By Paul Swartz - Assistant Voice Editor on March 14, 2025
Graphic by Audrey Garcia
The Academy’s Best Animated Feature winner this year, “Flow,” is notable for many reasons. A relatively simple story about a cat trying to survive a hostile environment, it’s the first movie made by an independent studio to win the award and the first movie produced in Latvia to win an Oscar.
It also has no dialogue.
Throughout its 85-minute runtime, not a single word is spoken. “Flow” won for several reasons. It’s a tour de force of wordless storytelling, it has some of the most immersive sound design I’ve ever experienced and, most importantly, the animation is gorgeous.
The animation style feels personal, allowing each animal to be incredibly expressive while never distracting from the environment. Speaking of environments, each landscape is stunningly constructed. Painstaking details are carried in each frame. Above all else, “Flow” shows how vital the quality of animation is to the success of animated art.
Except for when it isn’t.
As of the publication of this article, the final episode of season three of the animated series “Invincible” has just been released. The show, named after the superhero the program is centered around, has been massively popular for taking a darker approach to the genre, while fleshing out each character so they feel like a real person.
“Invincible” as a whole has been largely praised and has been the number one show on Amazon Prime Video for the past eight weeks. However, it’s been criticized for a major drop in animation quality for the newest season.
It’s important to note that the limited animation quality of “Invincible” is almost certainly not the artists’ fault. Too often, animators are overworked and underpaid, and the animators working on “Invincible” were subjected to a strict deadline. The show’s producers have decided to invest more in high-profile voice actors than animation.
For “Invincible,” that strategy has paid off.
The show is so gripping because actors like Steven Yeun, Sandra Oh, Walton Goggins and J. K. Simmons bring multiple dimensions to the main characters. Meanwhile, supporting roles are also filled by well-seasoned actors. Sterling K. Brown, Aaron Paul, Clancy Brown, Jeffery Dean Morgan and Mahershala Ali have all filled roles throughout the show.
In many ways, “Invincible” is a prestige ensemble TV show disguised as an animated superhero series.
Obviously, the program would be better if the animation was better. But if it had to sacrifice the incredible performances to achieve that, making that decision would be antithetical to what brought it success.
In the same vein, “Flow” could’ve recruited A-list actors to voice its animals, but that would’ve detracted from what makes the movie so special.
In a time where there’s an increasing push to recognize animation as just as valid an art form as live-action, both “Flow” and “Invincible” fill their role. The former displays the unique advantages that the medium of animation provides.
Animation isn’t an inferior medium, and for certain stories, it can convey messages better than live-action. On the other hand, “Invincible” shows you can do everything the best live-action stories have done through animation. You can display compelling narratives and deliver powerhouse performances, just like the best live-action art has.
Both approaches legitimize animation as more than a childish genre. “Flow” and “Invincible” have almost nothing in common besides being animated. Maybe someday, the Oscars will have best voice performance categories, and the animated awards won’t be condensed into two categories.
Until then, “Flow” will forever be immortalized as an Academy Award-winning film because of its animation, while “Invincible” will be one of Amazon’s most popular shows in spite of it. That duality is exactly what makes the medium of animation so special.
Is good animation really that important?
The Academy’s Best Animated Feature winner this year, “Flow,” is notable for many reasons. A relatively simple story about a cat trying to survive a hostile environment, it’s the first movie made by an independent studio to win the award and the first movie produced in Latvia to win an Oscar.
It also has no dialogue.
Throughout its 85-minute runtime, not a single word is spoken. “Flow” won for several reasons. It’s a tour de force of wordless storytelling, it has some of the most immersive sound design I’ve ever experienced and, most importantly, the animation is gorgeous.
The animation style feels personal, allowing each animal to be incredibly expressive while never distracting from the environment. Speaking of environments, each landscape is stunningly constructed. Painstaking details are carried in each frame. Above all else, “Flow” shows how vital the quality of animation is to the success of animated art.
Except for when it isn’t.
As of the publication of this article, the final episode of season three of the animated series “Invincible” has just been released. The show, named after the superhero the program is centered around, has been massively popular for taking a darker approach to the genre, while fleshing out each character so they feel like a real person.
“Invincible” as a whole has been largely praised and has been the number one show on Amazon Prime Video for the past eight weeks. However, it’s been criticized for a major drop in animation quality for the newest season.
It’s important to note that the limited animation quality of “Invincible” is almost certainly not the artists’ fault. Too often, animators are overworked and underpaid, and the animators working on “Invincible” were subjected to a strict deadline. The show’s producers have decided to invest more in high-profile voice actors than animation.
For “Invincible,” that strategy has paid off.
The show is so gripping because actors like Steven Yeun, Sandra Oh, Walton Goggins and J. K. Simmons bring multiple dimensions to the main characters. Meanwhile, supporting roles are also filled by well-seasoned actors. Sterling K. Brown, Aaron Paul, Clancy Brown, Jeffery Dean Morgan and Mahershala Ali have all filled roles throughout the show.
In many ways, “Invincible” is a prestige ensemble TV show disguised as an animated superhero series.
Obviously, the program would be better if the animation was better. But if it had to sacrifice the incredible performances to achieve that, making that decision would be antithetical to what brought it success.
In the same vein, “Flow” could’ve recruited A-list actors to voice its animals, but that would’ve detracted from what makes the movie so special.
In a time where there’s an increasing push to recognize animation as just as valid an art form as live-action, both “Flow” and “Invincible” fill their role. The former displays the unique advantages that the medium of animation provides.
Animation isn’t an inferior medium, and for certain stories, it can convey messages better than live-action. On the other hand, “Invincible” shows you can do everything the best live-action stories have done through animation. You can display compelling narratives and deliver powerhouse performances, just like the best live-action art has.
Both approaches legitimize animation as more than a childish genre. “Flow” and “Invincible” have almost nothing in common besides being animated. Maybe someday, the Oscars will have best voice performance categories, and the animated awards won’t be condensed into two categories.
Until then, “Flow” will forever be immortalized as an Academy Award-winning film because of its animation, while “Invincible” will be one of Amazon’s most popular shows in spite of it. That duality is exactly what makes the medium of animation so special.