![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=r88.10){kind=small}
Folks, for those of you who may not be aware, SB 102 has been introduced for the 2010 state legislative session in Kentucky. This bill would require all theaters with 5 or more screens in one location to make at least one screen accessible for the deaf and hard of hearing by offering equipment that would provide caption displays for movies that are captioned. At least one local television station has picked up on this bill this go-around, whereas we got ZERO press coverage last year (2009) other than an article in a local paper (The Appalachian News-Express in Pikeville, Ky.) The news segment was fairly straight-forward and not tilted one way or the other in terms of favoritism.
As usual, after airing, the video clip, with accompanying narrative of the video clip (I watched it, the narrative matches what came across in close captioning when it was aired) was posted to the stations' website. Comments are allowed on most postings, and as I have scrolled through (and responded to) comments left by people, I have been slightly disappointed. I'm going to try to address some of the more egregious comments here in this blog, and show what we are facing here (and in other states) in terms of educating the general public and dealing with general nastiness of the ignorant. Below are some comments, I will refute or clarify beneath each one:
1) "Posted by: Marlene Location: Richmond on Feb 3, 2010 at 06:53 AM
Since when is going to the movies a "right" for anyone? Why in the world should the cinemas have to shell out big bucks so anyone can have a more enjoyable time? I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a government issue. It's time the "gummit" kept its sizeable nose out of peoples' businesses - literally."
Well, going to the movies themselves are not a "right", but being able to enjoy them equally and fully IS a right. If a movie has the captions offered via a CD, etc., and the only thing preventing a deaf or hard of hearing person from being able to enjoy the movie at the same time is captioning projection equipment, then theaters, as a provider of a service, should have the proper equipment available to allow full and equal enjoyment. That's what this bill is seeking. The poster "Marlene" above is confusing going to the movies with equal access rights. There is a difference.
2) "Posted by: Anthony Location: Lexington on Feb 3, 2010 at 07:12 AM
Maybe we can put braille up on the screen........when does it end?"
Ahh, nothing better than good old fashioned sarcasm, eh? As a matter of fact, with DA (Descriptive Audio) available in many cases, Braille isn't needed, "Anthony". The visually impaired have the same right to equal access as anyone else when the material is availble but not shown or provided due to the theater not providing the equipment to project it.
3) "Posted by: Josh Location: Berea on Feb 3, 2010 at 08:09 AM
You would think Mr Jones would have better things to do than tryin bankrupt the theaters to serve a very small percentage of the population.....If I'm not mistaken we still have some issues with the economy Mr Jones."
Oh, this is one of my favorites. It's a "two-fer". First, "Josh", I would hardly call 36 million plus people nationally and 646,000 plus in Kentucky a "small" portion of the population. As a matter of fact, Kentucky trends ahead of the rest of the nation in hearing loss due to multiple factors, with our average being in the neighborhood of 16% of our population. Know your numbers before you open your mouth. Secondly, bankrupting the theaters. Umm, no, that would be the STUDIOS who are trying to bankrupt the theaters by forcing digital conversion upon them at a cost of $100,000 PER SCREEN, even though their own numbers don't prove that digital leads to a subsequent increase in attendance. Which one makes more sense, $12,000 to outfit ONE screen with the potential to perhaps bring in more customers, or $1 MILLION dollars to convert a 10 screen multiplex to MAYBE bring in more customers? More than likely, the digital would just improve the quality for people already going, not increase the number of people who go. Ergo, offering captions provides a chance for NEW customers, whereas digital would just enhance the viewing of those who already go.
4) "Posted by: TAXPAYER on Feb 3, 2010 at 08:58 AM
Is this why we elect people. I am sure that most people who elected this idiot don't give a rats butt about whether a movie theatre does this or not. It really makes you think your tax dollar is going a long way when you are paying fools like this one. "
Well, YEAH...This IS why we elect people like this one. Because the theaters (IN GENERAL, not all) and the movie studios have strigently resisted providing access to movies for many years for the deaf and hard of hearing. It HAS improved in some areas more than others, and SOME theater chains are being proactive, but not all. So when a legislator has the courage to stand up and represent the people whom he is elected to represent, especially those whom have often been pushed aside, he or she should be applauded, not have scorn heaped upon them.
5) "Posted by: the country of regulations Location: harlan on Feb 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM"
movie theaters are already so loud that you leave with a hearing impairment! All this requirement will do is raise the price to one more thing your average person cant afford!
Well, my answer is, the movie theaters and the movie studios who make the movies are responsible for contributing to the problem. Look I'm not going to argue with an idiot, it's a waste of my breath. BUT I want to point out that the MPAA and theaters are OPENLY discussing how converting to digital and 3-D would allow them to raise prices "justifiably". So a $10 BILLION dollar plus profit industry (that is studios only, not theaters) can make even MORE money. Ridiculous.
Folks, like Governor McDonnell of Virginia said, it's about "equality of opportunity", not guaranteeing individual success. So, thanks to Jamie Berke from About.com for posting the link to the television station in her blog "Will Kentucky Lead the Way on Movie Access?". When you get a chance, check out the report on the news stations' website, and take the time to leave a comment or email the reporter (his email address is provided at the top under the headline).
I will be posting more as more happens here in Kentucky on this bill. I'm excited to have had a part in getting it introduced for the second legislative session in a row, and hopefully, we CAN lead the way.
Thanks,
Eddie
As usual, after airing, the video clip, with accompanying narrative of the video clip (I watched it, the narrative matches what came across in close captioning when it was aired) was posted to the stations' website. Comments are allowed on most postings, and as I have scrolled through (and responded to) comments left by people, I have been slightly disappointed. I'm going to try to address some of the more egregious comments here in this blog, and show what we are facing here (and in other states) in terms of educating the general public and dealing with general nastiness of the ignorant. Below are some comments, I will refute or clarify beneath each one:
1) "Posted by: Marlene Location: Richmond on Feb 3, 2010 at 06:53 AM
Since when is going to the movies a "right" for anyone? Why in the world should the cinemas have to shell out big bucks so anyone can have a more enjoyable time? I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a government issue. It's time the "gummit" kept its sizeable nose out of peoples' businesses - literally."
Well, going to the movies themselves are not a "right", but being able to enjoy them equally and fully IS a right. If a movie has the captions offered via a CD, etc., and the only thing preventing a deaf or hard of hearing person from being able to enjoy the movie at the same time is captioning projection equipment, then theaters, as a provider of a service, should have the proper equipment available to allow full and equal enjoyment. That's what this bill is seeking. The poster "Marlene" above is confusing going to the movies with equal access rights. There is a difference.
2) "Posted by: Anthony Location: Lexington on Feb 3, 2010 at 07:12 AM
Maybe we can put braille up on the screen........when does it end?"
Ahh, nothing better than good old fashioned sarcasm, eh? As a matter of fact, with DA (Descriptive Audio) available in many cases, Braille isn't needed, "Anthony". The visually impaired have the same right to equal access as anyone else when the material is availble but not shown or provided due to the theater not providing the equipment to project it.
3) "Posted by: Josh Location: Berea on Feb 3, 2010 at 08:09 AM
You would think Mr Jones would have better things to do than tryin bankrupt the theaters to serve a very small percentage of the population.....If I'm not mistaken we still have some issues with the economy Mr Jones."
Oh, this is one of my favorites. It's a "two-fer". First, "Josh", I would hardly call 36 million plus people nationally and 646,000 plus in Kentucky a "small" portion of the population. As a matter of fact, Kentucky trends ahead of the rest of the nation in hearing loss due to multiple factors, with our average being in the neighborhood of 16% of our population. Know your numbers before you open your mouth. Secondly, bankrupting the theaters. Umm, no, that would be the STUDIOS who are trying to bankrupt the theaters by forcing digital conversion upon them at a cost of $100,000 PER SCREEN, even though their own numbers don't prove that digital leads to a subsequent increase in attendance. Which one makes more sense, $12,000 to outfit ONE screen with the potential to perhaps bring in more customers, or $1 MILLION dollars to convert a 10 screen multiplex to MAYBE bring in more customers? More than likely, the digital would just improve the quality for people already going, not increase the number of people who go. Ergo, offering captions provides a chance for NEW customers, whereas digital would just enhance the viewing of those who already go.
4) "Posted by: TAXPAYER on Feb 3, 2010 at 08:58 AM
Is this why we elect people. I am sure that most people who elected this idiot don't give a rats butt about whether a movie theatre does this or not. It really makes you think your tax dollar is going a long way when you are paying fools like this one. "
Well, YEAH...This IS why we elect people like this one. Because the theaters (IN GENERAL, not all) and the movie studios have strigently resisted providing access to movies for many years for the deaf and hard of hearing. It HAS improved in some areas more than others, and SOME theater chains are being proactive, but not all. So when a legislator has the courage to stand up and represent the people whom he is elected to represent, especially those whom have often been pushed aside, he or she should be applauded, not have scorn heaped upon them.
5) "Posted by: the country of regulations Location: harlan on Feb 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM"
movie theaters are already so loud that you leave with a hearing impairment! All this requirement will do is raise the price to one more thing your average person cant afford!
Well, my answer is, the movie theaters and the movie studios who make the movies are responsible for contributing to the problem. Look I'm not going to argue with an idiot, it's a waste of my breath. BUT I want to point out that the MPAA and theaters are OPENLY discussing how converting to digital and 3-D would allow them to raise prices "justifiably". So a $10 BILLION dollar plus profit industry (that is studios only, not theaters) can make even MORE money. Ridiculous.
Folks, like Governor McDonnell of Virginia said, it's about "equality of opportunity", not guaranteeing individual success. So, thanks to Jamie Berke from About.com for posting the link to the television station in her blog "Will Kentucky Lead the Way on Movie Access?". When you get a chance, check out the report on the news stations' website, and take the time to leave a comment or email the reporter (his email address is provided at the top under the headline).
I will be posting more as more happens here in Kentucky on this bill. I'm excited to have had a part in getting it introduced for the second legislative session in a row, and hopefully, we CAN lead the way.
Thanks,
Eddie
4 comments | Leave a comment
