XY (&Z) vs. SM Which is better?

>>33435004
Top is better drawn, bottom looks more dynamic.

File: 1504132530552.jpg (298KB, 1484x668px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1484x668px

>>33435015
Yes....dynamic...

File: Ash in the 6th Generation ~ (3).png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

XY at its best was nice and crisp.

SM is too jarring of a follow-up.

>>33435046
>static copypaste stock faces versus fluid still frames taken out of context
Thanks for proving that guy's point?

XY. Not even a Serenafag.

I prefer SM.

I tried watching each subbed Pokemon series, but I couldn't make it very far in each without losing interest (other than the original series and the Orange Islands dub I watched as a kid).

SM is actually keeping my interest though. The art style shift is what got my attention in the first place, and I appreciate how bubbly and expressive the characters are. It keeps me invested in between battles and plot points.

>>33435128
No one ever had a problem with the series until they changed the art style, which majority of people think it looks horrible.
XY was beautiful imo, sharp, crisp and clean, while SM does have more fluid motion, I'd be fine if they stopped making the stupid faces and got rid of curving everything, it's like anything sharp has to be curved and smooth now, example, Ash, James, Misty, Brocks hair.

>>33435046
Do you even know what dynamic means?

>>33435154
>Majority
[citation needed]

>>33435154
I wasn't saying anything about the quality of the animation, you just clearly don't understand what dynamic means.

I like SM's style more in general, but I don't care for slapstick memefaces, and Sun's shirt doesn't work on Ash, guy needs a collar

As for the actual content of the shows writing wise, neither is worth watching

SM is just horrible

fluidity means shit when the characters are never drawn correctly