Comedy is underrated. It’s arguably the most difficult genre to pull off, but when a comedy works, the talent and effort that went into it is not readily apparent on the screen. Consistently, comedies are passed over by the Academy Awards and other award shows; it’s easier to give Oscars to powerful dramatic films and actors who make dramatic performances. But comedy is very difficult: it requires not only inspiration and talent but precision and balance as well. The slightest variation in the delivery of a line can mean the difference between funny and not funny. The placement of the camera, lighting, editing: these and all other technical areas of filmmaking can successfully support a gag or undermine it completely.

http://www.rinkworks.com/movies/articles/comedies.shtml

>When /The Mask/ came out, I said that Jim Carrey should have gotten an Oscar for best actor. Whoever won Best Actor that year, I guarantee there were many other actors who could have done similar performances.

Tom Hanks got it for Forest Gump. Both The Mask and Forest Gump could not have happened without CGI/special effects. In one, the fx were meant to be visible, in the other, invisible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/67th_Academy_Awards

I have heard that laughing with someone else (laughing at their intended cues) is a submission symbol though. We could test this theory by rating people’s acting judgment for comedians who do self-mocking comedy and those who tell jokes about other people or do observational humor. So a Rodney Dangerfield type should receive lower reviews than a Dane Cook/Jerry Seinfeld.

Successful stand-ups don’t need a great range. If they hit on a particular style or attitude or look that connects with audiences then they just hit that note over and over.

Some comedians, like Jerry Seinfeld, are just horrible actors. Seinfeld can do clever witty sarcasm and clever mock outrage, and that’s about it … but that was enough to make a spectacular career.

Actors, on the other hand, go to drama schools, are in school plays from young ages, and generally practice putting on a lot of different personas and emotional extremes.

…

I’ll also defend Adam Sandler here. I find him very funny (and a decade long string of $100 million+ hits means he’s the most consistently bankable comedian). Happy Gilmore was hilarious. Sandler does impotent rage extremely well.

Sandler also is one of the few comedians who can pull off romantic leads because he is so likable (40 First Dates, Wedding Singer). Most can’t. Robin Williams can do serious drama, but not be a romantic lead. Chris Rock, like Seinfeld, is funny but can’t act. Rock can do funny and angry, but that’s about it.

So, to answer the original question. Dramatic actors are better actors. By the time they hit it big in their 20s or 30s they have spent decades honing their craft and trying on a range of roles.

But when comedians become famous it’s more often after years of stand-up where they focus intensely on a certain bit of schtick that resonates with audiences. Night after night doing variations on the same bit. Then they become famous and try to take acting lessons to become real actors … for many it’s like trying to learn a foreign language as an adult … it’s possible, but much harder.

Generally, the two categories you’re naming are -”in the biz”- broken in to leads and ‘character actors’ – these being the comedic actors you mention. Character actors in films (supporting roles generally) are often stronger than the leads. Leads do indeed get cast with a higher consideration for their looks (& how they match with the other lead, if there is one – height, appearance, etc), as well as the fact that the lead is, broadly speaking, who the audience project themselves onto/relate to – a less distinct slate to do this on may help that.

It’s worth noting that Comedy is, by its nature, subversive — humor is surprise, the subverting of expectations. I think this would also account for a certain discounting of its ‘top-tier’ (award winning) significance – Dramas may fit more nicely with society’s general concepts of story and character.

Agree as well with the comments that “”SERIOUS”" things show “We take ourselves seriously, ’cause thats how you know something’s important.” Any field/group of course wants to continue to propagate themselves – considering this, unsurprising that the film industry wants to continue to assert its importance in society.