As movie theaters become more and more technologically advanced, more states are introducing bills to require movie theater access for deaf and hard of hearing people. A state Senator in Kentucky just introduced a bill to require all movie theaters in Kentucky with 5 or more screens to provide access on at least one screen. It is only a matter of time before one of these state bills passes, because the state officials are beginning to see the ludicrousness of not providing access in the face of expensive movie theater technology being installed everywhere. Will Kentucky be the first?
Related blog post: Something to Laugh At, Something to Shake Your Head At
If I have anything to say about it, we will be the first. I’m very excited to have gotten media coverage for this, especially after it died in committee last year due to so much misinformation and a short session.
Jamie, I am glad that you pointed out “expensive movie theater technology being installed everywhere.” Once this technology is installed, the ability to have *captions on request* is super cheap. If a theater chain has the money to have five screens, even if only seating 200 people each, they are making more than enough to finance 5 digital projectors and make movie going a welcoming and comfortable experience for *everyone*.
(The technology probably makes descriptive audio for the blind easier to accomplish as well.)
And this is not charity. Movie makers have potential billions additional income with 35 million DHH throughout the U.S.
So is dedicating one, segregated, “separate but (not) equal” screen really the best solution? Better than nothing? As Goldie Hawn’s character said in the movie Private Benjamin “Is that the only color this comes in?”
My home state. It only makes sense. More and more people are losing their hearing.
I am a Deaf New Yorker. First it was a closed door agreement with Gov Elliot Spitzer who arranged for less than 12 theaters STATEWIDE to show captions in New York State. Now we have a blind Governor who has done nothing to equate the Deaf and Hard of Hearing with the hearing in MOVIE THEATERS. In MANHATTAN there are about three out of the over hundred theater screens that can show CC. When a HIT movie comes out ALL show the SAME movie. If it is really a HIT and stays in the theater for weeks. It is the CC theater that has to show the film sans the CC for how long it stays in the theater. Then some theaters only show the CC at special times. Forget a date or going with friends to the CC show as it might be at 11AM or 11PM. I have been and managers say we did not receive the CC disc from the movie distributor or no movies are out now with CC. We need an someone to lead us to organize a drive the movie companies from the Directors to the Distributers to make movies we can watch. All kinds of moives. Not just kid movies, Not just HIT movies. But any movie a hearing person can see and hear. Go to Deaf America on Google Groups to join the campaign.
This is to Ashton. I understand the point you made, but it is not focusing on segregation of a theater screen it is focusing on increasing access, PERIOD. While the digital technology is wonderful and offers tremendous promise, you must remember that they have been promising all digital for over 11 years now, And the cost of converting just ONE screen to all digitalis approximately 100,000 dollars. So a 10 screen cinema would be out a cool million bucks to convert to a system that will benefit HOLLYWOOD, not the theaters, more than anyone.
Let’s be realistic here. Is a small, regional theater in Pikeville, Ky. (where I’m from) with 10 screens going to get financing anytime soon in the amount of 1 million dollars (more if they make it 3D capable) for this conversion? Of course not. In the words of Michael Eisner (in 2004, I believe) “35mm film will be around for a long, long time”. And because of that, places that are NOT NYC, Washington DC, San Francisco, LA, Miami, etc., are going to be slow to convert. Contrast that with the potential cost of no more than about $12,000 for captioning capabilities, and you are faced with an easy answer as to which will be easier for the theaters to recoup their investment on, which will be easier to afford to finance, and so forth.
You also have to remember that a movie theater’s biggest profit comes from movies staying in theaters longer. The transition that the MPAA and others (FloTV, TruTV, etc) are making to direct to consumer offerings via the internet, mobile TV’s (wireless devices, etc.) and the like is taking money from theater pockets. That is one of the reasons I caution people against automatically assuming that a theater can easily afford to convert over all of their screens for caption access at this point. I’m trying to be reasonable with the proposed bill here in Kentucky. To answer your question, yes, some is better than nothing. Especially when you have nothing to begin with and realistically none in the foreseeable future.
Thank you, Eddie for all the thought and work you have done on this issue. Movie going remains the #1 past time outside the house in the U.S. (verified by the ) so to have been excluded since the advent of “talkies” is horrific discrimination.
Regarding the digital conversion–I was thinking only of the theaters that are planning to do that anyway; once that it in place, they will have no excuse.
I read a posting by one local theater owner, Apex Theatre president Les Aberson who said, “… who is going to pay for it, how much is it going to cost and what’s involved?” (http://www.wfpl.org/2010/02/08/local-theater-operator-has-concerns-with-captioning-bill/)
Could we not answer that by letting him know that the movie distributors have Open-captioning available at no cost for theatres? There is a “claim” that OC might slightly inconvenience hearing customers; but to date, I have found no verifiable studies done and released that prove this.
Without clearly defined goals, a danger of making a law that specifies “closed captions” and specifies the number of theatres is that once the theater has complied there is no incentive to go further.
If the goal is (and I hope we agree) that all first-run movies are to be accessible to people with hearing loss, then I would encourage the Senator’s bill to include phasing in increased accessibility through captioning over time until all first-run movies are accessible to people with hearing loss. And that both forms of captioning–open or closed–are specified as possibilities.
When there was a debate about captioning for television, increased accessibility was phased in over the course of eight years. I’d love shorter time frame, but couldn’t something like that be used as a model?
We want access now. But we also want a longer term goal, too. I am sure the Senator can help achieve both.