Ever since Oscar season became a year-round affair that hosted both industry professionals and film buffs worldwide, had a tendency to pencil in certain nominees unseen based on their previous awards success or showbiz prominence. If Steven Spielberg has a new movie on the way, he's an instant favorite for at least a nomination. Meryl Streep in a drama about something timely or socially important? It is one of the best leading actresses most likely to be talked about.

It is always a mistake to think this way. This is something I learned in 2007 when, as a participant in an Oscar forecasting poll, I predicted across-the-board Academy Award nominations for Charlie Wilson's War. How could I not? A drama about the United States' involvement in Afghanistan directed by Mike Nichols (winner for "The Graduate") and starring Tom Hanks (winner for "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump"), Julia Roberts (winner for "Erin Brockovich"), and Philip Seymour Hoffman (hot off his win for "Capote") was 800 pounds. Oscar the gorilla. Throw in an Aaron Sorkin script that seemingly everyone in town has read and loved, and there wasn't much reason to think this killer's array of talents wouldn't work.

Then "Charlie Wilson's War" was screened for critics and members of the Academy. Although I loved the movie, the word from the voters was a huge "meh". When the Oscars were announced a month later, Hoffman was the only nominee for the film.

The lesson: pedigree doesn't count for anything until it hits the movie screens. And even then, you have to give the film some time to exist in the minds of voters before you consider it a contender. We learned this all over again when nominations for the 97th Academy Awards were announced this morning.

Sequels are a tricky proposition for Oscar voters. Yes, The Godfather Part II and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won the Academy Award, but both came out within two years of the first installment in their respective sagas. While last year's Gladiator II brought Ridley Scott back to the director's chair and rounded out a host of acting talent, 24 years separated it from Scott's original Best Picture winner in 2000. It never felt necessary or timely.

The film, however, had an ace up its sleeve in Denzel Washington. As the terrifyingly cunning Macrinus, the two-time Oscar winner (for "Glory" and "Training Day") gave a stellar turn that had all of Hollywood buzzing. Although reviews from legitimate (ie non-influential) critics were muted in their overall praise for the film, all agreeing that Washington's dazzling performance is reason enough for the film to exist and, most importantly, remain an outside contender for Best Picture, Director and several other awards. Gladiator II probably wasn't going to win many Oscars, but Washington felt like the favorite for Best Supporting Actor.

But as the weeks passed, the film gradually faded from memory. Sure, it was a box office hit like the first film, but Washington's bravura performance felt like brilliance in a vacuum. Although Paramount trotted out Christopher Nolan to host a screening at the Academy (where he named Gladiator II his favorite film of 2024), enthusiasm for the film has completely died down. When Washington failed to receive a nomination for Best Supporting Actor from the Screen Actors Guild, it seemed clear that his name would not be called this morning.

After all the spending (the film's budget was well over $210 million) and campaigning, Gladiator II earned just one Academy Award nomination for Best Costume Design. Washington was denied what would have been his 10th nod, but will return later this year in Spike Lee's Highest 2 Lowest, the hotly anticipated remake of Akira Kurosawa's High and Low. Let's just hold off on anointing him a Best Actor Oscar frontrunner until we see the damn movie.