This wasn't '80 when he got beat by a very good but still inferior film in "Ordinary People", let alone the theft that was the year he lost to Costner (the Academy's hard on for actors-turned-directors knows no limits).

"Million Dollar Baby" was a great film. Clint erved to win as much as any other film.

Now, you could say that Scorsese should have won for all the times he's been passed over previously. I just don't subscribe to this line of thinking. Yeah, it sucks that he got robbed a few times, but giving him an Oscar for a different film, decades later, is a retarded way to make it up to him, and unfair to those also in contention.

Clint Eastwood having already won for "Unforgiven" shouldn't matter. It's about who they feel was the best director that year. If someone directs the best one 10 years in a row, they should be awared 10 Oscars.

Then again, as a film, I didn't think The Aviator was all that strong, so maybe my opinion is in the minority. I'd like to see Marty get back to making smaller scale pictures instead of these big epics that, though technically fantastic, have been dull and uninteresting from a narrative perspective.