Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hearing-impaired get movie treat

This is topic Hearing-impaired get movie treat in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006148

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 05-08-2004, 08:15 AM:

Hearing-impaired get movie treat

Fri May 7, 9:40 AM ET

By Paul Singer Washington Bureau

When Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" character sneered, "Go ahead--make my day," the line became such a cultural phenomenon that President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) repeated it in daring Congress to pass a tax increase he could veto.

But John Stanton and millions of other deaf Americans did not recognize the reference. The line comes from a 1983 movie that--like virtually all other American movies released since the end of the silent film era--had no subtitles or captions for the hearing-impaired.

Now a lawsuit filed by Stanton and two other deaf moviegoers against two major movie chains may change that, paving the way for a broad expansion of captioning devices for the hearing-impaired in theaters throughout the country.

In a settlement approved by a federal judge last week, the theater chains--AMC Theaters and Loews Cineplex--agreed to install individual captioning devices in a dozen theaters in the D.C. area over the next year. They also agreed to build the system into at least one screen in all their new theater complexes in the region.

"I'm probably going to be deaf for the rest of my life," said Stanton, a Washington lawyer. "I hope I'm going to live to see the day where almost every movie is caption-accessible. ... I think our settlement is a very good starting point to get that process going."

Settlement sets new standard

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler approved the settlement April 30. While it applies only to the Washington area, it "will set the standard for what other communities, at a very minimum, should be offering," she said.

The deal calls for use of Rear Window captioning technology, designed to help hearing-impaired moviegoers without blocking others' view, that provides the user a transparent plastic panel attached to a seat's cup holder. The captions are displayed on the back wall of the theater, and the reflection is visible on the panel but invisible to patrons in adjoining seats.

The technology currently is available in only one movie theater in the Washington area and fewer than 100 nationwide. Six screens in the Chicago area have Rear Window technology, including the AMC City North and the AMC Yorktown in Lombard. There are no closed-caption screens elsewhere in Illinois.

An AMC spokesman said that in addition to the Washington-area court settlement, the chain has made a voluntary commitment to install Rear Window in all its new theater complexes--but not for every screen. AMC also will retrofit at least one theater in all 210 of its complexes nationwide to provide captioning technology.

Loews declined to comment on its plans.

Stanton's lawsuit argued that theaters without captions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires businesses to establish reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.

Two other lawsuits seeking to force theaters to install captioning technology--one in Oregon, one in Texas--have failed, leaving the D.C. settlement as the first lawsuit to result in an agreement to add captioning.

"What the settlement does is provide a model that can be replicated in other communities around the country," said Todd Houston, executive director of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

David Monroe, the lawyer who negotiated the settlement on behalf of AMC and Loews, said even more captioning devices may be installed nationwide if it makes economic sense.

"If it turns out that a lot of additional people come to see captioned films, that makes it more likely that they will make more captioned films available," Monroe said.

But some advocates for the deaf are disappointed that the settlement does not go further.

"It's a drop in the bucket," said Cheryl Heppner, chairwoman of the Coalition for Movie Captioning, an alliance of advocacy groups for the deaf and hard of hearing. The coalition says the deal requires only "the ability to show captioned movies on roughly 5 percent of AMC/Loews screens forever."

Other advocates say the Rear Window system is cumbersome and that a better approach would be "open captions"--subtitles projected on the screen and visible to all patrons.

Studio and theater executives adamantly oppose that idea, saying such subtitles would be a distraction to their hearing clientele and would interfere with a director's creative control of the image on the screen.

Richard King, a spokesman for AMC Theaters, said his company has tested open captioning and "we have found that is something that is not appealing to moviegoers [who] are not hearing-impaired."

It is an open question whether there is an economic incentive for theaters to install captioning devices.

Costs $10,000 to install

The Rear Window systems cost about $10,000 to install, and King pointed out that there are no data to prove that the technology brings in flocks of deaf or hard-of-hearing patrons.

Tawny Holmes, student body president at Gallaudet University, a D.C. school for hearing-impaired students, said deaf students looking for evening activities do not immediately think of going to the movies, mostly because they don't expect to find a captioned film.

"But when there is an announcement that there is going to be a captioned movie, they go in droves," she said, speaking through a sign-language interpreter.

Studios generally produce captions for the DVD or video versions of their films, and they already produce captions for some theatrical releases at minimal cost--about $50,000 per movie, said an executive at a major Hollywood movie studio who asked that his name not be used because of potential litigation. "The cost is the same whether it's in 12 theaters or 1,200," he added.

But the executive noted that the same is not true for theater owners, for whom the $10,000 cost per auditorium makes it prohibitively expensive to install the system in all 36,000 screens across the country.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 05-08-2004, 12:55 PM:

I know we're not the size of DC, but a local theatre here tried running captioned films for a couple of years, turnout was very poor and it was dropped.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-08-2004, 02:01 PM:

We are installing one here in SLC for a large local chain in the next couple of weeks. We expect to be doing more of them in the very near future.

Mark

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-08-2004, 02:14 PM:

We installed four; two at two locations. Very few people use it. I'm sure the few that do appreciate it, and I personally think every complex should have one or two, but I don't think every theater, everywhere, should be forced to buy one.

Posted by Joe Clark (Member # 2349) on 05-08-2004, 03:13 PM:

It's not a bad outcome, but it was unnecessarily expensive and again deaf people acted as though blind people don't exist. (The shoe was on the other foot with The Passion of the Christ, which was descriptions-only, a concept everyone thought was just dandy.) Running a multiplex without accessible screens is an approach that does not have much life left in it these days.

Read my post on the topic: How to make 12 movie screens accessible

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-08-2004, 03:17 PM:

How to make 12 movie screens accessible = dynamite [Smile]

personally i think it is a bit o a crock that they have to provide it
A private business should have the right to determin what services they wish to provide and if that includes providing a non accesable business then that should be there choice as well

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-08-2004, 03:24 PM:

a few years ago there were occasional open-captioned screenings around here, but my impression was that they weren't all that well attended. i did go to a few, not because i'm deaf, but simply because it was an oppportunity to see the film.

do deaf people go in droves to normal subtitled (foreign-language) films? if so, they don't seem to make their presence known. it could just be that they bring hearing friends to help buy tickets, though. we do get some blind people from time to time. [Confused]

carl

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-08-2004, 03:40 PM:

The open captioned films (Tripod / In-Sight Cinema) that play in Rochester reportedly do very well. The Rochester Institute of Technology is where the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) is located, so there are many hearing-impaired in Rochester. I think the Regal Henrietta-18 shows most of the captioned films.

http://www.insightcinema.org

quote:
Who We Are

InSight Cinema is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing the big screen movie-going experience to the 30 million deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) and English-as-a-second-language (ESL) audiences in the United States.

The InSight Cinema Mission:

To create awareness of the availability of Open Captioned films to the deaf, hard-of-hearing, and ESL communities.

To increase film industry awareness of the demand for Open Captioned films and of the many groups who can benefit because we are “the audience that is reading.”
To raise funding for InSight Cinema to expand its national outreach and advocacy efforts.

Current Program Summary:

InSight Cinema has created a 3-way partnership with the major studios and all major exhibitors. This 10 year-long outreach program serves a liaison between the DHH community and the major studios by increasing efforts to distribute Open Captioned prints to mainstream theatres

Currently there are 150 dedicated theatre programs in place. More than 300 captioned films have appeared in more than 500 cities in the US, with a marked increase in the number of prints bring shipped per title, with over 50 titles added to the program alone this year.

Want to help? You can participate!

There are an estimated 30 million American who have been identified with a hearing loss. Currently, there are about 35,000 movie screen in the U.S. alone, so our work has only begun.

You can show your support by signing up for our e*movie notification list that is sent to 50 states every week. Volunteer to be a Patron Advisory Board member who serves as our local “eyes and ears” in the community. Make a tax-deductible donation to InSight Cinema because every little bit helps. Increased awareness means marketing, advertising and promotional efforts. All of this takes time, resources and staff.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-09-2004, 03:12 AM:

quote:
The shoe was on the other foot with The Passion of the Christ, which was descriptions-only, a concept everyone thought was just dandy.

umm, you do realize that film was "open-captioned" from the git-go, right?

when it comes to "accessibility" for the deaf and blind, as opposed to the "movement-impaired", there really is no solution. no matter what concessions you make, you cannot provide the audiovisual experience that constitutes the film to those who are unable to apprehend it with their ears and eyes.

carl

Posted by Chris Medley (Member # 2145) on 05-10-2004, 02:43 AM:

In interaction with the local Dallas Community Center for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, I have found that atleast on theater in my area does some type of captioning, but that it does not do well and most people in the deaf community (atleast in my area) prefer to rent movies and view them at home.

I agree that acceptable accomadations must be made, but should we have to put the technology and expense into every auditorum on the off chance that hearing impaired person might come see a movie that day? I can't remember the name off hand, but we use the IR satilite with the headphones, with proper maitiance we get zero complaints from the deaf community. With this system all we have to do is keep two or three sat.'s on hand and move them to an auditorum when they are needed.

Posted by Joe Clark (Member # 2349) on 05-10-2004, 07:17 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
umm, you do realize that film was "open-captioned" from the git-go, right?

No, it was subtitled. I trust you can appreciate the difference. If not, try watching the movie with your ears covered. Are you sure you can really understand it? (Try it at home with your favourite foreign film. No sound, subtitles only. Perfectly understandable, right? Except you never know who's speaking, the speech is noticeably edited, and no non-speech information is rendered.) It may come as a surprise to learn that subtitled movies need to be captioned.

See, among other things, The Passion of the Hypocrites.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-10-2004, 07:35 AM:

yes, i do know there's a difference, but i still think this film in particular would be quite intelligible to a deaf person. in most key scenes, the speaker is very clearly the focus of the shot. i do remember that in some scenes, like j.c.'s apprehension near the start, i couldn't discern exactly who was speaking all the time. but overall, i got the gist. it would have been funny to see that "telephone ringing" glyph pop up.

i've seen many subtitled italian films where the original soundtrack is so poorly recorded and synced that, in alternating between reading the text and looking at the image, i failed to pick up what little cues were given as to who was speaking. it is indeed frustrating.

carl

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-10-2004, 08:47 AM:

At the AFI/Silver in Silver Spring, MD...we installed the DTS-CSS system that can project captions/subtitles over the regular image (the captions do follow the movement of the characters) as well as descriptive service for the visually impaired. All three theatres are so equipped.

The big problem they have found...very few films, offer the CSS discs with the captions or descriptive service.

Unless there is more to the story...the only way this could be effective is if all films (at least those over a certain budget) be required to have captions and descriptive service available day-and-date with a films release...this will give them a jump on the video release anyway.

Steve

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-10-2004, 08:48 AM:

At a theater I worked at some time ago, we had a deaf person come and DEMAND (from the get-go) that he should only have to pay half price because he can only enjoy half of the experience. He did this simply by slipping the box cashier -- exact change -- for half of the ticket. Then proceeded to argue with management, writing "ADA" and underlining it angrily.

Pretty rude, if you ask me. It's like someone with irritable bowel syndrome demanding to only pay for half of a meal.

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2004, 10:04 AM:

In my experience, the vast majority of disabled people cope with their disabilities, and try not to impose upon others, or take unfair advantage because of their disabilities. Please don't judge the real needs of many, by the actions of a few "jerks".

If I were hearing impaired, I would like the opportunity to enjoy a first-run movie in a theatre, rather than waiting for it to come out on video. But I would not expect a discount.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-10-2004, 10:56 AM:

We once had a guy sneak his wife into the drive-in, parking his oversized "macho-man" pickup truck in the middle of the field (where such vehicles aren't allowed). When approached, he tried to intimidate the staff by waving his wife's handicapped parking placard around, saying that gave him the right to park wherever he wanted.

A call to the Sheriff fixed the issue, temporarily (he escorted them off the property). The guy filed a complaint with the State, presenting (of course) his view of the situation. After sending in our side, the State dropped the issue... but sheesh... what a pain in the [Moon]

I agree, John. It's a shame that some people take unfair advantage of the situation.

On assistive devices: I've got probably 40 sets of headphones in our indoor... most of which have been in their boxes for years. We keep 3 downstairs, because that's more than we've ever used at one time.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-10-2004, 12:32 PM:

Regal has been running open-captioned movies here on Tuesdays for quite a while, so someone must be attending. They usually run one mid-afternoon show and one evening show. This week: "Mean Girls".

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-10-2004, 04:56 PM:

quote: Thomas Procyk
he should only have to pay half price because he can only enjoy half of the experience.

looking at some film, i'd say he's enjoying about 7/8 of the experience, in terms of area.

btw, joe's site is quite informative.

carl

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-11-2004, 04:31 PM:

About 25 years ago I worked with a deaf man in a DMV data processing dept. Our job was stuffing punch cards into various machines. It was so noisy that we had to wear earplugs to prevent hearing damage. Ray found it amusing that even though he had been daaf from birth he had to use them too. Ray is a frequent movie goer. He learned to read lips, etc. very early on and misses little dialog. On TV he also gets the beeped profanity. He has NO sympathy for those deaf who have not availed themselves to all that he has because it is all free. The state has provided all the handicap training he has received. The payback for the state is that he is now a highly paid programming consultant. He probably pays more in taxes every year than it cost the government to help him over come his deafness. All his college he paid for himself. When others try to make a big deal of his accomplishements, he says he has only done what he should.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-11-2004, 07:02 PM:

Is someone seriously advocating that every movie be shown with open captions for every show? Ridiculous.

Frankly I think the consent agreement sets a bad precedent. Is a business really required to purchase everything that comes along? Do they need to equip the handicapped washroom stalls with those Japanese ass-washer toilet/bidets simply because the invention exists?

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-11-2004, 09:53 PM:

...from Steve:

quote: Steve Kraus
Do they need to equip the handicapped washroom stalls with those Japanese ass-washer toilet/bidets simply because the invention exists?

I thought those were a product of progressive French thinking. Well, anyway... if they can't reach back far enough, and if they think about the bidets on their own, it just might happen. Of course, we'll have to put up proper signage on those stalls for the blind, which could be interesting.

Posted by Dominique Replogle (Member # 2387) on 05-11-2004, 09:55 PM:

Right on Jack. I expect no less from a man from kitsap county.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-12-2004, 12:00 AM:

To make things equal, when the deaf person complains, just turn off the sound, that way equality prevails. If it exists I think it is safe to assume that the sorry assed federal govt. will require it. Eventually it will be more practical to say fuck it and close than try to appease every asshole who wants something that costs the business owner a fortune for nothing.

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 05-13-2004, 04:06 AM:

I have had a query from our local council during the last season along the lines of "what I was doing for people with impaired hearing".
I got sort of edgy when hit with this request from the Disabilities Liason Officer as she called herself.
We handle wheel chaired patons Ok being a grassed venue and gentle slopes and no steps etc and we get quite a few regulars like this over each summer.
But hearing impaired hmmm I dunno about that.
A bit further digging revealed that ONE profoundly deaf lady had made the request as she wanted to attend the "odd' film each season.
When I explained how I thought the screen captioning worked and the approximate cost the shire lady backed off but said "if this becomes a requirement in the future you could be forced to instal the system" [uhoh]

My response was: if that happens we simply close down as the economics are just not there for the odd client who may need the service.
Over winter I screen for another group at another venue and there is installed a hearing loop system or a Infrared unit or similar and after a sound system upgrade the feed to that system was disconnected for about 2 years and not one bleat in that time. How we found out was that one of the regulars uses a hearing aid a bit as his hearing is going and he commented that "why was it that the hearing aid system no longer worked" and then we went looking and found the answer.
Is it correct that the closed captioning system is only available when DTS is used as the necessary data etc is buried on the DTS discs?? does anyone know how it works.
I have seen references to projecting the subtitles onto the screen via a video projector fed from the DTS system.
If only DTS can do it what about films that do not have DTS tracks are we going to have deaf folk beating us about the head cos the captions are not there??
Lindsay

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-13-2004, 09:20 AM:

Dolby has also offered a caption/subtitle system that is in use in some UK venues

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-13-2004, 11:36 AM:

As others have mentioned, you put in the system and it is very infrequently used. In all out theatres we put in infrared hearing assist about 5 years ago. If we have had 15 requests for units in all that time, it would be allot. And a number of them were HEARING persons who just saw that they could get "headphones" for free, so they wanted them. It became a real issue as to how do you identify a person with real disability? Do you stand there while everyone is in line demanding they show the results of some kind of hearing test? Our people just hand them the headphones. We finally changed the signage to Inquire about Hearing Assisted ADA Compliant equipment. We no make no reference to headphones. Hearing impaired people know what the sign means. On the other hand, given our seat count (2500) and what that required us to purchase, we could hand out dozens to any non-impaired patron and have plenty left over for those who really need them. Most are collecting dust and the staff has to be reacquainted with how to use them every so often.

I am not suggesting that these devices not be part of our operation, only that when establishments were forced to put in these very costly systems, I don;t think the authors of the regulations anticipated how underutilized they would be.

As for the captioning issue, I understand how the rear display system works technically, but where does the information that is displayed on the LED panel come from and how is it synched to the film? Obviously if a film company hasn't done the translation and supplied whatever medium the system uses, the hardware is useless. So why aren't the studios named in this guy's lawsuit? How can a AMC and Loews be expected to comply with this ruling if the film producers aren't part of the solution? Seems to me, in an economic model where the studio gets 90% of the gate, they should absorb 90% of the cost of supplying captioning.

What does an arthouse do with films that have never had any captioning data supplied?

We had to (required by the ADA law) install two rest rooms at great expense on the main floor level because our rest rooms were all either on the mezz, balcony or basement level. But because the new ADA rr are closer, people with no discernible problem head right for them (many times running ahead of those less agile of gate -- this is Brooklyn remember). So what do you do? Do you have ushers stop blue haired old men and old ladies and say, this bathroom is ONLY for people in wheelchairs? People can have medical problems that make it difficult or even impossible for them to walk up or down stairs but they are not necessarily in wheelchairs. So how to you separate people who just want the convenience of the closest restroom and those who are really disabled? Make them do a little break dancing before you bar them from the ADA facilities? It's vexing issue. Our solution, put up an ADA wheelchair sign and have the word ONLY underneath and rely on the honor system (which works about 40% of the time). We let the older people by without much intervention, but if we see someone in a wheelchair on line, our ushers are instructed to bring them to the head of the line and let them in before anyone else who is on line and standing on both legs.

OFF TOPIC ALERT (sort of, but it's a good story):

A friend of mine once called and said he had an extra ticket for Angels In America when it was playing on Broadway. I was thrilled to get a chance to see it because it had just opened. When I met him at his house, I was surprised to find out that his wife who had MS and wheelchair bound decided that she wasn't up to going. As we were about to leave the house, he asked me to give him a hand with the motorized wheelchair. "But I thought Marie wasn't going." "She's not." he answers. "Then why the wheelchair." "Oh, because this is a ticket for an ADA seat and it can't be changed....you are going in place of my wife." I protested loudly saying absolutely not, but all the awhile, he kept saying it was the only way to use the ticket and explained that the theatre wouldn't refund ADA seats and there was no time to find anyone else could use it....they had exhausted the list of all their disabled friends, none could attend. I suggested they try to give it away, but he said disabled people rarely go to show hoping another disabled person might by chance be trying to sell a wheelchair ticket. Reluctantly I agreed. We found a parking spot a long way from the theatre, we got the wheelchair out of the van and I got in it.

It was a lot trickier than one would imagine learning how to work the controls, but by about the fifth block away I had gotten the hang of maneuvering it up onto sidewalks. The closer we got to the theatre, the stronger the sickening feeling that this was a really, really bad idea came over me. Finally, I take a deep breath and it's into the lobby, all the while trying to avoid running people down and discovering how really oblivious people are to the presence of a disabled person. They walk right in front of you, cutting you off without regard to your ability to make short turns or quick avoidance maneuvers. Finally we get to the ADA space and Companion Seat and the show starts. Angels in America is LONG -- something like 3 1/2 hours. Now a cold sweat comes over me as I realize that sooner or later I am going to have to go to the john. I decide that I will pee my pants rather than wheel myself into a handicap john and pretend that I am unable to walk. As it turns out, mercifully I didn't have to go that bad, but I cursed my pal for getting me into this mess. It was a really great show, though.

On our way out of the theatre, in the middle of the lobby, I smell the distinct odor of electrical buring; it's coming from the wheelchair motor and everything grinds to a dead stop. Now I am struck with real terror. In the middle of a lobby full of exiting theatergoers, I may find in necessary to get up out of this chair, for all to discover that I am impersonating a cripple. I whispered to Ray that he'd better get the motor working or I was going to get up, shout "I AM CURED...I CAN WALK." and run out leaving him there with his wheelchair and what I was sure would be a very disagreeable crowd. He finally tightend a loose connection between the batteries and I we were spared the wrath of an angry mob.

I am not very proud of this episode, but it was a learning experience and gave me insight into so many things that as a walking person, would never dawn on you could be insurmountable impediments to someone in a wheelchair. For example, in NYC, you would think that every single sidewalk would have curb cuts for wheelchairs; I always assumed there were. But at least two on the way to the theatre were not angled well enough for the chair to go up -- he had to manually tilt it or I would have had to roll out into the street into traffic to get down the block. If anyone were alone, they would be stuck.

I am sure this it is the same with other disablities. A hearing person thinks captioning solves the problem. But obviously as was pointed out, not necessarily so.

Anyway, that's my Angels In American; Angel In A Wheelchair story.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-13-2004, 12:12 PM:

The DTS rear-window system gets the title data from special disks (the ones that I have seen were all CD-Rs) provided by the film distributor. They don't come with the print--they need to be specially ordered by the theatre. Relatively few films (always big mainstream titles) have the caption disks available, which means that the chances of getting them for art-house or repertory titles (which usually don't even have DTS soundtracks) are pretty much nonexistant.

My feeling about the whole thing is that the DTS system may well make sense in a big-city downtown theatre or in an area with a large population of deaf people. On the other hand, I think that it is silly to require theatres to install something like this by law. This isn't a simple ramp or wide doorway--it is an expensive and highly specialized system which only works with some films and whose installation will almost never be justified in a small-town theatre.

The headset hearing-impared systems (IR, radio, or hearing-aid loop) serve a different market (people who can hear, but not as well as most), but are much easier to justify. Cost is about $1000, and it is useful to a greater portion of the population than the DTS system.

I'm all for making simple, inexpensive accommodations for customers with disabilities, but not for requiring theatre owners to make major investments which will never be justified.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-13-2004, 02:48 PM:

Scott writes, that the discs "don't come with the print--they need to be specially ordered by the theatre."

This varys from studio to studio, but certainly you have to specify when booking. Universal has (with TES) a seperate stock of prints that have mopix discs in the can.

--jhawk

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-13-2004, 05:15 PM:

so a sign should be posted: "hearing impaired patrons are advised to make arrangements several weeks in advance so the right print can be booked." wonderful.

btw frank, you have the best stories. when can we expect your memoirs to be published?

carl

Posted by Robert Golding (Member # 746) on 05-14-2004, 03:51 AM:

Those of us who have drive in's with radio sound already just tell our people to invest in a Walkman. Then they can go all over the drive in and still hear the movies. This should help them on snack bar calls and restroom calls.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-14-2004, 02:30 PM:

Frank asked, "How can a AMC and Loews be expected to comply with this ruling if the film producers aren't part of the solution? Seems to me, in an economic model where the studio gets 90% of the gate, they should absorb 90% of the cost of supplying captioning."

Realistically, the film distributors are part of the solution. Somewhere around half of the major films released are available with captioning. The number seems to be growing. One observation is that if they are going to caption the movie eventually, that they might as well do it before the first run release, rather than later for the DVD. It's the same cost.

(And yes, I know that captioning is not the same as subtitling. Captioned DVDs are available, though they are not as common as subtitled ones. Furthermore, I'm under the impression that doing captioning and subtitling together is a major cost savings over doing each independently.)

Furthermore, the film distributors do have to pay for the movies to be captioned. That involves hiring people who write the captions and synchronize them to the events in the movie. It's not trivial, and it does cost money (perhaps a relatively small amount compared to the cost of the film, but it is still real money).

Finding captioned films to show doesn't seem to be a problem. If you have one screen in a multiplex that supports captioning, chances are you'll always have a film with captioning available to run in that house. (Of course, it complicates the already complicated problem of what print to run in what size house, etc., etc.)

It occurs to me that one way to handle this would be to design the multiplex so that the captioning stuff is portable. If you happen to have DTS in most houses, then it's trivial to move the DTS-CSS unit and plug its Y cable into an already-installed DTS timecode reader. The LED display that we have (from Data Display; there are 3 main vendors for the devices, they are one) comes with a mounting option to make it easily removable and portable. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine moving the captioning display and the CSS unit from one screen to another. You just need to ensure there's a cable path from the display to the booth in each screen, and that the mounting hardware for the display is installed in each screen.

--jhawk