Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating

This is topic Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=001196

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-02-2004, 12:57 AM:

Regal's Unit Loses Appeal on Seating

quote:
Tuesday June 29, 2004 Los Angeles Times

From Bloomberg News

A Regal Entertainment Group unit Monday lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a ruling that stadium-style seating in movie theaters violated a disability-rights law when people in wheelchairs must sit near the front row.

Regal Cinemas, part of the world's largest movie-theater company, said in court papers that the lower court ruling would impose "devastating" costs on companies that have built thousands of theaters in which most seats must be reached by climbing stairs. AMC Entertainment Inc. and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corp., the second- and third-largest chains, supported Regal's appeal.

The lower court ruling means thousands of movie theaters "must now be destroyed or expensively retrofitted," lawyers for Regal said in court papers.

The court also refused to hear a separate appeal by closely held Cinemark USA Inc., which was sued by the Justice Department over stadium-style seating at its theaters. The Cincinnati-based U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Plano, Texas-based Cinemark.

The National Assn. of Theatre Owners said in a brief supporting Regal that refitting movie theaters probably would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The brief by AMC and Loews said the federal government "stood by silently" during the recent boom for building stadium-style theaters.

The Bush administration urged the court to deny review in both cases. Government lawyers said the rulings against Regal and Cinemark were correct and that the Supreme Court appeals were premature because the lower courts haven't decided on a remedy.

The U.S. said its lawyers told a judge in the Cinemark case they would seek a "reasonable approach" and wouldn't argue "that the entire interior of the theater be gutted or torn down."

The government said its regulation "ensures that theater designs do not leave customers in wheelchairs on the sidelines."

[ 07-07-2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-02-2004, 01:10 AM:

Although I am not a fan of either Regal or Cineplex, I think they might be getting the shaft on this one. I can't comment on AMC because I don't know that much about their upper circles.

However, when Regal and Cineplex built their theaters, I presume they did it in a manner where it met local and state codes. If they were not up to those codes, I don't see how they were issued an occupancy permit unless they paid someone off. I don't think either chain was or is stupid enough to intentionally pull a "fast one" like that.

Now if they did indeed pull a "fast one" with the intent to deceive, then they should be nailed! Period!

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-02-2004, 01:23 AM:

Wasn't the original intention of this requirement geared towards theaters that had a capacity of over 300 seats in the auditorium and the theater had to provide an elevator to get to the upper handicap spaces. I don't think there was ever a clear designation as to where the handicap seating had to be. Otherwise these theaters would fail to meet that criteria

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-02-2004, 01:28 AM:

All the more reason that conventional sloped floors are the best at accomodating everyone.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-02-2004, 01:32 AM:

Even in sloped theaters that I have been familure with. You either got placed in the very back or three or four rows from the front.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 07-02-2004, 06:42 AM:

ADA The Americans with Disabilities Act is a Federal law which is in defense of the right to equal service by those with physical challenges. A structure which is in violation of this act will be dealt with at the Federal level.

Not only are the mobility challenged persons to be accommodated but also those with vision and hearing challenges as well. One of the children's theatre groups who present plays in our theatre provides a signer for the hearing impaired children who are seated in a special section house left and down front. The signer is in the orchestra pit and is in the line of sight to the stage so the children can both see and understand the play. The signer is neither visible nor distracting to the rest of the audience.

This is not a new concern in public spaces and every seating company is aware of the requirements and can counsel a customer on compliance.

Local non-profit arts venues have made expensive modifications to their buildings to serve the needs of the challenged patrons. It is difficult to imagine that a new construction would not simply include these spaces as part of the basic design like aisle space, walk lighting, ramps and proper railings.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-02-2004, 07:26 AM:

My (limited) understanding of the ADA is that it only applies to new construction and remodeling of existing buildings. Already-built structures are grandfathered until they are modified. Is my understanding of this not correct?

I agree that theatres should provide "reasonable" handicapped seating, although I don't think that those "seats" (or, rather, lack of seats) need to necessarily be in the ideal viewing locations. As long as they aren't in the very front or very back rows or on the extreme edges of the auditorium, I don't see the problem.

And, yes, I agree with Ken that sloped floors are preferable for everyone.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-02-2004, 07:52 AM:

Sounds to me like the companies (AMC, Regal & Cinemark) are simply playing a game. You build a theater that you know is out of compliance with ADA rules then, when you get sued, you claim that it would be too expensive and destructive to put things the way they SHOULD HAVE been in the first place.

I think the court's decision was right. Otherwise, any company who wanted to skirt the ADA rules could simply build anything they wanted then get off the hook by saying, "Oops! Sorry, I can't fix it because it's too expensive to tear up my building."

I was recently involved in putting all new seats in one of the three venues where I work. Assuming you have an "average" sloped-floor ground plan in your theater it's not that hard to ensure reasonable handicap access. Simply remove one seat from the end of a row and leave a blank space where the seat would have been. Then put a "Transfer arm" on the seat that has become the new "End Cap". Do this in three or four rows (whatever the percentage of H.P. seats is supposed to be) throughout the hall and you have it. The only thing left is to ensure that the aisles and doorways are wide enough.

We just did this very thing in an old 180-seat hall with broken down chairs. We put in brand new seats and narrowed the aisles by about 6 inches. They were already extra wide. We simply "took back" the extra space.

When we were done we ended up with over 200 seats in the room AND we still had 4 H.P. spaces! (Yes! The original layout was THAT bad! One more reason we replaced the seats!)

Here's the kicker: When we have no wheelchair people sitting in those spaces, able-bodied people like to sit in the seats right behind because they get extra leg room! In fact, those have become some of the prime seats in the house!

I agree that, in certain situations, H.P. seating can impose extra costs but I ALSO think that there is no H.P. situation that can't be solved by the application of a few brain cells.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-02-2004, 08:18 AM:

quote: Paul Mayer
The lower court ruling means thousands of movie theaters "must now be destroyed or expensively retrofitted," lawyers for Regal said in court papers.

Now, if they can only rebuild those booths.

[ 04-16-2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Tim Reed ]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-02-2004, 08:43 AM:

The disabilities act is getting out of hand. What is wrong with the seats in the back rows -whether stadium or non stadium? I have sat in those seats a few times which were designated for handicapped(of course, I would get up if I saw a handicapped person). Those are not bad seats.
Do they have to have access to the best seats in the house? I think reasonable should be the key word here and the back row is reasonable even in the floor level of stadium seatings halls. Obviously there are a few where there is hardly a couple of rows at the floor level and those may need to be modified unless there is elevator access to the top tier of the stadium. I think as a handicapped you should be more concerned with several multiplexes having bad sound and underlit projection. A well projected movie viewed from the back row is preferable to a bad projected movie from the best seat in the house.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-02-2004, 09:17 AM:

Scott,

You are incorrect...the ADA does apply to existing structures. The method of compliance is different. On new construction, buildings must be made accessable. Existing structures are evaluated as to the "reasonable cost" of the change in structure. For instance...adding an elevator tower would be considered unreasonable to an old theatre with a balcony. However, an old theatre with bathrooms only on the mezzanine level will find they need to come up with a handycapped bathroom on the ground level or a level that can be reached by wheelchair.

As an oddity...I know of a theatre that had to put in regulation handycapped doors (wider). The theatre had four sets of double doors. Now it has to double doors and two handycapped doors. The total exit space was actually reduced...thereby increasing the liklihood of people being trampled in the case of a fire. A better solution would have been to make the double doors automatic since there was no septum to impeed the wheelchair.

It is no secret that I am not a big fan of entitlement acts...ADA included since one of the games of such acts is to make money off them in the name of suing...not that good intentions are not behind those acts. Here is a case where theatre owners in the wrong.

If you are going to build a stadium seating theatre, then the entrance of the theatre should be in the middle. This places your handicapped seats in the middle (no complaints there) and people need to walk up and down stairs less, which is safer and also places everyone near the middle until the late comers arrive.

The theatres that are coming under fire are the stupid ones where one has to walk down a hallway all of the way to the front, turn around and then climb the stairs to the middle and back. This leaves the ADA people stuck in the front row with an awful view and everyone else tripping up the steps. To add insult to injury...all late comers arrive at the bottom corner of the screen and all people that must leave the theatre mid show to also present themselves at the bottom corner of the screen.

This is a case of a interpreted law teaching theatre owners and architects how to build better theatres.

Note another advantage to the center-load theatre is the hybrid theatre...sloped floor in the front, stadium in the back and again ADA people near the middle (or closer to the screen, if desired)...most everyone can have it their way. Makes for smoother exits too.

Steve

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-02-2004, 09:17 AM:

I think this is a stupid ruling. If competent authorities reviewed and approved the plans for these theatres then the owner should be immune from suit. Let the plaintiffs take it up with whatever authority approved them.

The most common theatre designs involve a one level building with the front of each auditorium on ground level and access from the back of the house which is level to the rear of the small sloping floor area at the front and the rest of the room in stadium rows to the rear.

If seating in the area to the front of the stadium section or rear of the slope section is ruled inadequate then what options exist for the owner? Spend a fortune to redesign the entire booth level for public access to the tops of the auditoria? What if they then rule that the top of the house isn't good enough either?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-02-2004, 09:22 AM:

I think what may be at issue is those theatres that are completely stadium-ie they are not half slope, half stadium. In that situation lacking an elevator the only place the wheelchair bound patrons can sit is in the very front row.

If I understand things correctly the half slope half stadium design which allows handicap seating in the middle of the auditorium (back of the sloped seating area) is not in violation.

Posted by Ray Kaufman (Member # 2351) on 07-02-2004, 09:37 AM:

To be sure, it’s an on-going problem, but I must agree with a prior post pointing out that it’s become more than just a test of the law. A few points:

A quick search shows the portion of the ADA law covering “reasonable accommodation” with regard to public places, came into existence in January, 1992.

Even with sloped floors, merely removing the aisle seat to allow wheelchair access, poses a whole different problem when it come to building safety and fire regs, allowing people to get out of a row, in case of emergency, (not to mention, once out of the row, everyone being able to move to the nearest egress, to outdoors, and in a timely manner.)

And then I’m told, some advocates are insisting on making the entire house accessible, not segregated to a particular area and allowing everyone an equal choice.

For certain, it’s a mess and not one to go away or even be easily resolved, anytime soon.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-02-2004, 09:53 AM:

Wouldn't it be just cheaper to have two or three staffmembers lift the handicapped guy and place him whereever he wants? [evil]

On a semi serious note:
But oh, that would ruin his dignity and be patronizing to him. He needs to wheel that chair himself. As if that is any different from the theater having to design an auditorium for his needs. As long as the theater can get the guy to the place he wants, the guy shouldn't complain.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-02-2004, 10:36 AM:

When we remodeled the Yardbirds 3 theater in Chehalis, Wash. we converted the auditoriums from "tunnelvision" center aisle slope floor to middle loader stadium with slope floor front half and stadium back half. Turned out very well indeed.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-02-2004, 10:38 AM:

ADA non-compliance was one of the big reasons Caesars Palace decided to tear down their Omnimax theatre. That house had six entrances, two at the bottom, two at the mid-level sides, two at the top. Wheelchair patrons were placed down front--admittedly not the best place to sit in an Omnimax. The cost of retrofitting wheelchair ramps and an elevator to the 1979 construction was simply too much.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-02-2004, 11:20 AM:

If the big companies really wanted to play hardball about this they could simply close those theaters and leave the communities with no movie theaters at all.

All this retrofitting will require a tremendous hike in snack bar prices.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-02-2004, 12:00 PM:

Having a few theaters closed in a "hardball" situation will threaten the National economy...I don't think so [uhoh]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-02-2004, 12:11 PM:

I must state that I do agree with the premise that any business that did build within compliance of existing ADA codes/regulations...etc and then after completion someone decided to sue...it should be thrown out. If one plays by the rules, they shouldn't be penalized. I still say that regardless of ones position of the ADA...telling a group of people "your place is in the worst part of our theatre" in effect, should strike someone as unreasonable.

In our industry...it has been often stated that the image is best viewed at 2-3 screen-heights. The front row rarely if ever meats that critera. There was once a wonderful document that even took into account how the human body worked in terms of sight and head mobility to find the more comfortable places to sit within an auditorium. Since this stadium seating thing has taken place...that document has been squashed.

Now I do take a different point of view on how accommodating one should be. If a law states that say one needs to accommodate 4% of capacity (as I believe it does for listening devices)...then if you have a percentage of seats that are considered more desirable (2-3 screen heights a way...lets say)...then what ever percentage of seats that fall within that desirable area should be reflected by the 4%...not the entire 4%. So if half of your theatre seating is 2-3 screen heights away...then only 2% of the ADA patrons should be required to fall within that half so all are treated equally...presumming the 2% that are outside of the prime seating are also accessable via wheelchair.

But no matter how you cut it...sticking all of the wheelchairs in the front row is wrong.

Steve, if a theatre owner builds their theatres with the front of the theatre at lobby level then they are silly. Even in sloped floor theatres that wasn't the case...the rear of the theatre is at lobby level. If this building model is kept, you then create a better stadium theatre as described in a previous post.

Steve

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-02-2004, 12:12 PM:

This ruling sounds like a crock of [bs]

to me. Now I gotta admit, the only stadium seating I've seen is at the local Cinemark, and I love it (I know I'm probably in the minority here on that). Their theaters are very wheelchair-accessible, and the designated handicapped areas, though somewhat closer to the screen than some people might like, are far from being crappy. I'd say they're almost the prime seats in the house. "But I don't like to sit that close! I want to be 3 rows higher!" [sleep]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-02-2004, 12:51 PM:

"Back in the good ole days"

We did help handicap people into their seats. Heck, I used to go out to the cars and help them into the theatre, we would lift them into their chairs, and everyone was happy.

Boy the world has changed......

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-02-2004, 01:16 PM:

Personally, I think that the Stadium Seating looks tacky and needs to be left where it came from, and that is STADIUMS. This really burns me that all the theatres must be built with stadium seating just because people prefer it. I honestly think that the slope style is better due to a couple of reasons:

1. If you trip or fall, your not going to injure your self on railings, steps, or little nooks and cranies that are in stadium seating.
2. For handicap capibility, you can put a hand cap chair(you know the ones that the armrest lifts up on) on the edge of every single row including missing seats approximatly half way down with the traditional slope. You can't do that with Stadium Seating.
3. If you got some puck teenagers in your theatre, with stadium seating, most of the back rows are right under the port hole, and they can place there hand right in front of the projector, and mark the port hole with their greasy hand that they had popcorn in. I don't know about your theatres, but ours are unable to be opened from the booth, you have to go around to the auditorium and clean them from that side, and then they look streaky.

All together, Stadium seating is one of the worst things that has happened to the theatre industry, and personaly, i don't think that it should be even allowed in the theatre.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-02-2004, 01:20 PM:

quote: Thomas Dieter
This really burns me that all the theatres must be built with stadium seating just because people prefer it.

Life would be so much easier if it weren't for those pesky customers and their silly seating preferences!

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-02-2004, 05:36 PM:

Steve, I didn't say that the front of the auditoria were at lobby level, but at ground level and the entry was level to the point where it either sloped down going forward or stadium tiered going up and back. That this entry (& lobby) level is different than the front of house level is pretty much inferred by the point about the sloping floor between.

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 07-02-2004, 08:33 PM:

The Minneapolis Crown theatre has very nice handicap seating. They have private balcony’s that sit two or three wheelchairs and companion seats. They only problem with that stet up is, you have to take the elevator up to the booth and travel through the booth to get to the balcony. Would be a hassle.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-03-2004, 11:57 AM:

quote: Ray Kaufman

Even with sloped floors, merely removing the aisle seat to allow wheelchair access, poses a whole different problem when it come to building safety and fire regs...

I guess I forgot to mention that the house(s) we did this in have exit doors on both sides of the aisles. One has to walk no more than a few rows up or down to get to an exit door.

Also, the "indented" rows are placed so that one row is never completely blocked from both ends. The first H.P. row is front-right. The next is on the left, about 1/2 way back. The next is 3/4 on the right, etc., etc.

Both halls that have this pattern are "continental" layout. There is no center aisle. Then there is a cross aisle about 3/4 of the way back.

This scheme works pretty well for us. Since we are a college we tend to get a fair number of handicapped patrons. We get few complaints about access.

The people who DO complain, I firmly believe, are the type of people would complain regardless of whether they were wheelchair people or not.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-04-2004, 10:42 AM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
The disabilities act is getting out of hand. What is wrong with the seats in the back rows -whether stadium or non stadium? I have sat in those seats a few times which were designated for handicapped(of course, I would get up if I saw a handicapped person). Those are not bad seats.
Do they have to have access to the best seats in the house? I think reasonable should be the key word here and the back row is reasonable even in the floor level of stadium seatings halls. Obviously there are a few where there is hardly a couple of rows at the floor level and those may need to be modified unless there is elevator access to the top tier of the stadium. I think as a handicapped you should be more concerned with several multiplexes having bad sound and underlit projection. A well projected movie viewed from the back row is preferable to a bad projected movie from the best seat in the house.

Let me tell you what is wrong with the back row! IT SUCKS! I pay to see a movie and I am stuck in the back row? I leave if all I have is the back row. I paid to see a movie, not hear a movie and view a screen from a hundred feet away that now is smaller than my tv in relation to my distance from it. Why bother? It is insulting to people in wheelchairs to say to them "hey, the back row is good enough for you buddy!"

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Wouldn't it be just cheaper to have two or three staffmembers lift the handicapped guy and place him whereever he wants?

On a semi serious note:
But oh, that would ruin his dignity and be patronizing to him. He needs to wheel that chair himself. As if that is any different from the theater having to design an auditorium for his needs. As long as the theater can get the guy to the place he wants, the guy shouldn't complain.

I will give you a small pass here that maybe you don't truly understand the wheelchair issue. Perhaps a perspective of someone who has to use one quite often will enlighten you a bit.

I like to move my wheelchair all by myself. It is something I take pride in, considering that my legs don't like to do everything I tell them to do anymore. So when I am forced, (read forced) to use my wheelchair, I would and do find it rather insulting when people try and push me from behind as if my arms no longer work.

I also would find it not only extremely insulting and very embarrassing if you or your staff tried to lift me to my seat from my chair, I would find it rather painful as well. You see you do not know why I am in the chair. I suffer from a degenerative nerve condition that is very painful. The levels of pain are quite often on par with torture, and would crumble most people to the ground screaming like little girls, if you had to suffer one second of what I suffer. However, time allows me to learn to deal with it.

If you were to try and move me from my chair, you could also cause irreversable damage to bones and tissues, resulting in a lawsuit that would put you out of business and force you to have your wages garnisheed until 30 years after your death. I have to be so very careful as not to cause damage to any part of me, because I cannot heal from serious damage, and would face amputation of limbs in the event of a simple fracture.

If a theater is not handicapped friendly, I say they be allowed to say so and post a sign alluding to that. I will never go there, nor will I sue because I can't get in there. The ADA is a good thing, forcing new construction to allow people like myself who DID NOT ASK to become like this, access to thier buildings.

I like the theaters I go too. The seating is excellent, right in the middle. Most people don't try and knock me down. And on the wonderful occasion I can go without the chair, there are plenty of places for me to lean up against or fall down on.

While I am sure your rants were meant to be taken with a grain of salt, remember that people in wheelchairs probably didn't want to be thier, and don't really enjoy it either. I know I didn't ask to have my life shortened and my abilities severly hindered, and to live in pain as if Saddam Hussien was my best friend (with friends like these you don't need enemies). Imagine the feeling of a butcher knife slicing through the back of your right leg and a meat grinder on your left one, on a constant basis, and then ask me again If I want to sit in the back row.

I don't ask for anything of anyone, just a little compassion when joking about those that didn't ask for what they got.

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2004, 12:53 PM:

Dave,

Answer me this. If this is a stadium seating theatre that is a "rear loader." That is...all enter from the rear and the theatre was built by digging into the ground.

As such, the theatre can only have reasonable access to the rear of the theatre for those in wheelchairs or can not negotiate steps.

If the last row of the theatre is within the 2-3 screen hight criteria (i.e. it doesn't look small and you have a unobstructed view with full surround-sound)...is that not okay with you?

While front row seems to always be a bad position...I don't find that last row is...in fact, it can be the most desired position from a shear comfort point of view.

Steve

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-04-2004, 03:34 PM:

quote: Dave Williams
Let me tell you what is wrong with the back row! IT SUCKS! I pay to see a movie and I am stuck in the back row? I

You overstate things. No one said that the back rows are the best seats, but they are not the worst seats either. Many non handicapped people sit in the back rows by choice. I personally prefer two thirds of the way back , but i would not be bent out of shape if I had to sit in the back row. Beats sitting too close to the screen unless you are 5 years old. If a theater is one of those long narrow shoebox like theaters, then you have a point.
But I would not make a blanket statement on backrows. Like I said before, there are so many things unregulated ina theater that ruin ANYONE's viewing experience like dim projector bulbs, non functioning speakers, wrong aspect ratio screens. You could use a small portion of that money that would be used in some cases to give you a better seat to improve those facets and everyone will benefit. If we can get everything else near perfect, then bitch about the back rows.

I think public policy should be based on reasonable accomodation,not making sure handicapped people have to get exactly the same amount of prime access as non handicapped people regardless of the cost. If there are designs, that Regal has shunned which would have been cost effective, then yeah, let them get prosecuted.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-04-2004, 11:48 PM:

It's pretty obvious that the chains were playing a game of ignoring specific ADA requirements for accessible seating being dispersed in the auditorium since the Shubert decision in 1996. They were probably hoping that they could continue to ignore it through appeals in the hope that they'd end up with a decision more "industry-friendly" up the line & after a time. They gambled, they ignored the law, they lost.

"Ain't no need of cryin' now."
-- The Five Du-Tones, "Divorce Court"

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-05-2004, 01:05 AM:

Regarding "rear loader" stadium theaters, I have been to a Cinemark that had two doorways leading into such an auditorium: The right doorway opened into a flight of stairs leading to the top-back of the auditorium. The left door opened to a ramped tunnel that took you around to the middle of the auditorium, where there was handicapped seating dead-center.

Now, if some people complain that it's too close or too far, given that it's right in the middle, what do you do? There's no other option than these middle seats.

=TMP=

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-05-2004, 09:04 AM:

I guess my view is more simply if I choose to build a theatre and invest my money in it I should then be able to choose the demographics that target and wish to attract.

If I feel that providing prime seating locations for handicapped then that should be my choice If my choice is that then return on the lost seating that is most of the time unused is too high then that is also my right.

Attending a movie is not a necessities of life as such I question the requirements that force business's to provide services that are not profitable

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-05-2004, 10:44 AM:

"Attending a movie is not a necessities of life as such I question the requirements that force business's to provide services that are not profitable"

I whole heartedly agree with that. I've also heard about booths having to be equipped to allow the handicapped to be able to work there. Totally rediclous to have to put your platter systems on elevators so some handicapped person can thread up a film from his wheel chair, utterly stupid. I wonder when NASA will have to start accomodating wheel chair people to do jobs like fuel a rocket......

Were I handicapped and stuck in a wheel chair I would certainly want to be useful in life. But I would certainly be seeking a job in that I am not a nuisance nor would I want to interfer with other peoples normal routines.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2004, 01:01 AM:

I really have to wonder how this ruling is going to affect the Carmike 8 theater in my town. A couple weeks ago the company announced the theater in Lawton would soon be converted to feature stadium seating. There's also an outside chance a couple more screens may be added to make up for lost seats in the conversion process.

If this decision is final it would seem that Carmike would have to put the plans on hold and make some adjustments. I'm not sure what would work to ADA satisfaction. A hybrid stadium and slope approach would seem logical, but in a wide bodied short throw auditorium you would still wind up in the same situation as a lot of existing stadium theaters: seats in the flat area too close to the screen.

Most existing stadium seated theaters have a structural design where it would be impossible to alter things so a person in a wheelchair could sit in the "sweet spot" of the theater. You would have to completely gut the theater and rebuild. Which circuits have the money to do that on a widespread basis?

If that is what ADA plans to demand, then you can count on a lot of theaters simply closing. Then the folks filing all the lawsuits can have a happy time only being able to rent/buy movies from a video store on DVD. I have a bad feeling that's where this industry may be heading in the long term for a variety of different reasons. But this ADA ruling may speed up the process in a lot of markets.

Oh, I almost forgot this one point, the idea that all parts of the theater should be equally accessible is just stupid. Have the militants who want that even tried to visualize it in their heads? I have. You know what I see? An auditorium with a flat floor and no seats. There. Equal f**king access. Everyone will damned sure be heading to the video rental counter if that happens.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-07-2004, 11:13 PM:

WARNING!!! This may be the longest post of my career! Just warming up for my career as a commentator and columnist.. more on that in weeks to come.. for now.. ENJOY!!!

quote: Steve Guttag
Answer me this. If this is a stadium seating theatre that is a "rear loader." That is...all enter from the rear and the theatre was built by digging into the ground.

I have actually never seen one of these before, so without actually having been in one, it is difficult to even comprehend without a true frame of reference. However, I am familiar with a rear loader live stage however it carries only 8 rows so the back row tends to be quite fine.

However in general back rows are not what I pay for, in or out of my chair. I pay for a great experience, and I do understand that in order to avoid the back row I show up early to stake my claim.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
You overstate things. No one said that the back rows are the best seats, but they are not the worst seats either. Many non handicapped people sit in the back rows by choice. I personally prefer two thirds of the way back , but i would not be bent out of shape if I had to sit in the back row. Beats sitting too close to the screen unless you are 5 years old.

What exactly do you mean I overstate things? The back rows do in fact quite suck, and perhaps that is from my perspective, and I could do an entire commentary on that, but that is not why I am here today. Today is about the wheelchair problem, not whether or not the back seats suck. I suppose that people in wheelchairs should just get used to being told where they can go and where they are not allowed... more on that in a minute, I am just getting warmed up...

quote: Pravin Ratnam
But I would not make a blanket statement on backrows. Like I said before, there are so many things unregulated ina theater that ruin ANYONE's viewing experience like dim projector bulbs, non functioning speakers, wrong aspect ratio screens. You could use a small portion of that money that would be used in some cases to give you a better seat to improve those facets and everyone will benefit. If we can get everything else near perfect, then bitch about the back rows.

I am not dismissing the need for theaters to provide excellent presentation, and I bitch about that all the damned time! I never bitch about where my chair or myself can and cannot go, you took me and take me wrong. There is the blanket statement, assuming that I am along with people who bitch about things that others dont want them to bitch about. Hell I got a shit ass hot dog the other day and didn't bitch about it, the presentation was awesome so I gave them a pass on the dog!

If I don't like that I cannot find a proper seat or place to put my apparently in the way for the theater ass wheelchair, then I will VERY FREAKING POLITELY inform the manager as such and ask for either a ticket for the next showing or a voucher for a future engagement, and never a refund unless the theater itself warrants it.

For me, rear seats suck, and that is blanket for me, and I have NEVER liked them, never will, and that is my own personal feeling, perhaps I am too retarded to enjoy the back seat.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
I think public policy should be based on reasonable accomodation,not making sure handicapped people have to get exactly the same amount of prime access as non handicapped people regardless of the cost.

The problem here is what exactly is reasonable accommodations? How about bieng able to get in the door? How about bieng able to get around tight corners? How about bieng able to get to a seat, see the screen, hear the sound? Sounds reasonable. What, you think I am asking that you spend millions on my lame ass? Don't lump me in with whiny protestors, I am just a movie going nutbag that actually ENJOYS going to movies. I would just like to be able to ENJOY myself while there. I am after all paying a crapload for your nasty ass popcorn and watered down soft drinks.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen was the last to post
Attending a movie is not a necessities of life as such I question the requirements that force business's to provide services that are not profitable

I wholeheartedly disagree. Movies are part of a greater scheme of things known as the arts. To say that movies, music, concerts, museums, galleries, whatever, are not a necessity of life, what kind of life would this be? Why would anyone want to live a life where all it is, is go to work, pay your bills, and never leave your sheltered little life.

As for forcing business to accomodate every little thing, wheelchair accomodations are not that expensive for new construction, if it is properly planned and built as such, it should not impact the cost in any great way. If you are talking about lost seating that is rarely used, then advertise that you are in fact very hadicapped friendly and have the available good seating. Or better yet, understand that you can actually plan to put it in, in addition to the seating already planned, not take away from it. Good architechts may even know how to make that one work too, without adding to the cost of building or the cost of real estate. It can be done, thats all I would ask. I would never instist or even allow older buildings be changed to accomodate. Anything that would take from the bottom line to the point of bankruptcy or even loss of jobs, that would not be a good idea.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I've also heard about booths having to be equipped to allow the handicapped to be able to work there.

That's really going too far. There are jobs that the handicapped cannot do, and thier advocates should not push things so far as to truly hurt the issue at hand, and that is inexpensive and reasonable accomodation.

There is a larger issue here. I do not have to use my chair all the time, and quite often will refuse to use it if I feel I can survive without it. That does not mean I do not need it, and as time goes on, I can count on needing it as a necessity within a few years.

I abhorr that future, but I fear even worse an atmosphere where I the person in that chair am looked upon as a menace that should be avoided at all costs.

Years ago, in the fifties, my grandparents when traveling the country were not able to go into many places, such as hotels, restaraunts, and yes, even movie theaters. These places were whites only. Problem was, they were Italian, not black. But the racist pig southern redneck monkey jerks of the time (I am sure that the ones of this time are much nicer) didn't see the difference.

The attitudes are much the same. It will cost money to accomodate people like me. It will take away from other business. They get in the way of the normal people. Etc etc.

Blacks of the time, and even lets go back to the thirties and Nazi Germany, and bring in the jews. All they wanted was to be along for the ride. Instead, they were treated with misunderstanding, fear, and eventual hatred.

Handicapped people have always been looked upon as defective humans. I myself am guily of this. Perhaps this is my pennance. Either way, all I know is that I just want to be able to experience what others experience. I am not asking for a trip to the moon, only that I be allowed to view it like everyone else. Not too much to ask.

If a movie theater can be rethought and redesigned to include access by those that are unfortunately stuck in the chair, then great lets do it. By including those that are stuck along for the ride, we do more for humanity then getting pissed at those of us who just bitch and sue the piss out of business.

I have my favorite places to go, and I know there are places I cannot go or get to. I cannot go to the moon, and I cannot hike a mountain anymore. So what? Hardly anyone can go to the moon as it is, and it would be absurd to have wheelchair access on a hiking route.

So yeah, some of this stuff is absurd, and even pisses me off! But there is much of it that is warranted, even if it may cost a bit, or even if it pisses off a lot of people. we are all part of the same race here, and it is easy to forget one simple sentence once utterred by many a great peoples...

"There but for the grace of God go I..."

Ciao my bretheren of the holy chicken..

Dave [evil]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-08-2004, 08:37 AM:

The problem is that the ADA goes far beyond outlawing discrimination against the handicapped, it requires business to go out of their way to specifically cater to their needs. While I certainly agree that refusing admission to someone just because they are in a wheelchair is wrong and should be illegal, I disagree that private business owners should be required by law to cater to the needs of the handicapped. Movie theatres do not guarantee non-handicapped people the seat of their choice, why should the handicapped get special privilege? The ADA as it exists now is just plain wrong, and needs to be changed.

I have a great deal of respect for the daily struggle that many of the handicapped go though because as Dave pointed out, "there by the grace of God..." could go any of us. My problem is being forced (indirectly) to pay for infrastructure to make it easier for them to overcome their handicaps. Take for example Buses. We are being required to spend hundreds of millions of dollars making public buses wheelchair accessible for such a small percentage of riders. Transit companies will never recoup this cost with extra riders. In fact, they lose seating space (as do movie theatres). Yes, I know that by making buses wheelchair accessible a certain percentage of people who were on welfare will be able to go out and work, but I honestly believe those who want to work will find a way, and those who don't, won't, just as it is with the non-handicapped.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-08-2004, 09:18 AM:

I don't feel a business should be required to provide the prime most occupied seating location as the domain of the handicapped that sits unused a larger percentage of the time and represents a larger cost since more square footage is requried for the same financial return

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2004, 11:09 AM:

I wonder how IMAX theaters would deal with this issue. IMAX Dome style theaters would just have to be destroyed to comply with this ADA ruling. There's no way someone in a wheelchair would be able to sit close to the center of the seating area (near the projection port) in that kind of theater. But if he can't sit there, I suppose the lawyers feel like no one else should be able to do so either.

This reminds me of a lot of other fun things that have disappeared thanks to lawyers and lawsuits. You pretty much can't find a diving board anymore at public or commercial swimming pools. Diving boards are even a bad idea for private residence pools as well since they jack up insurance rates. All thanks to lawyers. The United States used to clean up in the Olympics diving competitions. Look for that to disappear real soon.

I support ADA, but only to a point. Some of the regulations actually force businesses to close. Small businesses already have too much to deal with these days, from rising worker's comp insurance rates to other unfunded mandates borne from overly complicated regulations. You practically have to have full time employees just to weed through the red tape of OSHA, EPA, DOT, etc. The rules and regs are fine, but the complication and forms and all sorts of other shit designed to keep lots of federal employees employed is pure bullshit. Some of the ADA stuff falls right along those lines.

Here's an example of how ridiculous the ADA stuff can be. Take signage. I'm getting cash out of a drive-thru ATM. The thing has braille on it! Blind people can't drive. And I'm sure they have sense enough not to go walking into a drive through banking traffic. But the braille is there to comply with the law.

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 07-08-2004, 01:44 PM:

Bobby,

At my bank, all of the ATM machines are identical, so I think it's a matter of simplicity .. only one type of machine needed for the whole place; they're all in compliance and, most of all, interchangeable with each other.

Of course, this is only one bank, and only my guess. I thought the braille on the drive-thru was odd at first, too. [Smile]

Ron Yost

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-08-2004, 02:36 PM:

Sometimes my family likes to use closed captions when watching a movie on television. Not that we are hearing-impaired, but sometimes it's useful to read the dialog that may be mumbled or overwhelmed by the sound mix.

I agree that if signs or ATM keyboards are being mass-produced for a market that includes the sight-impaired, having Braille on all the units is more efficient.

Bikers and in-line skaters enjoy curb cuts, as well as those in wheelchairs.