With cels, of course it wouldn't make sense. But now that cels have been obsolete since the late '90s and digital inking & painting have made the process a lot cheaper, I don't see how much more expensive it would be. Methinks studios are just looking for any excuse to cut corners.
I'm seeing more digitally animated cartoons with frame rates so fluid that they actually blow traditional animation
out of the water. I'm impressed by how Wander over Yonder Looked, and I love the movement of The Loud House. The new Danger Mouse actually has
more movement in digital than it did in the original. Though to be fair the original had like 5 people working on the show. Flash/Toon Boom
can be a tool to make a cartoon look great, provided you use the short cuts as tools and not rely on them for everything. Lots of various indie animations on the internet look great with the same equipment as a major television studio has. If Arthur can look at least as good as Nature Cat, I'd be happy with it.
9 Studio is one of the motion tweeny companies. Not as bad as all those awful European preschool shows you see on qubo. Especially not as bad as Gofrette, or as I like to call it "eye poison," that makes Problem Solverz look like a poster of fluffy kittens sitting on clouds. Or even Cookie Jar's
other shows that used the animation. The awful Doodlebops show no one asked for and the disappointing Hooray for Huckle. I
still am surprised they didn't switch over to the same flat Flash animation they used for those shows before. But 9 Story's stuff looks nice when the artwork is flattered by that animation. Jacob Two-Two, WildKratts, Peg + Cat. That animation
works with that style. But with Arthur, it looks flat and wrong. And things (ears, mostly) that never moved before now bobbed in the wind to give movement that didn't need to be there. And the opening scene of "Muffy Takes the Wheel" where Grandma Thora is playing computer games has some
embarrassing animation.