Did Eddie Murphy really flip out when he lost the Oscar?

That's oversimplifying, though there may be some truth to it, but who's to say? However, you also have to take into account other factors.

Alan Arkin was definitely the veteran nominee in that category. He was a month shy of his 75th birthday, while the ages of the rest (Mark Wahlberg, Djimon Hounsou, Eddie Murphy, Jack Earle Haley) ranged from 35 to 45. Oscar loves to give career awards.

Furthermore, Arkin had been nominated for Best Actor twice before (The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter), but that had been decades before. His nomination for Little Miss Sunshine was his first in 38 years. Wahlberg, Murphy, and Haley were newbies, i.e. first-time nominees. This was Hounsou's second nomination in Supporting in three years, but he was no closer to winning this year than he had been in 2003.

Also, Murphy didn't have the support of the British faction, which can be a decisive voting block. First of all, they didn't nominate Murphy for BAFTA (the British Oscar), incidentally, the only precursor Murphy failed to get nominated in, though they did nominate Arkin and gave him the win, which gave Arkin a lot of traction, because the BAFTA is the last of the precursors before the main event. The order of precursor awards shows are: Golden Globe, Critics Choice, SAG, BAFTA; the previous three are held in January, while BAFTAs are held in February, only two weeks before the Oscars, which are usually held on the last Sunday in February or the first Sunday in March. A BAFTA win may give someone a boost, since it's held so close to the Oscars.

Anyway, as you can see, the SAGs are the second to last of the precursors, and by then Murphy had won Golden Globe, Critics Choice, and SAG in quick succession. Naturally, he seemed to be the frontrunner. However, he committed a faux pas at the SAG ceremony, when he 'mocked' the British winners (there were several that won for TV and film). Basically, he started to accept his SAG win with an exaggerated British accent. Afterward, many people felt that it turned off voters, particularly the British ones.

Norbit may or may not have been a factor, but it's telling that it was released dead-smack in the middle of voting season. Norbit opened in theaters on February 9, 2007, and the Oscar voting period was from January 23-February 21 (with the ceremony being held on February 25).

You bring up Sandra Bullock, but you can't really compare, since All About Steve (the dud she won the Razzie for) was released in September 2009. But also that year, she had two blockbusters (The Proposal and The Blind Side), the latter which became the highest-grossing sports-themed movie, as well as the first film headlined solely by a female to cross the $200 million mark domestically. Both films also helped to make Bullock the #1 movie star of 2009, only the second actress to accomplish the feat in 42 years (Julie Andrews in 1967 was the last until Julia Roberts in 1999, and then Bullock). In short, she had too much goodwill going on. Not to mention that Bullock is very well-liked within the industry (as well as with fans), while Murphy has had a reputation of being a bit of a diva. Thus, it is easier to vote for someone likable.

Murphy had no other releases in 2006, and Dreamgirls was a modest hit but nothing extraordinary. And then there was Norbit, which did open at #1 and made some money (though, again, nothing amazing) though it did get ripped to shreds by most everyone.

.

.

.