As for Xerox "look", I actually like it. I used to be like "oh those movies look unfinished" or whatever, but it's neat seeing the raw animator drawings sometimes appearing within the characters and moving objects. It was especially heightened by films that had art direction that complimented it.

That was the compromise going forward, circa 1960. That the Disney studio could still make animated features, but they'd have to cost less and be done faster. Roy Disney and the business side of the enterprise seemed to see little need for new animated films, when the old ones could be re-issued.

If you think about, the prospect of making an animated feature was always on thin ice at Disney throughout the post-war era. Other studios couldn't even get past two films (the Fleischer studio and the UPA tried, but it went nowhere). 'Sleeping Beauty''s flopping nearly shut the whole thing down.

I'll share a fun story now.

During production of 'Bambi' in the early 1940s, storyboarder Retta Scott did some really effective drawings of hunting dogs. Many of the male animators were shocked to see such frightening renderings, Walt himself assigned her to ANIMATE on the dogs. Quite something!

There's A LOT of misinformation about animation, especially Disney's animation, online. On tumblr, this post floats around suggesting that the big studios gave up on 2D because it's more unionized than CG or whatever, and you can tell whoever wrote that KNOWS nothing. That's NOT why it happened.

Especially when you consider that Walt HATED the look of Xerography, HATED the scratchiness of it vs. the more painstaking process and delicate work done by the Ink & Paint Department.

This is what I mean by some online lefties looking for sinister things and intentions where they are simply NOT there. If we can't tell actual bad things in history from the things that actually happened for other reasons, then we make ourselves look like the stereotypical lib Fox News whines about.

Not sure if that’s Harry Hill or not

Yeah more so Kyoryuger