You’ve seen it before. It’s February. You’re lonely; Valentine’s Day isn’t going to make it any better. You’re cold and you forget the last time your feet weren’t frozen. You go on Facebook and someone posts “If there’s a black history month, why isn’t there a white history month?”

You aren’t too surprised by this, based on that person’s reposting of Donald Trump memes that usually use the word “your” when they should be using “you’re." You’re also not surprised by how many likes it gets.

But what you are surprised about, delighted at this time, is a response to this person's post, one that even you didn’t have in your mind. This person is of color and, though it will get less likes than the original comment, it’s taken into consideration that the comment usually gets less likes. That person says “because every month is White History Month.”

The Oscar nominations were made last month. As it is almost every year, though a handful of blockbuster films were nominated, the Academy Awards had a majority of Independent and small studio films nominated, most earning considerably less money and interest from their audiences. Even though some have been out for weeks, maybe even months, this is the first time much of America has heard of several of the nominated films, especially in the best picture category.

And it seems as though every year, people pose the question “Why don’t we just nominate the movies people actually watch?”

Well …

There’s an obvious parallel here, and you thought I was going to start by saying that Hollywood movies already have the exposure to the point where it’s the Oscars all year, completing my Black History Month parable. Though that’s true, I want to examine this aggressive question head-on. We’ll start with the italicized part: "actually watch." Yes, I won’t circumvent the reality that the Academy does not look too highly upon the high grossing films. The last movie to win Best Picture with a Box Office gross of over $150,000,000 was "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" in 2003 (boxofficemojo.com).

But let’s not forget the nominees. This year "Mad Max: Fury Road," "The Martian," and "The Revenant" were nominated for Best Picture. As of Jan. 19th, 2016, "Fury Road" has earned about $153 million at the Box Office, as well as $227 million for "The Martian" and $97 million for "The Revenant" (boxofficemojo.com), only less than two weeks after being released nationwide. These movies, though blockbusters, are known as "smart" to many, including critics. Each was given over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. And, no, they did not reach the heights, money-wise, of "The Force Awakens" or "Jurassic World," but delivered good material to a wide audience.

So the question shouldn’t be “why don’t we nominate movies people actually watch?” but instead “why don’t we only nominate movies people actually watch?” That means take away anything that didn’t earn over $50 million and, Independent films, you don’t have a chance.

But wait. What about Independent films?

Independent films are proven to be more difficult to distribute than Hollywood films to begin with, if it is made at all. Take Charlie Kaufman, for example, an Oscar winning screenwriter who had to use Kickstarter to simply make a movie ("Anomalisa," which was critically acclaimed). We live in a world where Michael Bay can do what he wants on a whim, but an Oscar nominated screenwriter, one who constantly gives good, critic-winning products, has to struggle. And I’m not even talking about distribution and making a profit from the box office.

And there are so many other Charlie Kaufman’s in the world, auteurs doing their life’s work only to be surpassed in the box office ten times over by the 12th "Terminator" movie. And these movies are in the news, in the press, in the water break conversation with the people in the hall. Blockbusters even have a monopoly on the term “movies.” We don’t use the term “search engine” to refer to both google or yahoo; we just use “google” as a noun or as a verb.

The Academy Awards are the opportunity for these movies to be recognized. It’s their chance to shine. Their chance to be recognized. Until they get tucked under and be forgotten about for another 11 months.

And people want to take that away.

I’m going to refer back to Charlie Kaufman. He won an Oscar and he still had to use Kickstarter to get his project funded.

But what if he didn’t win an Oscar?

For Hollywood directors, their box office can largely rate their work. In Hollywood, being mainly a box office-depended system, it doesn’t matter too much about how good or bad each director’s work is. They have an efficient, economical system. For Independent directors, how can it be determined that a movie grossing $5 million dollars is better than a movie grossing $4.5 million dollars? But it can be determined a director winning one Academy Award is better than one winning zero. I’m not saying this system is steadfast— there are certainly some awards that are given that I disagree with —but the Academy Awards is, in a sense, an unbiased sense of journalism; it gives an objective stance on which films are good.

Not that Oscars doesn’t compliment the box office. Despite some criticism, I preferred expanding the number of Best Picture nominees from five to 5-10 films for this reason: the Oscar’s boosting of its film’s acknowledgement. Take something like "Whiplash," for example. Would you have known about it if it weren’t nominated for Best Picture? No, you probably wouldn’t. It would have just gone into the abyss that is the unknown films, never to be discovered.

Say it happens. You nominate all the movies people “actually watch.” Surely, at first, it would be the "Mad Max’s" of the world: movies that were both highly watched and loved by critics. But let me remind you again that "Mad Max" wasn’t really one of the highest grossing films of the year. It earned only about $153 million grossing, the 20th highest in 2015. So "Mad Max" is good but it isn’t a film everyone really watched. And so you look to up, higher than 20th on the box office list. And while that holds movies like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," "Ant-Man," and "The Martian," it also holds movies like "Fifty Shades of Grey," "San Andreas," and "Hotel Transylvania 2."

It will get to the point where the top 10 grossing movies are nominated for Best Picture and the top grossing movie wins Best Picture. Then we will already know who will win and there will be no point of having an Awards show. If you haven’t realized, it’s a slippery slope.

One of the sole purposes of the Academy Awards is to recognize the best movies so the fans don’t need to themselves. It’s, in a way, a Republic: representatives for the people; not direct democracy. I almost forgot this: if you want desperately to see movies “people actually watch” in an awards show, watch the People’s Choice Awards.

And remember we're not talking about movies "people actually like." We're talking about "movies people actually watch." Despite how upset I’ve seemed through this article, the most upset I get is that people write off movies they haven’t even seen. So I suggest, before you complain that "Jurassic World" wasn’t nominated this year, head over to your local art house and go see some nominated movies for your enjoyment. I think you’ll really like it.