I think of the way Hitchcock is viewed today (macabre genius) and when I juxtaposition it with the way he was viewed then (this is somewhat anecdotal, I'm just old enough to remember), I would draw comparisons with an influental director that had a strong niche, strong following, but still remains a bit niche.. I think of guys like Tarentino, or even John Waters, to go in a different direction with a similar breadth of appeal - In my view, the thing they all have in common is that people seem to either really like or dislike them, and it's because of that limited niche appeal that they are just never going to get certain eyes to view their films in a way that might be akin to opening one's mind for something completely different, genre-wise. You could even say the same for George Lucas or Spielberg, who won nothing until he did a movie that was very broadly compelling (Schindler's List).

In other words and to condense, I think that some directors never escape being pigeon-holed or stereotyped, and that hurts them in regards to receiving these awards.

I hope this reply doesn't break the rules.