The topic under discussion is the Oscars
not any other awards. The complaints being
made were about films that had black actors,
and directors, and casts, who were outstanding but
were simply passed over both this year and
last, especially ones like
"Selma."
The "relevancy" lies with the beholder.

Here's a link that may be of interest.

It deals with "diversity in Hollywood>"

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/01/19/463590839/diversity-in-hollywood-heres-what-on

Foxy,

Selma was a box office disaster. This is not a great start for winning an Oscar.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Many blacks would probably disagree.
Still, as I stated earlier - it's all
subjective and in the eyes of the beholder.
An Australian audience would have loved
Baz Lehrmann's film - "Australia," was it
a box-office hit?

Foxy,

The Box office is a reference to the money received. A box office disaster is a film that very few people paid to see. What it means is that the audience voted with their feet, and what the audience thinks carries a lot of weight at the Oscars.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course if people don't go and see a certain
film it does carry weight. That's a no-brainer.
But we also need to ask why people do not
go to see these films - when the critics are
unanimous in their praise, and then the film
is a disaster at the box office.

I still believe it also has to do with what appeals
to the Academy members - who gets nominated and who
doesn't.

I remember the year that "Shawshank Redemtion,"
lost out to "Forrest Gump,"
Come On!