Steve B., I never, ever intimated that the facts I presented justified anything in the film (or any film); except that they might serve to educate. I also was not "arguing" anything; just presenting the facts. I never once defended the monkey suits in the films under discussion. Someone asked why they were so poor, and I offered some facts to help answer this question. So, please don't put words into my mouth, sir.
August, did I put words into your mouth? I don't think so. I didn't even mention you; I merely made an observation about the problem with making an argument based on what a filmmaker intended. Let's recapitulate:

1. You note that the KKE suit was designed to resemble the Rankin/Bass cartoon.
2. Kongu is King notes that the KKE does not look very much like the Rankin/Bass cartoon.
3. You follow up by implying that #2 is somehow counter-factual of #1.
4. I dispute #3 by noting that what someone intended can be wildly divergent from what they actually achieve.

I never said you "justfied" or "defended" anything, nor did I dispute the facts you presented. Rather, I tried to show that these facts don't force us to come to certain conclusions. If someone dislikes the KKE suit, his or her opinion may not be much influenced by what the filmmakers intended. As the angry bank boss says in THE WILD BUNCH, "It's not what you meant to do - it's what you did that bothers me."