|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Deaf Moviegoes Sue Cinemark
|
Robert Crabtree
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: Largo, FL
Registered: May 2008
|
posted 12-04-2010 03:34 PM
According to this article , Cinemark is the defendant in a lawsuit over lack of captioning in its theaters.
If the article is correct that at the time of the suit, there were no captioned shows offered at a single location, then it would appear Cinemark has slapped together a "pilot program of appeasement". They now boast offering Devil and My Soul to Take with captions in a few locations.
On the one hand, I'm definitely appalled at such limited offerings for deaf patrons (2 out of date crappy horror flicks? SERIOUSLY?), and would think it simple good business sense to put such equipment in large/busy locations.
On the other...I don't believe ADA makes any stipulations about captioning. Lack of captioning doesn't constitute the same burden/safety hazard that early stadium builds posed for folks in wheelchairs, for instance. The suit originates from a heavily populated area in California, where there exist options for captioned shows.
Also, Cinemark is not alone in not providing captioning. A casual search of Carmike and Dickinson locations on their websites turned up no locations with captioned offerings. While RAVE lists that some locations have both "Hearing Impaired Technology" and assisted listening devices, I couldn't find evidence suggesting that these two amenities aren't one and the same, so I'd add them to that list as well.
My own position is that Cinemark is perfectly within its rights to drive deaf/HOH customers to other chains or Blockbuster, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the prospects of a ruling to require it (depending on how such a ruling is derived and articulated). But as deaf folk, and disabled folk in general, tend to be at the receiving end of policies of what I call "benign negligence", I can't say I'm not slightly pleased at a public airing of non-accommodation.
Anyone know anything differently, or have their own two cents to throw in?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-05-2010 09:58 PM
quote:
San Francisco Chronicle
Theater chain sued over lack of captioning
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Deaf and hard-of-hearing moviegoers filed suit in Alameda County Tuesday against Cinemark, the nation's third-largest theater chain, for refusing to install closed-captioning equipment that would let them read the dialogue in films they can't hear.
"We just want the opportunity to go to the movies with our friends and family like everybody else," Rick Rutherford of El Cerrito, a plaintiff in the proposed class-action suit, said in a statement released by his lawyers.
About 36 million Americans suffer some hearing loss, which increases with age, said lawyers from Disability Rights Advocates in Berkeley, citing a national study. They said captioning is essential for those who can't use hearing aids.
Installing devices that would allow patrons to read captions at any seat, without affecting other customers, would cost $10,000 per theater, the lawyers said.
Of the three largest theater chains, only Cinemark has refused to use closed-captioning equipment, said attorney Kevin Knestrick. He said the other two leading chains, Regal and AMC, provide limited captioning - often at off-peak hours and in only one theater per multiplex - and have been sued in other states, as has Cinemark.
Cinemark has nearly 300 theaters nationwide, including four in Alameda County - in San Leandro, Hayward, Newark and Union City.
Bullshit statistics -- Yes, 36 million suffer SOME hearing loss. Of those, only a fraction are so impaired that the amplified volume in the theatre environment doesn't compensate for that natural aging loss. And of THAT fraction, an even smaller fraction can be compensated by hearing-assist systems that provide headset receivers which use infrared or UHF transmission of the soundtrack, and of THAT fraction, an even SMALLER fraction have such severe hearing loss that they cannot use hearing aids at all -- those being the ones who would need captioned presentation of a movie.
So for that much smaller number of people, they want theatres to spend $10,000 per screen? And then there is the question of how does a theatre, which is not the producer of the content, provide captioning if the producer of the content doesn't supply it? Is the theatre owner supposed to hire a captioning company to translate the dialogue for every movie he runs in his theatre?
We had an infrared/headset system in our three theatres. In the first five years, we might have gotten less than half a dozen people requesting headsets. And our demographics are lots of older patrons in a large polulation (Brooklyn NY -- 2.5 million residence -- no small town). Then the system broke down in one theatre after another and we just never repaired or replaced them. No one since has requested headsets. We are in the process of putting in a UHF system (MUCH cheaper than infrared, btw & much more reliable), but the ADA Act, while I recognize the need, it has some outlandish and unreasonable requirements. For example the requirement for number of headsets that you are supposed to have on hand is a percentage of seats and is something like 10%, so in our 2500 house, it means we need to supply 250 headsets. For any given show, we have never EVER had requests from more than two patrons at any one time. Can you imagine having to have 250 units available to comply yet having such a much smaller demand? And that's for hearing impaired patrons -- it doesn't cover deaf people.
So on the off chance we get a deaf person who needs to READ the dialogue, we would also have to install a closed captioning system? And I will bet that for a 2500 seat house, that system is going to cost a lot more than the quoted $10,000 in the article.
So now I put in a $10,000 close caption system for that one person who may show up for one show every two or three years; what films are going to be supplied by the distributor with CC? And what about live shows? How do I close caption a show that is live? For THAT we would need to provide someone to sign -- would a theatre need to provide a professional signer to translate? Where does it end?
I have no problem requiring business to provide REASONABLE accommodations for the disabled, but at some point where it become simply impossible or such an enormous economic burden as to threaten a business financially, you have to say, you know what, maybe some handicaps cannot be overcome just by passing laws. After all, a handicap is just that -- a condition that limits what is possible.
Let's take it one step further -- how is a theatre supposed to accommodate the deaf-blind person? Should it be required to provide someone to sit next to that patron and do tactile signing? Sure it could be done, but is it reasonable? I guess that is what lawsuits will determine.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic