The same is true with actors. Personally, I don't think that an actor who has only one or two movies on the back of their head shot should be nominated. Take again Sylvester Stallone for example. He was nominated for Rocky. As one site I read pointed out, no one realized that Sly basically only played that character in everything. We don't really know if it's talent or just dumb luck that an actor's first role was the right part, the only part they would ever be able to play. Same is true for child actors. Cute is not talent and very few child actors actually demonstrate talent beyond the cute phase.
And so I come to this year's nominees. I liked Gravity. It was a nail-biting thrill ride. It was also little else. It was a special effects movie. If you saw Gravity and didn't know that Clooney dies and the lone inexperienced astronaut would survive, you simply weren't paying attention to the preview trailer. Sandra Bullock's rapid breathing and constant "I'm so scared" grunts and whines were not really much in the way of acting skill. Sorry, but the character was two dimensional and had a back story of about two sentences long, and the plot was exceedingly predictable . Fun movie? Absolutely. Nuanced, layered and deep? Ummm, no. Who should be there if not Bullock? Easily it should be Emma Thompson whose nuanced performance in Saving Mr. Banks of P.L. Travers was absolutely astonishing.
Then there was the lack of nomination for Tom Hanks. To this day, I cannot get the performance and shear