I’m rather pleased to hear that Creed was a bonafide hit over the Thanksgiving weekend, adored by critics and audiences alike, and promising to do a brisk business at the box office well into the holiday season. I’m even more pleased to hear there is already awards buzz surrounding the movie, with a number of stunned voices among film buffs expressing a mix of shock and surprise that this time next year, we could be referring to Sylvester Stallone as an Acadamy Award winner.

My question is why are people surprised by this?

Let’s put aside his performance in the original Rocky, which earned Stallone Oscar nominations for both Best Actor and Best Screenplay – and in my opinion, should have earned him an Oscar – at the time, the first actor to do that since Orson Welles and Charlie Chaplin. Roger Ebert compared him to Marlon Brando, calling him a “dynamic new star”. Ebert would remain one of the critics who defended Stallone’s abilities long after many other critics took to calling him a hack.

Prior to Rocky, he stole the show in small roles in The Lords of Flatbush, Cannonball and Capone, and gave a memorable turn as a villain in Death Race 2000. He’s given brilliant, passionate performances in First Blood, Escape to Victory and Cop Land among others, that have only keep getting better with time. Arguably, his raw charisma is what fueled the Rocky and Rambo franchises going, and certainly helped make him a mainstay of action cinema in the 80s and 90s. The fact he’s still a name in action today is a titanic achievement. On top of his efforts as both a director and screenwriter, Sylvester Stallone has had a truly prolific career.

What I’m trying to say is, Sylvester Stallone doesn’t get nearly enough credit as an actor. You don’t have a career span five decades and more than fifty films without a certain level of acting ability and screen presence after all.

So why is it that Stallone has a reputation as not only a bad actor, but as one of the worst actors of all time? It’s bad enough to gloss over a body of work that goes back decades, but to put Stallone in the same category as Adam Sandler or Kevin Costner is more than distasteful, it’s downright dishonest. Nonetheless many movie critics and film snobs have made a sport insulting Stallone’s abilities and his work.

Why? I have a theory.

For a moment, compare Sylvester Stallone’s career path to that of Robert de Niro. Not just because I love to bring up the old Rocky vs. Raging Bull debate, but because the two share a large number of similarities, in terms of both career trajectories and a number of personal details. Both are Italian-Americans born in New York City. Both took a number of bit roles prior to a big break that earned them an Oscar nod. Both are largely self-made men whose careers span decades and have played some of the most iconic roles in the history of cinema. Heck, both were involved in one of the biggest snubs in Oscar history when both gave the performance of their careers only for a dead guy to get the award.

There are a lot of similarities – but there is one key difference. De Niro played to the arthouse, while Stallone played to the crowds.

Up until the mid 90s, Robert De Niro worked with some of the most talented directors in Hollywood, was involved with some of the most critically acclaimed ensemble films of the last fifty years, and has deservedly earned critical acclaim for many of his performances.

This is why despite him cashing in and taking roles in the last ten years that would make Nicholas Cage blush, De Niro still turns heads, especially among critics and movie buffs.

For better or worse, Sylvester Stallone never got to work with Francis Ford Coppola or Martin Scorsese, and chose to do high-octane action movies instead of period dramas and arthouse darlings. Blockbuster cinema has always attracted detractors and snobbery among some circles, especially those circles typically in charge of handing out awards. It’s why Annie Hall beat Star Wars, it’s why Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan, and I wager it has a lot to do with why Sylvester Stallone draws so much ire.

The funny thing though? In spite of it all, perhaps the most important common trait shared by Sylvester Stallone and Robert De Niro is that we’ll remember them and the vast bodies of their work fondly long after we’ve forgotten who won or lost some golden trinkets. Time tends to be the fairest critic of all, and it’s become increasingly clear Stallone and his work have struck a chord with many, even as his doubters deny hearing it. Even at his worst, I wager far more people will remember Rocky IV or Cliffhanger fondly than they will Scent of a Woman or The English Patient.

Maybe Sylvester Stallone will win an Oscar. Maybe he won’t. What matters more is that much like Rocky Balboa himself, Stallone has proven he can go the distance, and no matter what the snobs say, the crowds remember his name.