That's basically a fair enough point but I think one could argue that Moonlight will be mostly forgotten in say 10-20 years where as something like Arrival/Hacksaw Ridge, which I suspect have the most mainstream appeal of those 2016 nominee's, will likely still be viewed by plenty of people in say 10-20 years time or more. so Moonlight may still be the 'lesser' movie here looking at it from this angle.
looking at things along those lines from Critics/RT-IMDb etc/$$$ in the theaters combo... I think one could argue other movies nominated for Best Picture in 2016 deserved the win more overall. because I guess when you break movies down in a basic sense, regardless of Oscar nominations or not, it seems a movies real worth in the long term boils down to whether a good portion of the general public continues to watch it, and preferably likes it to a higher degree to, as the years/decades pass.
that can potentially look bad, especially if they have barely seen any of the nominee's. because while I could understand they might not see all of them, they could at least see a fair portion of them. say there is nine nominee's, I would try to see at least three of them before voting or something along these lines.
but those people who vote for something because it 'looks like a best picture winner' I don't like at all as they are just falling inline with what they 'think' the academy is "supposed" to vote for instead of choosing what they personally like the most, which is what they should be doing for those who vote in the academy.
Ill say this... it's only good if the masses, or at least enough people so the movie can make decent $$$, want to see that happen otherwise they are just doing it purely to kiss up to minorities basically.
also, maybe I am wrong but... I think many citizens here in the USA tend to prefer people from certain places in the world simply because certain areas of the world tend to have people who don't have enough of a overall presence to appeal to the masses here in the USA for example on most movies. but I guess if they (say minorities from other countries or even those who are US citizens here in USA) appeal enough to enough people here to make $$$ then in the end no one is going to complain because it seems for Hollywood it's ultimately about the $$$ even though I won't be surprised to see them push minorities in recent memory for the sake of pushing minorities but with time we shall see how it plays out because if the masses reject seeing minorities in movies than the $$$ etc might reflect that and I am sure Hollywood will adjust things accordingly. but if they promote some minorities and they happen to stick and make enough $$$ well then things will basically continue on that path. basically it's on the market that controls things in the end with what the masses like etc. I am sure you get the gist of what I am saying here
I think it really depends, does it have more appeal with some people(?), sure. but are there other movies nominated for Best Picture in 2016 that have more mass appeal overall.
or another way to see it... looking at the nine 2016 Best Picture nominee's... how many of those will be remembered 10-20+ years from now? ; not many I suspect and the ones that are will likely not be Moonlight. sure, I realize that some people follow Oscar stuff closely so in that regard it will just about guarantee Moonlight will still be seen by some quite a few years from now. but on a mainstream level I don't see it being more viewed than say Arrival/Hacksaw Ridge which I sorta figure will have the best chance of the 2016 nominee's for more long term viewing by plenty of people. so based on that you could say those two are more or less the real winners of the best picture nominee's.
speaking of 12 Years a Slave and Get Out... 12 Years a Slave seems like a movie that the Oscars would like but with Get Out that seems to be thrown in there more from critic overpraise(?) etc. but i guess from a $$$ perspective Get Out seemed to be a huge hit considering it's tiny budget as it had a $4.5mil budget and made $254.7mil worldwide of which here in the USA it took in $175.7mil. so I guess it still has quite a bit going for it looking at that stuff and makes it harder for me to fault. also, I guess another thing that makes it look even better is that a Horror movie (i.e. it's listed as 'Horror | Mystery | Thriller' on IMDb) got a nomination for Best Picture which seems to be a accomplishment there as while I have not looked into the details I can't imagine the academy nominating a Horror type of movie for Best Picture in general.
but I guess I just don't see what people see in that personally as while it was decent enough for a viewing in the end it's not a movie ill re-watch and like i always say a movies re-watch is what ultimately makes or breaks it in the long run.
speaking of this...
I think movies are more subjective than sports are since it's easier to measure things in sports where as with movies it largely comes back to personal preference. sure, I realize some might have their biases in sports to on some level but even with that in play one can be more objective than they are with movies.
but then even with sports... there are probably other things in play that one can't directly measure but sort of can just feel it out I guess one could say. but this probably requires people who can see that stuff, like say the coaches/players etc, where as the average fan cannot see it. so I guess with the average fan it probably boils down to whether someone is enjoyable to watch or not but here is more info on how the MVP is chosen...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Most_Valuable_Player_Award ; which I figure are more knowledgeable about the game than us typical fans. but like I say they have more stuff to measure (with stats etc) where as movies ultimately are subjective where as with sports are a lot more objective even though there may be some subjectivity/speculation in there with who's the greatest player of all time or who would have won the championship if say some of the greatest championship teams of the 1960's played some from the 1980's to 1990's and current times etc.
or another thing that on paper can't really be measured... like I always thought Kobe Byrant is closer to Michael Jordan than Lebron James is because Kobe had that passion/drive to win which I don't think Lebron has in my opinion. but this can't really be measured from stats etc. for the record... many consider Michael Jordan to be the #1 ever (including myself, but I might be a bit biased because I pretty much grew up on watching him in the 1990's).
hell, another thing I just noticed today that I found some flaws with that makes Lebron James look better than he actually is based on the particular stat they compared... they said Lebron James is the youngest player to crack the 30,000 total career point mark (only seven total players have done that in history of NBA) but my counter to that, is that, while that's technically true you also have to look at that Lebron James came straight out of high school to the NBA where as say Michael Jordan did not and yet Lebron cracked the milestone not even one year faster. so in other words... Jordan would likely have hit the 30,000 mark a bit quicker Lebron had he got into the NBA a year or two earlier as he went to college which made him older by the time he entered the NBA in the first place where as Lebron already had a head start being he was straight out of high school. so I think a more accurate statistic on this matter would be to look at how many games the particular player played to crack that 30,000+ point mark and in this regard I am sure Lebron James does not look as good and I would imagine Michael Jordan is probably ahead here without checking etc. but Lerbon likely would have the edge on Kobe Bryant on this 30,000 point thing because both came out of high school straight to the NBA. but then again, maybe not as I would still be curious as to the details like how many games each played to crack the 30,000 point mark etc.
full disclosure... I don't like Lebron James, who I call 'King Ego' instead of what many refer to him as is 'King James', but it's mainly because he's too arrogant on the court. but with that said... he's considered the best all around player in the world right now and I would imagine would probably be Top 10 players of all-time to.
ill stop babbling now. just some random thoughts
