Though not officially announced yet by the Academy, there are some very controversial new changes to the Oscar rules pertaining specifically to the Best Documentary Feature category. First reported Sunday by the New York Times, an update to the award’s qualifications seemed focused on lowering the amount of eligible films each year and giving more weight to docs with proper theatrical distribution. There are some other pros and cons, depending on how you accept them, as well.

Works are now required to not just have a one-week theatrical run in both NYC and LA but also receive a review from either the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times. But that’s not really as important as it initially sounded. Yes, it messes with the IDA’s annual DocuWeeks showcase, which helped some smaller non-commercial titles be considered in the past (and gets us doc critics to see some films we might otherwise overlook), and it hurts some other distributor-less films, but there’s word that non-reviewed titles can also appeal the Academy for consideration.

Many are criticizing the change for the reasons of exclusion and have called the Academy’s documentary branch lazy and not true lovers of the mode given that they seem to just want to limit how many films they have to see (this year it was 124, now it could be down to 60). Others are recognizing and forgiving the fact that the Oscars are supposed to be for cinema, as in movies made for and best seen in theaters and this sticks to that mission. Some of the smaller docs that will end up on TV are better off with Emmys or awards that concentrate fully on all documentaries.

Obviously I’m all for docs being seen in any form, and I love that more people get to see nonfiction films through DVD, VOD, and TV, including on Documentary Channel. But I’m also very much into celebrating those docs that are theatrically necessary, if the Oscars truly feel that. I don’t think they do, exactly, or else they’d continue requiring eligible and nominated docs to be seen on the big screen rather than via screener disc, but I appreciate the hypocritical stance to a degree.

Filmmaker Michael Moore, who is a member of the Academy’s Board of Governors (and the documentary branch) and who is responsible for proposing the new rules, later laid out more of the benefits at Indiewire, revealing that the branch will now receive and view eligible films, mostly via screener, throughout the year rather than just in the fall. And the way the shortlisted films and then nominees are chosen is also changed so that voting is done by the whole branch instead of by committees.

Meanwhile, the final winner of the Best Documentary Feature Oscar will now for the first time be decided by the entire Academy, not just the documentary branch. I expect this could be a problem for the category because it means the most broadly popular nominee will likely win. But that basically just aligns it with the whole of the Academy Awards, which suffer that same democratic populism factor.

Then again, it might allow for non-political docs to rise up as a result. I bet last year Exit from the Gift Shop would have won if decided by everyone. Other past nominees I presume would have won include Capturing the Friedmans, Super Size Me and Spellbound. Of course, that last one lost to Moore’s own Bowling for Columbine. Yet I’d guess Moore’s Sicko could have won in these same circumstances in 2008.

I’ll try to dismiss any theory that Moore proposed these new rules to favor himself especially, given that he’s one of the most commercial and familiar documentarians in history. Otherwise, in spite of the hypocrisy involved, I like his take on distinguishing Oscar-qualifying docs from Emmy-qualifying docs. It annoys me that so many films end up eligible for and often nominated for both. It doesn’t make sense to me when there are really so many great cinematic docs being made today.

We’ll have to wait and see, though, if the changes do end up benefiting such theatrically necessary titles. It’s already a good start that this year the shortlist includes Wim Wenders’ 3D film PINA, but could we really expect to see cinematic works like Dragonslayer, Bombay Beach, Nostalgia for the Light, Hell and Back Again, Armadillo, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Life in a Day, At the Edge of Russia and others of their kind favored over so-so-looking issue films? I doubt it, which is fine while we have the Cinema Eye Honors (happening this Wednesday) to recognize these titles.

Are the new rules bad for truly independent filmmakers in general? Probably, but that’s par with the rest of the Oscars. And regardless of its supposed prestige, which is still only marked by how much attention we all give it, the Academy Awards are not the only nor the most important of film honors for documentary. Those who really enjoy docs should be and for the most part are paying attention to other sources of acclaim and prominence. It’s not the 20th century anymore. We have more media, more outlets, more options.

Just keep making the docs, and if they’re great then either the Times or the other Times or myself or some other critics and doc lovers will like them and tell the world. and they’ll be seen in some form or another. At the end of the day, I think this is what matters, not trophies or what they can do or not do for awareness. If you’re extremely annoyed with the rules you probably have been annoyed with the rules in the past too, and in that case you probably should just ignore the Academy Awards altogether.