If you’ve been on the Internet at all this past week, you’ve probably heard that Heath Ledger could receive a posthumous Oscar nomination for his performance in The Dark Knight. That’s with emphasis on could, because, after all, anyone could be nominated. Uwe Boll could be nominated for Best Director. He won’t be, but he could be.

And apparently Ledger probably won’t be nominated either. A Reuters article has collected quotes (not new) from the realists commenting on Ledger’s actual Oscar chances, which Los Angeles Times‘ Tom O’Neil says is a “long shot.” He also provided the following expert comment: “That’s how reluctant Oscar voters are to hug the dead. These awards are all about hugs and there’s something creepy about embracing the dead.” Meanwhile Leonard Maltin says the excitement is a “phenomenon of the Internet age” and is merely a “wish-fulfillment rumor.”

Does this mean the Internerds are over-hyping Ledger’s performance and in doing so are maybe actually ruining Ledger’s chance for that posthumous Oscar?

Certainly Terry Gilliam (who thinks the buzz originates from Warner Bros.) would again be grateful to the legions of movie geeks on the web, but is it only the bloggers and the even less respected geeks who are doing the worst damage?

Now that the real promotional appearances and actual reviews are out, it seems that bigger buzz is coming from people who typically receive more respect than those of us who are mere blog writers:

• TDK costars Michael Caine, who has championed for a nomination on such venues as The Tonight Show and The View, and Gary Oldman, who mentioned Oscar in an AP article.
• Filmmaker Kevin Smith, also quoted in the AP article.
• Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips, who called Ledger’s performance “Academy Award caliber” on At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper.
• Roger Ebert himself
• Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers
• Toronto Star critic Peter Howell, who also wants Oscar noms for Best Picture and Best Director and who acknowledges the death=Oscar junk by writing, “Ledger, whose incandescent performance would have attracted serious Oscar talk even without the actor’s untimely passing.”
• Non-”top critic” — but still non-blog critic — Gina Carbone of Seacoast Newspapers, who apologetically yet non-apologetically writes, “I’m tired of the early Oscar talk too, but when you’re talking the best performance in years, if not decades, it’s worth talking about.” She also wants an additional Oscar nom, for Best Makeup.
• Newswires like Reuters and AP
• And even O’Neil, who has at least carried the Oscar buzz into his own writings

For awhile there, I thought so much Oscar buzz would disappointingly influence a nomination for the wrong reasons. Now I think so much Oscar buzz could disappointingly influence a snub for the wrong reasons.

What do you think? Is Ledger’s performance really worthy of an Oscar? Or is it being overhyped? And either way, is it unrealistic or unhelpful (especially when considering the others deserving of posthumous Oscars) to continue championing him so far in advance?