Tom Cruise has never won an Oscar, Cynthia Erivo's acclaimed work went ignored, and Timothée Chalamet waits. The entire argument rests on an unstated pivot: that the Academy's historical taste was wrong about these performances and a future nomination would constitute a correction.
But that assumes the Academy was making a misjudgment rather than a choice. More crucially, that their choice was made on grounds which will eventually align with critical opinion. Neither is obviously true.
For decades, the Academy has systematically favored intimate, interior dramatic work — the kind that reads as acting in the technical sense — over ensemble performance, action sequences, or genre work that requires a different skill set entirely. Cruise in Top Gun Maverick and Erivo in Wicked are not being penalized for being worse than past winners. They are being underweighted because their films belong to categories the Academy has historically treated as secondary. The Academy didn't miss them. It saw them and decided they weren't the kind of performance the award was designed to honor.
The "overdue" frame obscures what's actually happening by accepting the Academy's taste as the baseline for justice and treating historical non-nomination as error rather than consistent aesthetics. If you accept that taste as legitimate, these actors are passed over unfairly. If you don't. If you think Wicked and Maverick are more interesting than most Best Picture nominees. Then they aren't overlooked at all. Simply working in forms the Academy has decided to value less, a decision that says nothing about whether they deserve recognition and everything about what the institution was built to recognize.
The Academy didn't miss them. It saw them and decided they weren't the kind of performance the award was designed to honor.
The real question becomes visible only when you stop asking whether these actors will finally win and start asking whether you care if they do. That tells you what you actually believe the award measures.
Watch Top Gun Maverick and Wicked back-to-back, then ask yourself honestly whether the Academy's historical preference for interior drama over spectacle reflects genuine excellence or learned institutional bias.