The Academy is all about politics and favoritism. Has been since day 1. I'm pretty sure Kate Hepburn would have agreed that her winning 4 awards and O'Toole/Burton winning 0 is proof of that.

Academy Awards are not really an indication of acting talent. After all, Catherine Zeta Jones won one for Chicago.

When you consider that Whoopi Goldberg won an Academy Award while Peter O'Toole didn't win for Lawerence of Arabia and Richard Burton didn't win for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, that kind of puts things into perspective.

The consideration, comes from a dependency of who the fellow nominees are for any given year and the strength of them. When an actor wins for one year, they may not have won for the same performance, if it was released the year before or later. They may not even get a nomination. Goldberg won because she was popular and in a popular film at the time. She wasn't contending with Peter O'Toole and never would have, due to her sex. Also, O'Toole had Gregory Peck to contend with.
As for Burton, I don't find anything that special about his acting, as he recites\bellows his lines, in a theatrical and pompous manner. I haven't seen all his films; but has he ever given a genuine, nuanced and real performance? Paul Schofield, was more layered and deserving than Burton and so was Michael Caine, for 66'.IMHO. I would have to see the other 2, before I can make a more informed decision.

His losses for "Lawrence", "Lion" and "Venus" really,
really
hurt.
And in '62, '72, '80 and '82 he simply had the misfortune of being up against four of the greatest and most iconic performances in the history of cinema.
Brando in "The Godfather" and DeNiro in "Raging Bull"? Absolutely.
Peck in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Kingsley in "Gandhi"? Don't agree.

In his case, it's sadder to think about it than it is with other people, since he would ha5b4ve really appreciated it. I remember from interviews that he released at the time that he was nommed for "Venus" that he was genuinely nourishing the hope that he would have won it at last.. I know for a fact that a lot people (myself included) couldn't believe that he would have died without a competitive Oscar, that he was too cool for that. Many are probably accepting just now that Oscars are crap, knowing for sure that they will never make amends by awarding Peter.
Oh, well. He's in good company. As a matter of fact, with the exception of Peter Finch and Michael Caine, his contemporaries in British cinema had a rather unlucky history with the Academy.
Richard Burton: 7 noms, 0 wins
Albert Finney: 5 noms, 0 wins
Richard Harris: 2 noms, 0 wins
Tom Courtenay: 2 noms, 0 wins
Laurence Harvey: 1 nom, 0 wins
Alan Bates: 1 nom, 0 wins
Not to mention all those that were never nominated.

He was only "robbed" if you take the Academy Awards ser5b4iously. George C. Scott had the right idea of not even showing up to his Academy Award nomination for
Patton
, calling it something like "a glorified high school class president election."
When you consider that Whoopi Goldberg won an Academy Award while Peter O'Toole didn't win for
Lawerence of Arabia
and Richard Burton didn't win for
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
, that kind of puts things into perspective.

Strange this great actor never won a Best Actor Oscar but that is another discredit to the Academy.

This message has been deleted.

The most nominatedwho never won.
I agree with you. A friend & I used to get together & watch 'Becket' & 'The Lion in Winter', anytime they aired.
Carpe Noctem!

This is why I wish the Acedemy would disclose the votes like they do in sports,etc. It would give us a better perspective

I would like to see that too. However, I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory; but I often wonder the reason why they don't, is because it may be a tad rigged and the votes are not going to be an honest reflection.

'Simple, IMHO it should only be a tie when they have the same number of votes, as Kate Hepburn and Barbra Streisand did in 1969.'

that is exacty what I am against because the odds of that are very rare.
In general,if the votes are 2-3 apart,it makes the "winner" seem less meaningful since we think of the winner as being such much more of a victory.
It would be like student who gets a 99.9% grade but loses to another who received a 100% . This is why I wish the Acedemy would disclose the votes like they do in sports,etc. It would give us a better perspective

Simple, IMHO it should only be a tie when they have the same number of votes, as Kate Hepburn and Barbra Streisand did in 1969.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much.
ALOTO

'No way of knowing just how close some of those votes were'

And this is what fascinates me when awards are judged as being deserved it not. If the votes are that close, I think it should be declared a tie, since it virtually is

People, please! He wasn't robbed, nor snubbed. He simply never received quite enough votes to win. No way of knowing just how close some of those votes were. Years or decades later, some of those votes may seem puzzling when seen through our modern filters. He gave man5b4y splendid performances which will live on as long as our culture does. He received a lifetime Oscar. Very, very few do.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much.
ALOTO

He should've won several Oscars but the fact he didn't serve as a reminder one shouldn't put much stock in award shows.
O'Toole's performances will be remembered for many many years. That's better than any Oscar.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

He and Richard Burton were nominated at least seven times and never won. They were robbed.

Much like the Nobel prize (if you'll excuse the comparison), the Oscar has been a joke for many years now. The fact that Peter O'Toole never got one only illustrates it vividly.

This message has been deleted.

I always wondered how he did not won for Lawrence Of Arabia. Sure, Gregory Peck was very good in To Kill A Mockingbird but not as good as Peter O'Toole.

This message has been deleted.

Peck won solely because Atticus Finch was the feel-good character for white liberals. O'Toole definitely deserved it over Peck, but I'd personally say that Jack Lemmon deserved it most of all for
Days of Wine and Roses
. (But it's a close call between O'Toole and Lemmon.)

librarything.com/profile/CurrerBell

He was robbed there, 100%. The Peck film won for reasons other than screen talent.