Award season is typically an exciting time for film fans, performers and fashion lovers. But for many viewers, the 2025 award circuit has highlighted Hollywood’s double standard when it comes to race. “Sinners,” directed by Ryan Coogler and starring Michael B. Jordan, has largely been overlooked by award shows despite its record-breaking debut and strong audience response.
“Sinners” marks Coogler’s latest success in filmmaking following the commercial and artistic successes of “Black Panther” and “Creed.” The film, a supernatural thriller set in 1930s Mississippi, stars Jordan as twin brothers navigating violence, vampires and the challenge of opening a juke joint. From its earliest press cycle, the film was framed as original, genre-blending and stylistically unique.
Before watching the film, I had little knowledge of what I was going into. I had heard many raving reviews from friends about how amazing “Sinners” was. Yet, it was hard to get a clear answer about what made the film great. After watching the movie many times, I can now see why. Coogler managed to perfectly balance a feeling of historical realism and supernatural eeriness. There is no singular perfect element of “Sinners” because every aspect of the film is a masterpiece.
The film became a major box office hit and one of the highest-grossing original horror films ever. Due to high demand, the film had multiple limited IMAX releases. Despite these successes, “Sinners” has not been warmly acknowledged by the mainstream film awards community.
Large publications have repeatedly questioned whether “Sinners” was a box-office success and whether it qualifies as a horror film. While the film certainly toes the line of many genres, I think it fits in the horror category. The early coverage of the film was marked by headlines such as Vulture’s “so is Sinners going to make or lose money,” being omitted from Rolling Stone’s top films of 2025 list and Variety tweeting that “profitability remains a ways away.”
The controversy surrounding this movie has focused on the financial aspects of the film, rather than the film itself. This skepticism reflects a long-standing pattern in which films led by Black artists are treated as risky deviations rather than serious award contenders.
This framing sharply contrasts the coverage of “Marty Supreme,” director Josh Safdie’s A24 drama starring Timothée Chalamet. The film, centered on Marty Mauser, a ping-pong prodigy in 1950s New York City, has been widely positioned as a major awards player well ahead of its release. Publications have praised its unconventional premise, stylized performances and Safdie’s direction as proof of its artistic credibility. Despite “Marty Supreme” earning significantly less than “Sinners” during opening weekend, critics have widely declared it a box office success.
Much of this narrative shaping occurs within a small media ecosystem. Major entertainment outlets such as Variety, Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter play an outsized role in determining which films are considered awards-worthy. These publications are all owned by Penske Media Corp., led by CEO Jay Penske. While editorial teams operate independently, the consolidation of awards coverage under a single corporate umbrella inevitably narrows the range of perspectives driving the conversation. It is also important to note Penske’s ownership of award shows such as the Golden Globe Awards, American Music Awards and Billboard Music Awards.
This matters because awards campaigns are as much about perception as performance. Early coverage influences studio spending, voter awareness and critic’s perceptions. When skepticism becomes the dominant tone surrounding a film, it can follow that project throughout the season.
Michael B. Jordan’s career underscores the issue. Despite box office success and critical acclaim, Jordan has received limited award recognition compared to white peers of similar stature. His collaborations with Coogler have positively impacted modern filmmaking and received widespread praise. Yet, their work together is often categorized as cultural phenomena rather than award-worthy achievements. “Sinners” appears to be facing the same distinction: significant attention with limited institutional validation.
None of this guarantees “Sinners” will be completely ignored as award season continues. But the groundwork for dismissal is already being laid. Of its seven Golden Globe nominations, “Sinners” won two. The film achieved best original score and best cinematic and box office achievement. Two Golden Globe wins are still an amazing achievement. However, even with the film’s high number of nominations, it is difficult to be astonished because of the critics’ treatment.
Nonetheless, there is still hope for recognition. With the 2026 Oscar nominations announced, “Sinners” has managed to break Hollywood records. The film has received 16 nominations for the 98th Oscar Awards. Some of these nominations include Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay. While these nominations may not guarantee different outcomes than other award shows, it does show that “Sinners” is not being completely ignored by the Academy.
When creative projects from Black filmmakers are framed as outliers, while similar ambitions from white-led projects are framed as innovative, the imbalance is impossible to ignore. Awards are not just about honoring films; they are about defining which stories are allowed to be taken seriously. As long as that definition is shaped by a narrow set of voices, films like “Sinners” will struggle to fight for recognition long before audiences ever see them.