For those of you who have followed my journey into trying to gain more access for the deaf and hard of hearing to the movie theaters, you will recall from earlier comments and postings, that one of the biggest concerns by the exhibition industry is the "enormous" costs of providing RWC or OC equipment.  The implication has been that providing this type of access, even on a limited basis (say one screen per multiplex) would just be an economic doomsday for the theater industry...

I'd like to point some interesting information out here, from recent news reports:

"Regal Entertainment Group, the largest U.S. cinema operator, reported a second-quarter profit Thursday that missed analysts' expectations.

Shares of Regal, based in Knoxville, Tenn., fell 97 cents, or 7%, to $12.94. The shares have gained 27% this year.

Second-quarter profit of 26 cents a share missed the 31-cent average estimate of analysts in a Bloomberg survey. The company reported higher-than-expected theater operating costs and expenses for closing underperforming theaters, said Chris White, an analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles.

"This is something I don't think most people were factoring in," White said. "They said a higher percentage of their theaters became Imax or 3-D enabled. The rent associated with those screens is higher."

Profit rose 67% to $40.5 million from $24.3 million, or 16 cents a share, a year earlier, Regal said. Sales gained 17% to $789.2 million, beating the $779.9-million average analyst estimate as films including "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "Up" lured more people to theaters."

Or how about this one.....

"NEW YORK - Cinemark Holdings on Friday posted a 20% increase in its second-quarter profit amid strong box office and concessions sale trends.

The Plano, Tx.-based movie exhibitor recorded a profit of $18.7 million, compared with $15.5 million, in the year-ago period. Revenue rose 13% to $517.5 million.

Admissions revenue jumped 15%, while concessions revenue increased 12%.

"Our strong start to the year accelerated during the second quarter as we benefited from a solid slate of films and outperformed the overall domestic industry box office results," said Cinemark CEO Alan Stock. "In addition, our international attendance growth continues to outpace U.S. attendance growth."

It appears, that even in weak economic times, that movie theaters continue to earn significant profits.  That is largely due to the fact that theaters, even with exorbitant popcorn prices (their profit margins largely come from concession stand sales), going to the movies is still a popular escapist form of entertainment.  All the more reason to try and invest in technology that increases access for the deaf and hard of hearing to truly enjoy the movie-going experience.

One has to wonder at which point the theater industry will realize that dumping SOME of those profits back into R&D to speed up the transition to RWC or OC compatible equipment is a smart move?  Glad handing, and passing the buck off to "we've got to wait for standards to be agreed upon" for the transmission of captioning in the digital format, is beginning to grow stale.  Cinemark has already transitioned something like over 70% of it's 4000+ cinemas to digital, and you can bet your bottom dollar that once standards are developed, if they are not compatible with already existing digital systems, they will argue that they should not have to retrofit those to become caption ready.

So, to steal a line from someone I've talked with, how about this proposal:  Why doesn't the theater industry agree to postpone transition to all digital format until caption-capable standards are agreed upon?  After all, the "company line" I am hearing is that this should all be agreed upon by April of 2010.  Surely, they can wait 8 more months, can't they?  After all, the deaf and hard of hearing, as well as those who are deaf/blind, have been waiting something like 11 years for this magic potion called digital to open more doors for enjoying movies when they are released.

Also, lets take a look at why it takes so long for movies to go to DVD...Namely, it is because the theater industry, due to agreements with the film makers, pay large sums the first couple of weeks a film is in theaters, and their profit is less.  But, the longer it is in theaters, the less they pay to the film makers, and the more their profit grows.  So it behooves them to push for a longer "release window" (time between a movie being released to theaters and then going to DVD) so that they can earn greater profits.  The theater industry needs to trend toward a lower "flat rate" payment agreement with the studios, since it has been shown in studies that DVD's are the true "cash cow" for the studios.  As it stands now, the average release window before going to DVD is something like 4 months and 15 days, if I recall correctly.  You can bet, that a push toward a shorter release window by the film makers will lead to a great hue and cry from the theater industry.  So...Where do we stand, as deaf and hard of hearing consumers? 

Right in the middle, that's where....Theaters don't want movies going to DVD earlier because it will cut into their profits.  But neither do they want to attempt to grow a base of consumers by investing, TRULY INVESTING, in captioning access technology.  The film makers, on the other hand, don't want their films to be "marred" or "altered" on artistic merits, with Open Captioning.  It's a 1st Amendment thing, ya see..(sarcasm intended)...

Here's how that works...

Supposedly, even though they do caption something like 85% or more of their releases (and that's MPAA studios people, not ALL) in a "closed caption" format (think RWC), having the theaters have more accessible technology (RWC or whatever) would amount to an infringement upon their (studios) 1st amendment rights because it would "alter" the content of the movie.  That's right...You aren't seeing things...It would somehow alter the content of the movie if they show the caption content that is already installed.  If that isn't among the most illogical of arguments I've ever heard or seen, I must be going crazy.  And the thing is, they actually convinced a judge in Arizona to agree with them!  In a case titled "Arizona vs Harkins", which is currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Washington State.  Let's hope the 9th Circuit Court has more sense than the bone head judge in Arizona who was obviously more interested in legislating from the bench than dissecting the true issues of the case, and reverses the decision.  It is helpful that the Department of Justice has filed an amicus curae (sp?) brief (friend of the court) on the side of Arizona. 

And so it goes...Just a few thoughts from poring through research this weekend.....