Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Stadium seating in danger?

This is topic Stadium seating in danger? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001500

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-28-2002, 01:49 PM:

From the Los Angeles Times Nov 28, 2002:

AMC Entertainment Inc., the giant movie theater chain, said Wednesday that it plans to appeal a recent federal court decision that its popular stadium-style seating violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Last week's ruling by U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper in Los Angeles stemmed from a 1999 lawsuit brought by the Justice Department. It broke a string of successful legal victories by the theater industry, which claims to have complied with the 12-year-old law by providing other, unobstructed views for moviegoers in wheelchairs.

In her decision Cooper said wheelchair users are segregated into separate areas, usually close to the screen, that are inferior for movie viewing. The judge concluded that AMC theaters violated the disabilities act by failing to "provide lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public."

"It's a great victory for common sense," said Larry Paradis, executive director of Disability Rights Advocates in Oakland.

AMC's offices in Kansas City, Mo., closed early on Wednesday and executives could not be reached for comment.

But AMC said in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier in the day that it planned to appeal Cooper's decision.

AMC noted in the filing that other courts had approved the kind of seating AMC provides for the disabled, and added that Cooper's ruling does not suggest any specific remedies.

As a result, AMC said, it was impossible to know the effect the ruling could have on both the company and on the movie exhibition business as a whole. Industry experts said, however, that the judge's decision could force theater owners to revamp their seating plans, potentially costing them millions of dollars.

Stadium seating is a relatively new innovation that gives moviegoers a clear view of the screen without having to look past the head of the person in front of them. Rows of seats rise sharply on tiered levels, in contrast to the gently sloping seating that theaters traditionally have offered.

AMC first installed stadium seating in Dallas in 1995, court papers show. It since has made stadium seating a key part of its marketing, advertising that seats "virtually suspend the moviegoer in front of the wall-to-wall screen" and that all seats are "the best in the house."

Because stadium seating is accessible by stairs, theaters usually set aside an area below for those in wheelchairs.

Law professor Mark Kelman of Stanford University said that Cooper's decision was significant because it questioned the notion that the disabled should sit in another area away from most others to watch a movie. The disabilities act was intended to break down those barriers.

"It's not about how much worse the line of sight is, but about segregation," Kelman said

Law professor Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University in Washington said providing more equal seating is a reasonable request for theaters.

"If I really care about getting a good seat in a theater, I have the power to get there early and get a good seat," said Feldblum, who helped write the disabilities act. "But if I use a wheelchair, I can never have the access those who don't use wheelchairs have."

AMC shares were unchanged Wednesday at $9.70 on the American Stock Exchange.

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 11-28-2002, 02:24 PM:

Stuff like that pisses me off, I do understand their point though. At a Regal theatre I went to, they had an Elevator installed that went to the middle and top via hallways.

No matter what kind of theatre, anyone in a wheelchair will always have to sit in the designated area, where ever the cuttout is.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-28-2002, 03:12 PM:

The problem for exhibitors is more a matter of how the ADA laws are structured. Without commenting on how AMC designs their auditoriums (I've never been in one they've built themselves), it seems this is an example of how a situation looks to an individual. It could be that the plaintif is opportunistic, with a good lawyer... or it could be more genuine. In the end, what makes good seating for you may not be the same for me.

"Reasonable accommodations" means very little, because you can't define it. In the case of seating, what makes a good vantage point for you may be unacceptable for me. A mobile person will have the option to adjust his position, whereby one in a wheelchair may not. The example of having an elevator in the auditorium is interesting, but I doubt there are many around. The Seattle Cinerama is the only one I'm aware of, and that's just to get you to the balcony. In any case, the corporate definition of "reasonable" will never match that of the consumer... especially where capital expenditure is involved.

Until laws are passed that set definitive standards (whose?), the ADA will be a magnet somewhere for the interpretive, abusive, frivolous and/or opportunistic lawsuit. Until all theatres are built from an "ADA approved" set of scalable blueprints, there'll be plenty of potential targets.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-28-2002, 06:45 PM:

As Daniel says, if taken to extreme this would require every single seat to be removable just in case a wheelchair person wants to sit there and giant aisles so reach each spot. And that's even besides the stadium tiering issue. Can a handicapped person demand to sit absolutely anywhere they wish, even in a sloped floor venue? Most reasonable people would say no. Obviously this is impossible nor is ripping out thousands of stadium seating theatres. But they may have to come up with a way of including some seating in more average positions rather than just at the very top or very bottom. Maybe new builds will need to be mid loaders.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-28-2002, 07:07 PM:

At Cinemark 17 in Springfield OR, opened in 1999, each stadium-style auditorium has ample wheelchair space about 1/3 back from the screen. These areas are actually very well-located and easily-accessible. I don't see how anyone could complain about them unless they're just looking for something to complain about.

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 11-28-2002, 07:09 PM:

This was one of those Catch 22 situations with us as well , when there is any major alterations made to a Cinema , you need to comply with the New Regulations on Wheel chair access to the building and that may reqyuire installing Lifts etc , but when looking at the Fire Codes , it says that there are to be No Wheel Chairs or Push Chairs in the Audtoriums and that Disabled Persons should be Seated and carried out in the event of a Fire , Which makes sense as a Wheeled person would hamper or endanger others as they quickly (Some running)attempt to vacate the Area. [Confused]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2002, 01:56 AM:

My heart goes out to those who are disabled, and I believe we should not ignore them and try to do our best to make sure that they get a good show. But people need to realize that the world does not revolve around disabled people or anyone else, for that matter. There is no way that they can all be pleased 100% of the time. And initiatives like this are ridiculous even though they are well intentioned on the surface.

I can't wait until the blind start suing movie theaters.

Posted by John Moriarty (Member # 1153) on 11-29-2002, 03:39 AM:

Joe said

quote:
I can't wait until the blind start suing movie theaters.

Wait till the deaf get in on the act aswell.

John

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-29-2002, 03:43 AM:

What about the blind and deaf? There goes descriptive audio and closed captioning.

More on topic... does AMC force people in wheelchairs to 'park-it' in the wheelchair designated area or do they allow people to 'park' their wheelchair in the center of a row in front of an empty seat?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-29-2002, 07:29 AM:

For what it's worth, the vast majority of the wheelchair seating (possibly all?) that I have seen is far too close to the screen for optimal viewing. Yeah, it's not like you're sitting 2 feet in front of the screen with a crick neck, but it's far less than 2 screen heights and I would never sit that close to the screen by choice, unless the room was already crowded.

So perhaps the point is that "If a disabled person is the first one into the room, they should have the option to get a seat comparable to what the first non-disabled person in the room will get."

Of course, I don't know how you structure that. It seems a monumental task. Short of wheelchair lifts around the room, perhaps the best you can do is ensure that the entry level to the auditorium is around 2 screen heights, and people wanting to sit closer have to walk down steps, rather than the usual which seems to be entry level being around 1/2 screen height.

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 11-29-2002, 11:25 AM:

Someone answer me this... Since the term Stadium Seating is obviously used because the seating structure is similar to that say a Football stadium. This begs the question, how is it that actual football, baseball, or any other kind of stadium enviroment isn't subject to this kind of lawsuit? I would think that a judgement against movie theaters would affect them also. It is just a fact of life that there are going to be handicap sections at a lot of public events. It is not discriminatory it is just practial as cold hearted at that sounds.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-29-2002, 11:32 AM:

I don't think that there are Engineering Guidlines for sports stadiums that outline best viewing areas, etc. Unfortunately there are for movie theatres and the ADA is representing the EG's as standards, which they are not.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-29-2002, 11:33 AM:

I suspect the example I cited has the wheelchair spots [entry level] located at ~1.5 x screen height. They may be closer than the theoretical ideal, but they're hardly "front row". I'll pay more attention to that on my next visit (now I'm curious).

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-29-2002, 02:39 PM:

A little off topic...

The other day while doing a walk through, I noticed an empty wheel chair parked in the aisle, and a person actually seated in the theater seat next to it. The theater was only about 1/4 full, so I didn't consider it a big deal.

About 15 minutes later, I looked out the booth window and saw the wheel chair was all the way down in the front row by itself. I'm not sure how it got there, but can you imagine how freaky it would be to be sitting in The Ring (which is what it was) and having an empty wheel chair roll past you down the aisle???? Wow. I think after seeing that it would be time to go! [Eek!]

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 11-29-2002, 03:52 PM:

Decisions like this are crap...... At the end of the day with all due respect... the disabled are just that... disabled. Abled bodied people should not lose out because of what is after all a minority.
I fully support the fact that everyone should have access to a cinema and that some concessions have to be made to accomodate as required. But things like this threaten the very heart of modern living and design.

We have similar stupidity in the UK, so what do we do in the future. Build flat floor auditoriums for the benefit of maybe seven visitors per screen each year. Many disabled people object to the 'special' status they have had forced on them by the well intentioned. We already make great efforts to provide induction loops, or infared system. There are a few subtitled prints around and some using the DTS system. All of these systems cost the theatre considerable sums of money for NO measurable return.

Political correctness is in control except there seems to be no one at the helm and the good ship common sense is adrift.

But then we no longer have problems in this politically correct age... we have challenges. We no longer have half empty glasses because they are all half full! We print every offical document in a number of languages... all of this at great cost with total disreguard for common sense. Whatever happened to the saying 'When in Rome do as the Romans do'... learn to speak and read the language of your 'chosen' country.

I recall one show where there was a signer who decided he needed to be just below the screen and well lit so he could be seen clearly. The fact that this ruined the film for 99.99999999% (you get the idea) of the audience was imaterial.

So lets dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. Here's my spec for the politically correct cinema....

Mono sound so that the whole audience is given the same sound as those that have a hearing disability.

Black & white so the audience has empathy with the colour blind.

Lets forget about Wide Screen for fear that the tunnel blind should miss anything.

We'll throw in 3D, just to be safe.... oh let's take IMAX with it... because we can [Smile]

Now lets cut the length of films so the incontinent don't miss anything.

Have a staff ratio of one to one so in the event of an emergency everyone can be individually escorted from the building.

The list of stupid item's could go on and on..... but if you follow the 'logic' its all the same. Eveyone should have equal service or availability of facilities. As this is clearly impractical most of the time dumb it all down.

Now I'm sure I'll be accused of everything from being in league with the devil to being racist to being any 'ist' you can imagin. But society really needs to stand back and look at what is happening.

I have no problem with a truly open society where everyone has an equal chance.... but NOT at the expense of everything we are entitled to and have come to expect from modern life.

We have wheel chair access at the front and back of our auditoriums. A lift gives access to the upper landing and the bar and cinema entrances, with disbaled toilet facilities on each level. We are happy to give access at street level if required, all we ask is they advise us when tickets are booked or collected at the cash desk. Yes.. that unfortunatly makes those patrons 'special' but is it discriminatory?

I do not advocate that special facilities should be proportioned to the expected return, because if that were the case there would be no disabled facilities available anywhere. All I ask is that common sense be applied.... but then the fact that its 'common' suddenly means it should not be applied with common sense!

Oh dear I'm sure I'll burn in hell for all of this.... Time for a large G&T!

My new email address is...

KenMcFall@burning_in_hell.co.uk ... watch out for the .com branch opening soon!!

see some, most, of you there [Big Grin]

One more thing I should add... in case someone out there objects to this being posted... These are my own opinions, and I submit them for presentation as such. That should upset the 'You can't have an opinion' brigade as well!!

All I can expect from writing this down is to become an 'outcast'.... when in fact many would totally agree with me but then being part of a majority is no longer acceptable is it?

Regards

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2002, 08:20 PM:

Back at UA Greenwood, there was a time when they brought up a person in a wheelchair to try to show that they could thread projectors and we could not refuse employment to a potential projectionist just because they were in a wheelchair. Or something like that. Ian could tell the story better since I think he was there. But from what I hear it did not work out very well at all.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-29-2002, 08:32 PM:

...now just thread the top of the tree...

...now move that print off the top deck...

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-29-2002, 08:47 PM:

They would say you need to make reasonable accomodations for handicapped employees. The correct response would be to say that we run theatres; we do not design booth equipment. When manufacturers introduce machinery that a disabled person could operate we will be happy to consider it.

I think a disabled person would be hard pressed to work concessions as well but they could work the box or tear tickets and direct people towards the right screen. In many theatres these positions interchange with concessions, checking auditoria, and cleaning between shows. Reasonable accomodation would be that a disabled person would only be assigned to those tasks they can manage.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-29-2002, 09:37 PM:

I never liked stadium seating. As it pertains to American movies, the audience should always be below the vertical centreline of the screen. This is because the camera is most often tilted in a slightly upward-looking direction. There is a strong link between the camera and the viewer -- the first captures what the other sees. The link should be maintained. It is a very awkward experience to be looking down at a screen (or straight at it) when the image is mostly an upward-looking one.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-29-2002, 10:30 PM:

I've seen a Regal where only the largest auditoriums had handicapped seating available in the middle of the auditorium. (Stadium seating) All the rest had them in the last row before the steps began, in some cases, being the ONLY row before the steps began, about one screen height back. I think they (Regal) were sued at one point as well.

=TMP=

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-30-2002, 12:25 AM:

Well, this "reasonable" thing gets out of hand whenever the radicals find a sympathetic judge.

I'm still waiting to see a paraplegic power company lineman or airline pilot... you'll probably never hear of a deaf/mute talk show host (certainly not as a backup for Jerry Springer), and I know that none of our local school districts has a bus equipped to accommodate a driver with any kind of disability... but we'll probably see lawsuits over these kinds of things someday.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 11-30-2002, 03:47 AM:

I've got to be careful what I say now... but one of my projectionists is disabled. I employed him because he was the best person to do the job out of the applicants. The only concession I made was the fitting of an additional two lens turrets as I felt there was a risk of a lens being dropped as he had to change them single handed.

He is as capable, if not more so, than many I've worked with over the years and does not like being treated as a 'special' case.

The only other concession I make is that he's not allowed to climb ladders under any circumstances but he'd be up there if he was allowed....

Many of his 'limitations' are in fact put there by the able bodied and we have to make the adjustment in many cases. We run single manning with four screens single box, his last cinema was single manning in six screens with four boxes! Employing him was certainly a good days work.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2002, 08:15 AM:

A two lens turret is ok I guess...If that is all the lenses you have. Most of my installations have 4 or 5 lenses...

I have no problem with reasonable accommodations but I do have a problem with a legal system that puts such language into law.

As far as looking up versus looking down...humans are designed to look down more than up. You get a line of sight about 30 degrees up versus 40 degrees down with an optimal viewing from the horizon to 30 degrees down.

From a comfort standpoint, screens should not be above your head. Now as to preferences...well those are preferences so to each their own.

When I design theatres and place the screen, I take into account the visibility and the comfort of the audience. This is true for either the sloped-floor or the stadium-seating designs.

An excellent documet to look at is SMPTE's EG-18 "Desgin of Effective Cine Theatres" Whilst it isn't a standard, those that follow it when designing theatres have the fewest customer complaints!

Steve

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-30-2002, 09:29 AM:

Well, I think that much of the problem stems from the fact that a lot of this stuff is not codified at all. You only find out something is illegal after being on the losing end of a suit. Not that there is ever much of a winning end, given legal costs.

I don't know if it's ADA or other similarly inspired building codes that now requires insulation on all exposed pipes under a washroom sink. I can understand on the hot pipe...hypothetically a person lacking feeling in their legs rolls up to and under the sink and can burn themselves without knowing it. But the cold? Is it even possible to be injured by that? And it would take a good run of very hot water down the drain to make that one hot.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 11-30-2002, 11:02 AM:

Steve as ever its all down to available cash to spend.

I would have prefered a three lens turret but the cost put them out of reach. We have three lens turrets in two of the screens.

However, as we no longer have additional lenses its not really a problem, they were taken away for use elsewhere. As we are 99% main stream the problem seldom rears its head.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-30-2002, 02:38 PM:

In most of the stadium theatres in NYC, one enters the screen between the rear stadium area and the front standard seating. Usually, there are a fair number of empty positions in the last row of the standard seating, which are designed for wheelchairs. The seats next to the empty positions are designated for those who accompany those in wheelchairs.

While these particular seats tend to be a bit closer than I personally would like for myself, they are certainly not the front row. In the theatres I've been in, they are usually around the tenth row and should be perfectly acceptible. There are always plenty of people who choose to sit in front of that row.

I think the court ruling is ridiculous unless it pertains to theatres that have not been designed as described above. In NYC, there was a big battle a few years ago because disabled advocates wanted more seats in each theatre for the disabled than theatres were willing to provide. Yet, I have never, even at a sold-out show, seen those seats completely filled.

Most toilets in public office buildings and other facilities contain several regular stalls and one enlarged stall to accomodate a wheelchair. As long as there is some seating for the disabled and the seating is reasonably placed, I don't see what the problem is.

My personal feeling is that when there is new construction or major renovations to an existing public facility, elevators and ramps should be included to accommodate the disabled. But I think it is ludicrous to even consider eliminating stadium seating simply because the disabled can't easily get to every single seat. But I don't think this will happen in any case. These things always have a way of working themselves out.

Concerning employing the disabled, I think accommodations should be made within reason. But just as there is no way a quadriplegic could operate machinery, someone who is confined to a wheelchair just might not be able to operate a projector, although they could possibly prepare or breakdown films if they have full use of their arms. I was at a Home Depot last night and noticed a 'little person' working there. He was climbing the ladders and stocking the store with items just like every other employee was doing. I don't know if they made any special accommodations for him, but he seemed able to do the job. I realize that being 'little' is not a disability, but they do share some similar limitations.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 11-30-2002, 03:38 PM:

Just returned from a screening at the ParkWay Pointe (AMC) Atlanta.
One box office position has just been reduced to wheelchair height. A young man in a wheelchair was working there today.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-30-2002, 09:30 PM:

Visited the Cinemark I referenced earlier in this thread ("Solaris"). Screen in this house is 36' fixed width, with movable top masking. Looks like in scope, the wheelchair area is about 1 screen height back, maybe slightly more. In flat, the top of the screen would be a few feet higher, and the wheelchair area would be less desirable.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-01-2002, 01:37 AM:

Years ago, I knew a manager/operator for Carmike down in Oklahoma who only had one arm and one leg. This man could literally do anything anybody else could in the booth, he impressed me to no end. It was amazing to watch him thread up (a Norelco platter, at that)! He was faster than most people, too, and would always be in-frame. (Yes, he moved prints, too!!)

What a guy! He had a great, positive outlook on life that was contagious. I sure would like to know where he is today.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 12-01-2002, 05:33 PM:

I'm glad that the disabled have so few problems that they consider their line of sight at the movies to be a major issue. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-02-2002, 02:57 AM:

Maybe, if we remove handicapped access at voter booths, then these fanatics would not have so much power with politicians and judges.

Seriously, I am all in favor of reasonable accomodations, but when you consider the money it costs to make these guys happy, the goverment is better of shutting up these people by giving them tax subsidies on home theater equipment. I have seen handicapped seating at the back of non stadium seating auditoriums and in the back of the non stadium section of stadium seating adutortiums. I see nothing unreasonable about that. If we start going into optimal seating, then do we have to waste too much space making the middle rows handicapped access.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-02-2002, 11:26 PM:

The Carmike dollar house in Billings, MT has a cashier who is blind. He has a reader device which "speaks" the denominations of the bills handed to him.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-30-2002, 09:16 PM:

My comments are going to come off wrong, so bear with me...

There has been some rather heavy handed comments, probably made in jest, towards the disabled in general, made in this thread.

One in particular, "I'm glad that the disabled have so few problems that they consider their line of sight at the movies to be a major issue." really spoke serious words to me.

Anyone in the theater industry that doesn't consider "line of sight" to be a major issue for anyone really should just get out of the business.

I am not talking just about the disabled, but presenting movies in general. If you aren't concerned about line of sight, you probably don't give a rats ass about presentation either. So in that case, why the hell do you want to work for a theater for anyway?

I am sure the comment was pretty much a joke, and haha, I can take one as much as the next guy, but it really speaks mountains about how people feel regarding this issue. There are some noisy apples out there, but they do not speak for ALL the disabled.

I for one may have been the jokester as early as last year, even having been on the opposing side, against the disabled. I always felt used by the few opportunists. Hey that isn't limited to the disabled, but to any group of people. Just because the aryan nation is out there making noise, doesn't mean that the rest of us white people are all nazi racist bastards.

Not bieng a white guy (italian), I really can't speak for the rest of you white guys, so tell me, are you all nazi's, because there are SOME nazi's?

Now however I find myself "wheeling" in to a theater instead of walking, as I permantly lost the use of my left foot seven months ago. With an additional arthritic condition in my wrists, I can only crutch my way about 200 feet. So i get to use the good ol wheelchair instead.

Remember that most people in wheelchairs did not "opt" for this lifestyle. And also remember that not all of us are out there making a stink of it either. You don't have to look at me and think to yourself that I am trying to ruin your life or anything by continuing to breath.

I used to be harsh too. But to walk, or in this case wheel, a mile in a mans shoes, is to understand the man.

With that said, I do not advocate these lawsuits. I have found the wheelchair seating to be more than adequate. And if I feel the need, I will leave my chair folded up and out of the way so I can hop my way to a good seat, however not all wheeled people may have that choice.

If there is a theater that doesn't accomodate you, then go to another theater! REALLY DAMN EASY!!!!

There are some theaters I cannot go to, but most I can. If there were none that met my needs, hey, should I make everyone suffer for me? Of course not. Most people accomodate the greater need, and only the spoken few make all this silly noise.

So take heart that I am not angry with anything said, hell, I agree with it! Just remember that if you put on a good show, MOST people will make thier OWN accomodations to get there and seated. If you put on a crappy show, well then may whatever god you believe in be with you, because no one else will.

Dave

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 12-31-2002, 02:05 AM:

My theater has stadium seating where you walk into it from the top. This makes many of our handicap customers happy because they are not forced to sit right in front of the screen. I know many of them actually prefer our theater because it makes it easier for them. Then again, the bad side is many senior citizens have a hard time walking down the stairs and because they can't see well enough from the back they very often try to make it down the stairs, far too many times this has caused accidents. There are plus's and minus's to any situation.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-31-2002, 11:00 AM:

As I get older (I am a card-carrying member of the AARP: http://www.aarp.org/ [Wink]

), I sometimes find stadium seating difficult, mostly because of having to negotiate steps in the dark. IMHO, a well designed conventional sloped floor theatre can offer almost all the "advantages" of stadium seating. Comfortable modern seats with cupholders, lots of legroom, and good sightlines, are not exclusive to stadium seating designs. [Cool]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-31-2002, 11:07 AM:

Regal should pull some of the seats out of their largest house here (currently 480 seats), maybe about 20% of them, and reconfigure the remaining seats with more room between the rows and also with the seats staggered so they aren't directly behind each other. I know a lot of people here who refuse to go there because of the tight seating and the possibility of having to look over someome else's head. What sucks is their presentation is usually the best in the area but everyone prefers stadium seating so they go to Cinemark.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-31-2002, 12:11 PM:

While I wholeheartedly believe that theaters should be forced to provide adequate seating for the wheelchair handicapped, I agree with you Dave that there does come a point to where the theaters are taking reasonable care of the disabled, but not losing their minds over it. I have tarsal coalition in my right foot and it is very painful for me to walk on sloped floors or uneven surfaces (like a bricked sidewalk), yet even though I could, I'm not about to fire up lawsuits just because there are ramps all throughout every theater in the world. Of course many stadium seating theaters are even worse than sloped floors, as the aisle lighting on the edge of each step protrudes so high (1/2 inch or more) that going up or down those stairs becomes an issue too.

I wish theaters would split the difference and install 6-8 inch "stadium seating", instead of this 12-18 inch nonsense. Properly designed, 6 inches is perfect for sightlines, acoustics and safety.

(Then again, the next time I get a bad presentation somewhere perhaps I should sue...to help put that bad theater out of business. [Wink]

)

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-31-2002, 12:20 PM:

quote:
What sucks is their presentation is usually the best in the area but everyone prefers stadium seating so they go to Cinemark.

Yes, and that's the attitude that seems prevalent in audiences today. There's a HORRIBLE stadium theatre in Bakersfield that draws the LARGEST crowds. The auditoriums do look nice, and the seating is comfortable. But more than half of their "digital" presentations play back in very bad analog (staff too lazy or uncaring to thread the digital readers), filthy booth windows are so bad that even patterns of dirt are clearly noticed (by me, at least). And constant complaints do NOTHING. I don't even get responses when writing to corporate headquarters in L.A. And yet when I voiuce these objections to co-workers, they always look at me funny, and say they don't go for those reasons.

I should add the ONLY reason I'll go there is that they occasionally book films that aren't shown locally elsewhere (Frida, El Crimen Del padre Amaro).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-31-2002, 12:52 PM:

What a well desinged stadium seating theatre offers over a well-designed sloped floor theatre is the lack of real estate to purchase...the theatre can be shorter and provide good sight lines...with a well designed sloped floor...the seatback-to-seaback distance, while comfortable, would drive most exhibitors crazy with the size of the auditorium.

If exhibitors and architects would follow SMPTE's EG-18 they would have good sightlines for everyone.

Steve

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-31-2002, 01:00 PM:

Not on-topic, but I guess I should clarify: Cinemark's presentation quality here is generally pretty good, sometimes excellent. My main complaint with them is most of their auditoriums seem poorly EQ'd. If they would do something about that, then I'd have no complaints about them in general. I'm a stickler for good, clean, "punchy" sound, and they don't have it. Regal kicks their ass in the sound dept. in this neck of the Oregon woods.

"Call me Dave"

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-31-2002, 01:16 PM:

My mother has very bad eyes when it comes to seeing in the dark. She had a detatched retina (in both eyes, one only partially) a few years ago and she can't stand stadium seating. When looking up the stairs of an auditorium whose lights are anything less than full-up, the aisle lighting along the steps looks to her like straight horizontal lines on a flat floor. Makes you think about aging when you have to help you mom up the stairs... [Frown]

Sloped-floor theaters are better for her as the lights are only along the sides. She can see where the aisle ends and the seating begins, and doesn't have to worry about all of the "surprises" with stadium seating like some steps being longer than others. She also has to sit a ways back from the screen and really dreads the trek up and down the stairs.

So far, she hasn't sued anyone. [Smile]

It's true that there are some noisy apples out there. We get people all the time at our box office wanting half-price or free passes because they are blind/deaf/broken arm/grey hair/etc. and threaten us with the ADA. I wish for one minute I could slip out of uniform and get a hardbound copy of the ADA laws to throw at them.

quote:
Not bieng a white guy (italian), I really can't speak for the rest of you white guys, so tell me, are you all nazi's, because there are SOME nazi's?

David has a point there. Not being a white guy myself, (Polish & Ukranian) I also can't speak for everyone, but no I am not a Nazi. Is anyone out there who's not a nationality other than "a white guy" that can clarify this? [Wink]

=TMP=

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 01-02-2003, 03:08 PM:

Rachel could be describing the Sunshine Cinemas in lower Manhattan. Halls 2 and 3 have stadium seating that you enter from the top row. If you trip and fall you can easily break your neck.

It doesn't help that you have to walk up steep stairs or take an elevator to get to your hall. Whoever designed the Sunshine Cinema didn't include an escalator -- and every other stadium theater in Manhattan utilizes escalators.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 01-03-2003, 12:43 PM:

My theater fortunately has very large stairs with adequate signs to explain that it is stadium seating. Also luckily, you do not have to walk up-stairs and then back down-stairs. The lobby and hallways to the theater are all the same level; it is only the theaters that slope downwards. There are good and bad points in the design as I said in the last post, just depends on the person who is visiting the theater, everyone likes different things.

Personally, I prefer a good slope-seating auditorium any day (we have those too!). It drives me crazy when people come into the theater and ask if certain movies are in the “regular” auditoriums or the “stadium auditoriums” and they base their movie decision on which movie is in the stadium theater… grrrr. Just a pet peeve I guess.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-03-2003, 02:13 PM:

I also prefer raked floor seating to stadium seating.

I really get bothered went they tilt the top of the screen toward the rear wall. I usually end up walking out of these theatres. Some of the older theatres with the raked floor about 20 to 25 rows in front of the crossover, then behind the crossover is a smaller stadium section of about 10 to 15 rows. These were ideal. Not too many of these left.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-14-2003, 12:20 PM:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court made a ruling on Wednesday Aug. 8th 2003. Saying wheelchair viewers need better seating.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/08/13/state2041EDT0195.DTL&type=health

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 08-14-2003, 01:01 PM:

My theatre is a pretty nice place, except for the fact that each auditorium, except for number 3, have centre aisles.

Cinemas 1 and 2 have a centre aisle, and two side aisles against the walls down towards the screen. Cinema 3 simply has two outside aisles.

For an all-art house, we are also fairly large.. We have about 1000 seats over 3 screens.. 1@ 425 approx., 2@ 325 approx., 3@ 250 approx.

The theatre is on the third floor of the Portage Place Shopping Centre... use to be a Famous Players, Opened in 1987 and is completely wheelchair accessible. We have staggered seating.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-14-2003, 01:29 PM:

Reading the ruling, it's hard to tell the exact circumstance that triggered the suit. If it's the case that all wheelchair seating in those theaters was ONLY in the front row, than I have some sympathy.

But I think ruling on the basis of the viewing angle (as opposed to being too close to the screen) is somewhat absurd.

Most stadium theaters in Manhattan have a sloped area and a stadium area behind it. You usually enter the theater in an aisle between those two areas. The wheelchair spaces are generally in the back row of the sloped area. I think that works quite well, although I think I have only seen a wheelchair in a theater once.

I've also read that disabled groups want the disabled to have access to the stadium seating area. I think that's absurd as well.

What's done in sports arenas regarding disabled seating? Aside from seating in the back row of any level along the mezzanine and the fact that most sports arenas use ramps instead of steps to each level, I don't think I've ever noticed any other accommodation.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-17-2003, 06:11 PM:

From the U.S. Department of Justice:

quote:
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES CONSENT DECREE WITH AMC ENTERTAINMENT INC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2003
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department today announced that it has filed a consent decree regarding alleged disability rights violations by AMC Entertainment Inc. and AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. (collectively known as AMC).

The consent decree, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and which still needs court approval, resolves matters regarding inaccessible restrooms, entrances and exits to theaters, parking facilities, counters, as well as other barriers to accessibility for persons with disabilities in AMC stadium-style movie theaters.

This agreement is another step forward in President Bushâ€™s New Freedom Initiative, a comprehensive program to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, and promoting increased access into daily community life.

â€œThis agreement will bring more people into theaters, and is a positive step for both AMC and its customers,â€ said R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Departmentâ€™s Civil Rights Division. â€œI commend AMC for cooperating with the Department and taking steps to make their facilities more accessible.â€

Under the terms of the consent decree, AMC will fix the twelve stadium-style theaters surveyed by the Justice Department. AMC has also agreed to survey and make similar improvements in over eighty additional stadium-style movie theaters across the country. These modifications include providing accessible wheelchair seating locations with the proper number and configuration of companion seats, providing the requisite accessible restroom stalls and other restrooms features, making routes into and within the auditoriums accessible to those who use wheelchairs, adding accessible parking, purchasing a sufficient number of assistive listening devices for people who are hard of hearing, adding proper signage, as well as making corrections to many other aspects of the theaters.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will further decide on the issue of remedies related to AMCâ€™s failure to provide lines of sight from wheelchair seating in stadium-style movie theaters that are comparable to those offered to the general public. Litigation about remedies for failure to provide comparable lines of sight for wheelchair locations at AMC stadium-style theaters remains stayed pending resolution of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a related case.

The Justice Department began a nationwide investigation of AMCâ€™s stadium-style theaters in November 1996 after receiving complaints from persons with disabilities who were denied access to seats in several theaters.

Individuals interested in finding out more about the ADA or the agreement can call the Justice Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 or (800) 514-0383 (TDD), or access its ADA website at www.ada.gov.