Which is worse to you: bad art or bad animation?

[dougo13]

Take a look at some old TV animation from the 1960s like The Hulk or Spider-Man. Heck, there is hardly any movement at all but because the stories being told are so good, I can allow for that. Ditto with animated comics like I have seen over the years. They basically shoot the panels with narration and voices. Some guys probably wouldn't like that because it's not even animated. Doesn't bother me because the stories are good. Lots of old animation from the 60s like The Wizard of Oz is crude by today's standards but because the stories were good, you remember them. Even a lot of old 1930s cartoons are like that which shows their popularity even all these years later. Bugs Bunny, Popeye, Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse, on and on. Most of Hanna Barbera's 60s output is the same. Very repetitious animation and in many cases crudely drawn but great stories: Jonny Quest, Space Ghost, Shazzan, Scooby Do, The Flinstones, tons more. Probably helped that many writers and artists came from out of the movie and comics worlds to begin with...

[Lord Beerus]

Bad animation for me is worse.

Count me in the group that would sacrifice characters being off model if meant more fluidity with the action displayed.

[Beerus-sama]

Bad art is more annoying for me than bad animation

[baneofdemon22]

Easily, bad art. One of the biggest appeals of Dragon Ball is Toriyama's art style, and if that's gone, I don't feel like I'm watching the same characters. I love reading the Dragon Ball Multi-verse fan manga, but when they switch artists that don't do a very good job of replicating Toriyama's art, I can't get myself motivated to read it. I want smooth animation, but it's not a deal breaker for me when it comes to animated shows. If the writing and art is good, then I'm fine.

[MozillaVulpix]

I'd say bad animation. If the animation is really unique and fluid, I'll just find myself being mesmerised by the movement and not paying attention to the art as much.

And in Dragon Ball, bad art isn't THAT bad. The artstyle is pretty simplistic as it is. They don't have many opportunities to screw up, say, character's eyes.

[Big Momma]

Bad animation can make good art look bad. Even if a character drawn really well and rendered nicely, if it's movement are choppy and don't flow well it will look bad.

On the other side, if a character isn't drawn "well" (or is drawn off-model), it can still be good eye candy if the animation and shot planning are good.

[dbzfan7]

Bad animation can make good art look bad. Even if a character drawn really well and rendered nicely, if it's movement are choppy and don't flow well it will look bad.

On the other side, if a character isn't drawn "well" (or is drawn off-model), it can still be good eye candy if the animation and shot planning are good.

Yeah. If the animation is choppy, slow, jittery, or with poor frame rate, then I don't care how good the art is. It already fails. If the art is unappealing, but the motion is so fluid and nice, you can still get some really awesome scenes. Also as you said bad animation can essentially ruin good art, while good animation can make bad art look good.

[Dbzk1999]

Bad animation for sure
An example I always like to use is 94 Spider Man and Specatcular Spider-Man
I'd consider the art style of 94 spider man superior, but while I wasn't a huge fan of the art style for Specatcular, it flat out stomps 94 spider man in animation (and writing, but that's another issue)