty and the Beast" also takes away from the original film. The original is a classic, widely-loved movie, and does not need any additions. The new songs written for the 2017 remake could have added to the original film if all of the actors and actresses had not been auto-tuned to the point of a similarity found in all voices. All of the original Disney films feature such unique tones and voices in all of the music, and auto-tuning unique voices in remakes only takes away from the quality and flavor that Disney films once had. This falseness in voice is enhanced by the unrealistic CGI animation in "Beauty and the Beast." All of this reduction in quality makes a mockery of the original film.

A few days ago, the trailer for the "Mary Poppins Returns" movie was released. The film features many great actors and actresses, including Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, Colin Firth, Lin Manuel Miranda and a return of Dick Van Dyke in his role as the banker. The preview also shows evidence of animation reminiscent of the original film, along with the standard of today, CGI animation. Emily Blunt, playing Mary Poppins, is shown singing in the trailer, and it sounds as if her voice may be auto-tuned.

Based on the preview, the film could either be a success, adding to the original film, or a failure, detracting from the original's charm. Any auto-tuning of voices would be an insult to the great Julie Andrews, and too much CGI animation could take away from the animation of the original film. However, both Blunt and Lin Manuel Miranda are talented singers, so they could do the film justice. An adequate mixture of CGI and old-school animation could also serve to elucidate the original film. Only time will tell. Hopefully, a well-done "Mary Poppins Returns" film will be released to show that Disney still has a focus on quality.