Over the 24 hours since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that it will be expanding the theatrical release requirements for a Film to be eligible for the best picture Oscar starting with 2024 releases, much of Hollywood has been abuzz about the news.

The conclusion that most seem to be arriving at can best be summed up by a comment shared with me by one of the many awards strategists in attendance at Wednesday night’s West Hollywood celebration of the Telluride Film Festival: “It’s like the inclusion standards [which the Academy now requires a film to meet in order to be eligible for best picture] — it gives everyone something to be upset about for a while, but it doesn’t actually change anything [because the requirements are so easily met].”

By requiring films to screen in more markets and for longer periods of time, the Academy appears to be trying to prop up movie theaters and emphasize the difference between films made for the big screen and the small screen. Therefore, the constituency that seemed most likely to be impacted by the change was the streamers — among them, Amazon, Apple, Hulu and Netflix — which, by their very business model, tend to place somewhat less emphasis on big screen exhibition than others. People who wish to consume their films will have reason to subscribe to their platforms.

But it appears that virtually every film from a streamer that was ever a serious best picture contender, and certainly every film from a streamer that was actually nominated for best picture (such as Amazon’s Sound of Metal), or won it (Apple’s CODA), would have met the new requirements. That includes all nine of the best picture nominated films of Netflix, the streamer that has had the most contentious relationship with the major theater chains, having worked with them only on a one-week release of Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. Indeed, Mank, The Trial of the Chicago 7, Roma, The Irishman, Marriage Story, The Power of the Dog, Don’t Look Up and All Quiet on the Western Front all platformed to at least 100 independently-operated theaters, including screens in all of the Academy’s 10 specified markets, plus others around the world.

Says an awards strategist affiliated with one of the big streamers, “Yes, [the new requirements] mean we’ll have to do more theaters for more films than we probably would have, but I think it’s good. It will give us an excuse to not pursue qualifying releases for films that don’t really have a chance just for the sake of talent and filmmaker relationships. And it will help us with the films that really do have a chance, because we will have to make general consumers aware of those films. We have found that if no one in the zeitgeist is talking about your film, it’s probably not reaching voters either. So this will help to address that.”

The strategist further noted that streamers will likely clamor to establish formal partnerships with independent theater chains like Alamo Drafthouse, which has 39 locations around the country, so that some films can qualify by screening in just one theater in certain cities.

There was also early speculation that the Academy’s new requirements might hurt art house distributors — places like A24, Focus, IFC, Neon, Roadside Attractions and Sony Classics — which, some speculated, may not have the deep pockets required to release a film so broadly. But a top executive at one such operation said that these companies have long released most of their films as widely as the Academy is now mandating, and that, furthermore, a more vibrant theatrical moviegoing climate would be to the great benefit of all such companies. Having more buzzy movies in more theaters would make more people want to go to the movies more often, he reasoned. In other words, a rising tide would lift all ships.

“This is not going to impact anything except for maybe a random Strand Releasing movie,” cracked another strategist, cheekily referencing one of the truly smaller distributors out there.

One other type of film that some worried might be particularly harmed by the Academy’s new requirements: non-English-language films, which, in recent years, have been increasingly embraced by Academy members in the best picture category — think not only of the aforementioned Roma and All Quiet on the Western Front, but also Amour, Parasite (which became the first non-English-language film ever to win that prize), Minari and Drive My Car. But once again, it appears that the theatrical release received by every one of those films — along with a number of other non-English-language titles that were thought to be close to landing a best picture nom, such as Ida, Another Round and RRR — would have qualified them for best picture eligibility under the new terms.

It seems that only one type of film will have to overcome a markedly higher hurdle to land a best picture nom as a result of the new requirements: documentary features. No documentary feature has ever been nominated for the top Oscar, but a few — among them Hoop Dreams and Fahrenheit 9/11 — are thought to have come close. But only a handful of docs made by anyone other than Michael Moore have ever gotten wide theatrical distribution, so that glass ceiling is perhaps even less likely to be broken in the future than it was in the past.

So what’s the bottom line? Will 301 films be eligible for the best picture Oscar in early 2025, as was the case in early 2023? That number will probably shrink a little. But would any film that had a real shot at landing a best picture nom in early 2023 not have such a shot in early 2025? That seems doubtful.