Yes, you are reading that correctly (I removed the IP address for their protection), that IP address traces back to the corporate headquarters of Regal Entertainment Group in Knoxville, TN.  otherwise known to the general public as Regal Cinemas.  I double checked the physical address against the company's website, and they match.  The wording of the poster makes them sound as if they are just some poor cinema owner for whom this legislation would cause much sorrow and woe and I'm just wrong for proposing such "innappropriate" legislation, when in reality, it appears as if it is someone at the corporate headquarters of one of the (if not THE) largest cinema operators in the United States.  I say "appears" because so many things can be done with a computer.  However, having that little piece of information put that poster in a whole new light to me, so I am writing this blog piece to directly refute a couple of points of misinformation in their post.  First, to save you the trouble of searching for the post, here it is again in it's entirety:

"As a parent of a deaf child as well as a member of the exhibition industry, I have to say this legislation is well intended, but innapropriate.

First off, as you state, the studios are not legally required to provide captioned movies. You are incorrect when you state that they do so now and the only problem is the theatres do not buy the equipment to show them. It is true that over the last five years the top five studios (based on revenue not film product) have made the majority of their product available with captions. However, the majority is not all and the top five do not account for the majority of films released annually. Most independant studios do not provide captions with their product. This legislation tries to force theatres to show a set amount of captioned movies for a minumum number of show times. So what happens when there is an insufficient number of captioned films available to meet the legally required minimum? Now we creat another litigation mill for attornies? is that the point of the legislation? No, of course not, however, that is what will come of this and instead of spending money to create more access, theatre companies spend more money defending rediculous and costly law suits.

Moreover, most deaf advocates state that by providing captioned movies theatre companies can actually increase revenues by tapping this new audience. The facts do not support this argument at all. In fact, most companies that show captioned movies now actually lose revenue during every such show time. The majority of the hearing public do not like captions and will not attend them. Thus more seats are vacant during captioned shows, whether it is open captioned or rear window. My Company has both and our data reflects that we have a 75% reduction in attendance during captioned show times.

Moreover, the current captioning technology, rear window and DTS open captions, are very costly and do not provide any opportunity for a theatre company to obtain a break even point on their investments. In addition, the industry is trying to convert to digital projectors, which currently do not support the rear window or DTS systems. Compelling purchase of these devices now, to meet some arbitrary legislated mandate, is both burdensome and a waste of resources.

Moreover, most deaf individuals do not like the rear window device, so why force companies to buy it? The DTS device provides open captions but many time the captions fade into the picture and you miss substantial portions of the dialogue.

A better solution is needed and it must work with digital cinema. Theatre Companies are working diligently with third parties to come up with a solution but due to the limited demand, it is difficult to maintain interest in the available manufacturers of potential devices. We need a personal captioning device that is easy to use, durable and affordable for theatre chains. It does not exist today and creating legislation to mandate such availability will not create it.

This is just another set of feel good legislation intended to provide good press for politicians. The net effect of such passage at this time is to create litigation and fill the coffers of the Plaintiffs Bar!"

Okay, where to start? 

1)  This poster alleges that "Moreover, most deaf advocates state that by providing captioned movies theatre companies can actually increase revenues by tapping this new audience. The facts do not support this argument at all. In fact, most companies that show captioned movies now actually lose revenue during every such show time"  My question is this....WHERE ARE THE STUDIES THAT BACK THIS UP?  WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE?  I have heard untold numbers of stories of low attendance at captioned movies and every single time, the number one issue is THE MOVIES WERE NOT ADVERTISED AS CAPTIONED IN ADVANCE, closely followed by "when I try to call, the automated system does not say if it is captioned or not", and then the last major complaint is always something technical such as "the captions weren't working, etc".  Now, in one of the two major newspapers in the state of Kentucky, the Lexington Herald Leader, there have recently been two letters to the editors complaining of technical difficulties and/or movies times advertised were incorrect.  The cinema complained about?  REGAL CINEMAS 16 in Lexington, Ky.  Additionally, the old bugaboo of captioned movies is always raised "inconvenient show times in off peak hours or on school nights".  Basically, a lot of deaf people have a problem with having a 10:00 in the morning, or 12:00 midnight showtime, and I DO TOO.  Therein lies the second problem I have with this statement: if they are showing these movies at off peak hours, in which there is not normally a big crowd anyway, how are they losing money?  Solution:  Work together with local deaf chapters, hard of hearing chapters, and the state commissions on the deaf and hard of hearing to get out a schedule IN ADVANCE, via email blasts, etc., in addition to the normal usage of newspaper advertising.  And MAKE SURE THE EQUIPMENT WORKS.

2)  This poster alleges that " Moreover, the current captioning technology, rear window and DTS open captions, are very costly and do not provide any opportunity for a theatre company to obtain a break even point on their investments".  By all accounts that I have seen in researching this, $30,000 per screen for a RWC captioning system is the most expensive (and recent) breakdown I have seen.  And that is due to the large number of accessories that must be provided for the RWC (reflective panels on goosenecks, cupholder adapters, and the like).  I have seen a link online for the DTS-CSS system that was published in England, and that showed the system to have cost 7000 pounds, which converts to $10,440.90 in US dollars.  As I understand the set up, the projector and a digital player for the caption CD-ROM is what is needed and what this system consists of.  Additionally, that printed paper online was approximately 3-4 years old. How much has the price decreased in that time?  I have several messages in with the people at DTS to inquire as to the pricing of this system now, but no returned calls yet.  I will update on this soon as I hear something. 

In the meantime, let's talk about another little nougat of information, namely, the recent agreement between 5 of the top movie studios in Hollywood, and representatives of theater owners, in which $1 BILLION dollars worth of loans was to be secured, with JP Morgan Chase Bank and Blackstone providing the financing.  The reason for this?  Their ambitous goal of converting as many as 20,000 screens (eventually) to full on digital, which will enable them to reduce film print costs, delivery costs, etc., thereby saving the studios tons of money, and allowing the theaters to raise their prices to show digital movies and 3-D movies, and increase movie theater attendance.  The cost PER SCREEN of this little conversion?  A cool $100,000 for each screen.  And this poster wants to talk about recovering the cost of an anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per screen feature?

3)  Next, the poster alleges "Moreover, most deaf individuals do not like the rear window device, so why force companies to buy it? The DTS device provides open captions but many time the captions fade into the picture and you miss substantial portions of the dialogue."  My answer to this is simply that I don't know about MOST deaf people not liking the RWC, I have seen bother it's haters and it's supporters.  I CAN tell you this, the one time I have used RWC, I was okay with it, for the most part.  Finding the right angle in which I could settle in comfortably, watch the movie AND see the dialogue on the reflector was difficult, though.  As for Open Captions, although I have heard SOME complaints about dialogue disappearing occasionally into the background of the movie, by and large, it has been THE most preferred method talked about.  In addition, I found an article on line (go find this stuff yourself, poster) in which it talks about the technician making a simple background adjustment during the course of programming the captioning.  Lastly, I'm not, nor is this legislation, attempting to FORCE theater owners to buy the RWC system.  It will work in conjunction between the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, and the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.  They will be charged with the task of evaluating the best and most efficient technology available for BOTH sides.

4)  "A better solution is needed and it must work with digital cinema. Theatre Companies are working diligently with third parties to come up with a solution but due to the limited demand, it is difficult to maintain interest in the available manufacturers of potential devices. We need a personal captioning device that is easy to use, durable and affordable for theatre chains. It does not exist today and creating legislation to mandate such availability will not create it. "  I agree, better solutions ARE needed, however, I point out to you your erroneous statement "but due to limited demand".  Even Regal Cinemas is recognizing the need for this technology, and in 2007, hosted an "Emerging Technologies Symposium" in Washington, DC., in which several versions of potential captioning technologies were demonstrated and discussed.  The demand is there, but I personally think Regal is simply playing both sides of the fence here.

5)  Several statements alleging that this legislation will lead to more lawsuits, wasted money by the theaters in defending against said lawsuits, resulting in this: "This is just another set of feel good legislation intended to provide good press for politicians. The net effect of such passage at this time is to create litigation and fill the coffers of the Plaintiffs Bar!"  Au contraire, this is not a feel good piece of legislation, in fact, this is actually intended to HELP not only the deaf and hard of hearing, but also those for whom English is a second language (ESL), the elderly, and so forth.  If you truly are the parent of a deaf child, you would recognize this for what it is:  THE RIGHT THING TO DO.  Easy to "Monday Morning Quarterback" from Tennessee, much more difficult when you are right here debating with me, isn't it?  I could care less about suing, as a matter of fact, I have stated several times that I want movie theaters to succeed.  That is why the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights would be involved, most of their mediations end in COMPLIANCE, not necessarily fines or lawsuits.

I await your reply with bated breath, and next time, you might want to properly represent yourself if you truly are affiliated with the corporate offices of Regal, it might save you a little embarrassment.

Eddie