The Screen Actors Guild Awards were held at USC’s Shrine Auditorium Feb. 24 and, like many other Trojans, I was in my dorm intently watching. My favorite for the television categories was “Succession,” primarily because it was the front-runner with five nominations, appearing likely to dominate Saturday’s show.

However, to my surprise, the HBO drama only managed to win one award and completely lost out in every solo acting category it had been nominated for. In fact, in its entire run, “Succession” has failed to win an individual acting trophy at the SAG Awards.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

Kieran Culkin and Sarah Snook not winning in their respective categories was incredibly astonishing due to their recent wins for best actor and actress, respectively, in a drama series at the Golden Globes, Critics Choice Awards and Emmys all within a 10-day span in January.

The acting performances in “Succession” are some of the most captivating and brilliantly executed portrayals seen on television in recent years, resonating deeply with both audiences and critics alike. The general consensus by the awarding committee at the SAG Awards seemed to be to award the more popular shows.

The SAG nominations notoriously snubbed a series of profound performances this year — including Charles Melton in “May December” (2023), Greta Lee in “Past Lives” (2023) and “Succession”’s own Jeremy Strong. These performances were some of the most talked-about and critically acclaimed of the year, making their exclusion from the SAG Awards all the more surprising and disappointing.

Losing out during awards show season is not entirely unique to the SAG Awards and its show this year. Some of the most popular actors and actresses of our generation have yet to win an Oscar, despite continuously giving showstopping performances. For example, Amy Adams, Kirsten Dunst, Scarlett Johansson and Jake Gyllenhaal have all never won an Oscar.

There is an underlying issue with the criteria used during awards show season. Awards seem to be based entirely on who seems “deserving” of the award for how they resonate with voters, rather than the performance itself.

With best actor and best actress at the Oscars, there is an implicit consensus that younger performers have no chance of winning, regardless of the performance. One must first earn the respect of Hollywood, and only then are they bestowed the honor of an Oscar.

What, then, should be the primary criterion for awards shows? Are we truly recognizing genuine talent or are we merely swayed by popularity and admiration?

The 2024 Oscars are mere days away, and the running for best actor is being widely talked about — not because it represents a genuine race between entirely deserving and popular performers, but because of what it says about the issues with awards shows.

Bradley Cooper has lost out on all of the major best actor honors to either Cillian Murphy or Paul Giamatti for the entirety of the awards show season. His frustration and desperation to win an Oscar is entirely visible and humorous to audiences around the world. And, as much as I find it entertaining, I can’t help but resonate with his desperation on some level.

Not awarding the most talented performances and simply giving awards to the actor who seems to have obtained a respectable level of admiration from their peers through experience is the primary issue at hand. Bradley Cooper has given numerous performances arguably deserving of Oscars and has always lost out to someone more respected by voters. Now, we see him in the running for a lackluster performance seemingly because of sympathy for his lack of Oscars.

This begs a bigger question: What are we truly awarding in these ceremonies — authentic talent or simply the appearance of it?

This pattern not only undermines the integrity of these awards but also discourages artists from taking creative risks and delivering truly unique performances. When awards are based more on popularity and industry respect than on the merit of the performance itself, it creates a homogenized and predictable Hollywood landscape. It sends a message that conforming to a certain mold is more important than pushing boundaries and exploring the depths of characters and stories. Why should an artist care about their art when it is never truly recognized?

Hollywood must reevaluate their awarding criteria. It is high time they started awarding based on genuine merit and talent rather than showcasing favoritism and popularity. Because without it, we won’t get performances as brilliant as those in “Succession.”