State of Virginia looking to REQUIRE OPEN CAPTION showings during peak times

[Steve Guttag]

https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB274/2020?fbclid=IwAR2D-CJ0P2QWImHSpN8Ywz6ylUhcs5hZSflkU-Pt81Qe4Rj51pEU3HkmjlM

Status

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: Introduced on January 3 2020 - 25% progression
Action: 2020-01-09 - Rereferred to Commerce and Labor
Pending: Senate Commerce and Labor Committee
Text: Latest bill text (Prefiled) [HTML] Summary

Motion picture theaters; required open-captioned showings. Requires any motion picture theater that has four or more separate auditoriums to provide two scheduled showings of a motion picture that engages open captions for a particular showing of an open-captioned-available motion picture each week in any auditorium showing any open-captioned-available motion picture. The measure requires one showing in each auditorium to be during peak weekend motion picture attendance hours, and at least half of the other open-captioned showings to be during peak weekday motion picture attendance hours. If any auditorium is showing more than one motion picture during a week, the theater may select the motion picture to offer as open-captioned showings, but shall show a different motion picture on the weekend than it shows during the week. The measure prohibits a theater from providing more than one open-captioned showing at overlapping times unless the theater has more auditoriums than available showtimes. Persons suffering loss or injury resulting from a violation may bring an action to recover damages and reasonable attorney fees or injunctive relief.

This is a bad trend, in my opinion and I hope it gets quashed. Many theatres already offer open-caption screenings (they are MUCH preferred for those that need captions instead of the closed caption devices). However, this proposed law goes much further and dictates that part of the peak hours has to be given up to open-caption showings. Open captions are a distraction to most and take a way from the suspension of disbelief. It will be yet one more reason people will opt out of going to the cinema to see a movie, particularly on date-night. At home, there won't be any such mandate!

This is something I think is best left up to the business to determine what benefits their business and patrons. I would have less of a problem of requiring open-captions at least 1 matinee (if you run them) and 1 evening, per week but to require that a theatre give up a prime slot to cater to a significant minority of patrons goes beyond reasonable accommodation. Those theatres located near communities/schools that have disabled people that benefit from Open-Captions will go out of their way to accommodate such individuals because that make good business sense, if not good human sense. However this is painting a law with a way too large a brush.

[Gordon McLeod]

More reasons not to go to movies grrrrr

[Justin Hamaker]

This is difficult to justify when I look at the turnout we have for open caption/sensory sensitive shows, and the number of times per week our closed captioned units are checked out. Although we have not made a practice of running open caption shows, we have not had any measurable requests for open caption showings. At best we receive a couple requests per year.

Seems like a better approach to this would be to find a couple large theatres willing to offer OC screenings on a regular basis and track the attendance for these showings over time. One trend I speculate could emerge is senior citizens might migrate to these showings over time.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I'm writing this from a country, where we're used to subtitles on screen... most of the time. To be honest, when I'm watching a movie with close friends, we usually turn them off as they do annoy me to some small extent. Obviously, when you're watching a movie in a language you don't muster, they're pretty much a requirement.

Requiring open captions for hearing impaired during "peak times" feels indeed like overreaching to such extent that it will hurt the common business of said business. It's not like your average exhibition business is such a gold mine, so you can allow for such experiments to impact your main business. This alone should carry some weight.

Furthermore, I can't really speak for the "HI community", but I can believe that most hearing impaired persons would probably favor a show that's primarily shared with other hearing impaired persons.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Persons suffering loss or injury resulting from a violation may bring an action to recover damages and reasonable attorney fees or injunctive relief.

This statement alone shows that is is unreasonable and oversteps the boundaries of basic rights, in this case the freedom to run a PRIVATE business in a manner as the owner sees fit.

So if someone who is HI can't make the scheduled OC screenings, they would now have the right to sue for "loss or injury" (give me a f'in break) just because they didn't get to see the OC showing? Please explain to me how not being able to see a freakin MOVIE would result in a LOSS or INJURY?!?

Justin's proposal is reasonable and would avoid the need for this stupid legislation. (And the theatres who do it could see a monetary boost as well.)

Every theatre in Virginia needs to step up and notify their "elected officials" that they will file suit if this bill passes.

[Lyle Romer]

This statement alone shows that is is unreasonable and oversteps the boundaries of basic rights, in this case the freedom to run a PRIVATE business in a manner as the owner sees fit.

So if someone who is HI can't make the scheduled OC screenings, they would now have the right to sue for "loss or injury" (give me a f'in break) just because they didn't get to see the OC showing? Please explain to me how not being able to see a freakin MOVIE would result in a LOSS or INJURY?!?

Justin's proposal is reasonable and would avoid the need for this stupid legislation. (And the theatres who do it could see a monetary boost as well.)

Every theatre in Virginia needs to step up and notify their "elected officials" that they will file suit if this bill passes.

Agree. This proposed law is insane and goes beyond totalitarian dictatorship type of government. A movie is not designed to be experienced with open captioning as the "base" presentation. Technology has allowed a way for HI people to experience movies with both open and closed captioning. Requiring that a business do something that hurts their business with non-HI customers is very wrong.

This type of proposal is ADA taken way too far. A ramp for a person in a wheelchair helps them have access and doesn't negatively effect anybody else. There is a huge difference between making sure everybody has physical access to all businesses and making sure all people can experience a business in the way that is most perfect for them. What's next, restaurants required to offer pureed forms of all their dishes that are able to be put into an NG tube?

[David Ferguson]

I full stop wouldn't go to a film with closed captions, unless of course it was a non-English film with English captions.

I wonder if something clever could be done with polarisation - have the film polarised one way, and the captions polarised another. Then when viewed normally it will show them, but put on polarised glasses, and the captions would be removed. Of course, this would require everyone but the people wanting the captions to wear special glasses, but I'd prefer that than being required to see the captions.

[Steve Guttag]

...yeah, and that pesky silver screen that ruins the picture for everyone too.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

I full stop wouldn't go to a film with closed captions, unless of course it was a non-English film with English captions.

I wonder if something clever could be done with polarisation - have the film polarised one way, and the captions polarised another. Then when viewed normally it will show them, but put on polarised glasses, and the captions would be removed. Of course, this would require everyone but the people wanting the captions to wear special glasses, but I'd prefer that than being required to see the captions.

You have it backwards..why force the people who DON'T want to see the captions into wearing the glasses?

If it were the other way 'round, where those who need the captions wear glasses, it could be a viable idea, other than forcing theatres to install special equipment, the silver screen, and maintain glasses....

Lyle said it best...

Agree. This proposed law is insane and goes beyond totalitarian dictatorship type of government. A movie is not designed to be experienced with open captioning as the "base" presentation. Technology has allowed a way for HI people to experience movies with both open and closed captioning. Requiring that a business do something that hurts their business with non-HI customers is very wrong.

This type of proposal is ADA taken way too far. A ramp for a person in a wheelchair helps them have access and doesn't negatively effect anybody else. There is a huge difference between making sure everybody has physical access to all businesses and making sure all people can experience a business in the way that is most perfect for them. What's next, restaurants required to offer pureed forms of all their dishes that are able to be put into an NG tube?

[Marcel Birgelen]

...yeah, and that pesky silver screen that ruins the picture for everyone too.

Besides the requirement for glasses, a screen that works with the system, extra light output, etc. What is one of the hardest things to avoid cross-talk on between left and right?

Subtitles.

Even with shutter-glasses there is still some cross talk as the shutter isn't 100% effective. With no subtitles on the A frames and subtitles on the B frames, the ghosting will be pretty obvious, no matter what system you're using.

[Jim Cassedy]

I full stop wouldn't go to a film with closed captions,.

At the risk of being nit-picky- - I think you mean OPEN captions.

OPEN captions can be seen by everyone. CLOSED captions require the viewer to wear
glasses or use some sort of accessory device to be seen.

A lot of people get these confused.

[David Ferguson]

At the risk of being nit-picky- - I think you mean OPEN captions.

Oops yes - I did of course mean open captions. I'm just so used to talking about closed captions, that I wrote that instead!

[Rick Raskin]

Not to get into the political arena, but if you are familiar with which party dominates the Virginia legislature now you'd understand why insane bills like this even make it to committee.

[Frank Angel]

Is this a regulation that has actually been put into law or is it just some legislator trying to get some publicity traction? Seems that any such proposal could be easily fought in the courts as not only an economic hardship to a business, but it negatively impacts the enjoyment of the very product the business offers by a majority of the patrons of that business. A good team of AMC or Regal lawyers should be able to get that quashed. On the other hand, if it DOES pass and the exhibitor is forced to implement such an ordinance, I would precede every Open Captioned film with a text crawl, something to the effect:

"Your city and state representatives have imposed and ill-conceived ordinance requiring us to provide the Open Captions text that you will be seeing thought the duration of this film, even though there may be no patrons at this showing that have requested them or need them. They are intended to accommodate our Hearing Impaired patrons, but we feel we can provide the save service to the Hearing Impaired movie-goers by other means such as Closed Captions and alternate time schedules -- alternatives that provide for their needs while not impacting your ability to enjoy our feature. We strongly believe that you should be able to enjoy this movie as it was intended to be seen -- without text on top of the image, especially when we have alternative technology to provide the same service to our HI friends. We urge you to write to your representatives and tell them you want to watch movies without the distraction of text captions. Here are their names and contact information."

We do live opera on our large stage in the big theatre (2500 seats) and the companies routinely would bring in a projection system that consisted of a digital projector in the pit and a band of dark screen material about 2ft x 30ft that was attached just above the proscenium. Captions were projected on that screen material. HI patrons seemed to be just fine with that -- never any complaints. Thing is, because it was text appeared above what would be the equivalent of the "image" in a movie theatre, it seemed to make it very easy for everyone else to simply ignore the running text. For movies, perhaps the same sort of thing could be done by placing the caption text, not in the image area, but create a taller aspect ratio window and place the titles in black below or above the image rather than on top of it. Since the text and the image are different files, seems like that might be easily done. Also, for years it always puzzled me when I watched foreign films and having to dodge the people in front of me so I could read the subtitles, who made the choice to put them at the bottom of the image? Why not on top so that it would be much less likely that people's heads will get in the wayas happens so often when they are on the bottom. Either way, top or bottom, I really think keeping them out of the image altogether in a black bar would go a long way to make them not feel quite as intrusive to non HI patrons.

If this law is enacted, I strongly feel it should be contingent on HI patrons making a request to have captions turned on for a particular show. It is an easy ask and only a minor inconvenience to the HI patron to make the ask when purchasing a ticket; It would simply require the patron to show up say 15 min before showtime and make the request. It is insanity to be required to run open captions when there is no one in the theatre that needs them.

[Steve Guttag]

Since this would be a state government regulating a state business, I don't know if it would be an easy court case. Navigating "accommodation" cases are normally tricky because you WILL alienate some just for not altering your business to accommodate everyone down the smallest degree. The ADA was a well-intentioned ill-conceived act that has poor words like "reasonable accommodation" which leaves it up to the interpreter to define what is reasonable. What disabilities rise to the level that everyone with that disability has to be accommodated? Poor eyesight is a greater disability yet we, as a society, are okay with those that are afflicted to supply their own corrective devices (i.e. glasses or contacts). But for hearing assistance we not only have to provide the transmitters but the receivers? Providing the transmitters is really where that sort of law should stop. We are now seeing caption devices being absolutely destroyed by "patrons" and, quite possibly, their young accompanying people. These things are not cheap and they are becoming a bit of an industry to keep them operating. And the theatre has to absorb that cost too?