Weaver probably had a better chance to win as a supporting actress. But support for her may have been split by Joan Cusack, who was also nominated for "Working Girl." If that were the case -- and we'll never know because voting is kept secret -- then Geena Davis may have been the accidental winner for "The Accidental Tourist."
Weaver had been previously nominated for "Aliens" in 1986, but she hasn't been nominated since.
Al Pacino in 1993
Al Pacino was on his way to rivaling Martin Scorsese as a hard-luck nominee. Up to this point, he was a six-time Oscar night loser, including two losses as Michael Corleone in the first and second installments of "The Godfather" saga.
But all that changed for Pacino with his "wo-ha!" performance as a blind, suicidal retired Army officer in "Scent of a Woman." Pacino topped Clint Eastwood ("Unforgiven"), Denzel Washington ("Malcolm X"), Stephen Rea ("The Crying Game") and Robert Downey Jr. ("Chaplin") to win best actor.
Still, Pacino's cutthroat real estate salesman in "Glengarry Glen Ross" was outgunned by Gene Hackman, who won best supporting actor for "Unforgiven."
In the years since becoming a two-timer, Pacino has failed to earn another nomination. On the bright side, few people remember his cameo performance in "Gigli."
Holly Hunter and Emma Thompson in 1994
Oscar had his first double-double in 1994, when Holly Hunter and Emma Thompson faced each other in both the best actress and the best supporting actress categories.
Between the two, Hunter turned out to be the only winner, taking best actress honors for "The Piano" while her 12-year-old co-star, Anna Paquin, became the second-youngest nominee ever to win as best supporting actress.
That year, Hunter was also nominated for her supporting role in the John Grisham thriller, "The Firm." She wasn't nominated again until last year, for "Thirteen."
Despite her performances in "The Remains of the Day" and "In the Name of the Father," Thompson joined Weaver in the double losers club.
As a form of vindication, however, Thompson became a double-nominee once again in 1996 for "Sense and Sensibility," earning Oscar consideration as a screenwriter and lead actress. She won for best adapted screenplay.
Julianne Moore in 2003
In both "The Hours," and "Far From Heaven," Moore plays very unhappy homemakers, and she had reason to go home unhappy on Oscar night, becoming the third double-nominee to go home empty-handed.
These days, it's very difficult to distinguish the difference between which performances should qualify as a leading role or supporting role for Oscar consideration. That was especially true in "The Hours," where an ensemble including Moore, Streep and Nicole Kidman gave strong performances.
Here's how voting works: Actors who are members of the academy are simply handed a ballot with five blank spots in each acting category. If an actor gets votes in more than one acting categories -- like Fitzgerald in 1945 -- officials simply count only the category in which that actor receives the most votes.
Studios attempt to steer Oscar voters by advertising heavily and urging those who pick nominees to fill out their ballot in a particular way.
In "The Hours," Streep and Moore actually have slightly more screen time than Kidman. But Miramax and Paramount, which co-produced the film, pushed Kidman as a best actress nominee, perhaps figuring her role as writer Virginia Woolf gave her the best chance of winning.
The studios may also have figured that Moore and Streep would get attention for other roles. Indeed, Moore earned a nomination for "Far From Heaven," in which she played a suburban housewife in the 1950s, coping with her husband's latent homosexuality. But in the end, she lost to her "Hours" castmate Kidman.
In the race for best supporting actress, Moore lost again, this time to Catherine Zeta-Jones, who played a singing gangster's moll in "Chicago."
Moore has yet to be nominated again, and is 0-for-4 on Oscar night.