Could 3D work with a cartoon?

[Slothy]

Would you like to insult my intelligence again, or would you rather have me just give you examples right now so I can show you my original point, which you seem to have missed?

Not sure where you got the impression he insulted your intelligence. For the record, Omecle's point is valid. Animation requires quite a bit of suspension of disbelief as it is and some well integrated 3D isn't enough to break that for most people. You're apparently the rare exception.

And as for your original post, you can't fall into uncanney valley territory with traditional hand drawn animation and 3D meant to emulate a hand drawn style being integrated. Uncanny valley is when something starts to look and act almost human to the point that it puts people off because it's not quite there but is far enough that it seems creepy. By simple virtue of the fact that hand drawn animation and integrated 3D aren't trying to realistically emulate humans, they can't really fall into uncanny valley territory. You may be put off by integrating hand drawn and 3D, but it's not because it falls into the uncanny valley. I get your original point, but you did completely misuse the term.

Actual topic: It would be very hard to draw every scene twice from too different angles but i think a cheap 3d affect which makes animated cells look like cardboard cutouts wouldnt be too difficult.

I'm not even sure you could hand draw every scene twice from a slightly different perspective. I think the difference in perspective would be so small as to be almost impossible for the animator to perceive and render accurately. I think the only possible way would be to fake it by perhaps digitally altering the animation after the fact.