Originally Posted by Hunter Rider
Popularity contest is partially it for sure, but it's like a case of "Not what you know but who you know" that dominates Oscar outcomes hence Penn over Rourke.
I honestly think there are too many question marks over the Oscars to use them to validate anything.
Well... at the same time when people like Penn, Rourke, Winslett, Portman, Hathaway, etc... are all nominated or winners... (and all amazing actors imo) while Stallone, Arnold, and Nicholas Cage (who thankfully no longer seems to be getting nominated) who are reallly not good actors in this current time-span... I do think that says something.
The Oscars arn't off by any means.. nor are Oscar winners any more valid than Oscar Nominees imo. I think it's far more important to look at Oscar nominees as a whole than Oscar winners (like you said it's too much of a question mark... alot of factors go into the award winner, popularity, campaigning, how "out of the box" there performance is to what they've done before (honestly the only reason i think Jonah Hill was even nominated last year), how much they deserved it from there past, and yes.. acting ability, favor-ability in the role, and sometimes it all just comes down to peoples legitimate opinions)
basically.. there's something to say for those who are nominated (most of the time *looks at you jonah hill*) and one can at least say these are great actors.. (it's hard for me to usually argue that) the winner that year doesn't make them any better as a whole imo, and of course, there is countless underrated actors that have never and may never win an award.
But it's not far-fetched at all for someone to be wrong in validating an actor by there award. They did get nominated, they did win, and they do rightfully get some validation for that. Does it make them any more skillful? no, not really.. Oscar winners can still have flops, but at the same time you can at least put more eggs in their basket to count on.