Coming to a Theater Near You: Regulations, Mandates & Higher Ticket Prices

We have a great little movie theater in our neighborhood. It has just three screens, but it always shows the newest releases. The best parts of the movie experience at our little theater are the food and the seating. We get to sit at tables in nice, padded chairs on a gently sloping floor. We can order real food to eat, including salads, burgers and chicken wings, regular and alcoholic beverages, and the most awesome chocolate, chocolate-chip cake (with ice cream, of course!) We used to not go to the movies very often, but our little neighborhood theater has drawn us back in. It is a whole new way for us to experience dinner and a movie.

The feds may change that for us, however. The government is readying new regulations that will require theaters to install equipment that will enable deaf and blind patrons to enjoy the movie experience just like hearing and seeing patrons. For the seeing impaired, there are headsets that verbally narrate the action on the screen. For those with hearing loss, glasses that provide closed captioning will help them keep up with the dialogue. This equipment requires that theaters convert to digital, which most theaters (about 90 percent) have already done, at a cost of approximately $70,000 per screen. Fifty-five percent of theaters already have the necessary equipment to accommodate those with hearing or vision disabilities.

It is most likely that the Justice Department will require a certain percentage of theaters to have the necessary equipment, but disability advocates would like to see them require all theaters to have it. Because a theater might be allowed to have the equipment for only one or two of their screens, it limits the choices a person with such disabilities would have. “All of this sort of comes down to choice for us,” said Eric Bridges, the director of external relations and policy at the American Council of the Blind. “We would like to have a choice in the movies that we go see that are video-described.”

Because sighted and hearing people have a choice, those with such disabilities should also. “If I’m going to go out with another buddy of mine and I want to see a movie and I want to enjoy the movie equally with him, and he can see, we’re definitely not going to a chick flick even though it may be the only one described,” he added. “It’s about choice. It’s about the cultural experience of going to and taking part in the cinematic experience.” In March, Senator Tom Harkins (D-Iowa) “released a bill calling for all theaters with two or more screens to provide the services for all movies at all showings. “

I am all for having lots of options and helping those with disabilities enjoy life to the fullest. However, forcing all theaters to have this equipment is another example of government making it difficult for businesses to remain profitable. Most theaters have already had the expense of switching to digital, a requirement for showing newer movies as well as for using this equipment, and now the government wants them to add more expensive equipment. How much more expense can the industry absorb? Will the large theaters survive this, while the smaller theaters are put out of business? Will this be like the pool chair lift requirement that has left many hotel pools with expensive lifts that are never used?

Hopefully, our little neighborhood theater is ready for the new regulations. Hopefully, too, they will be able to remain profitable while complying with yet another government mandate. And I hope that we will be able to continue to enjoy our dinner and movie without it costing us an arm and a leg to help pay for equipment that is seldom used. If not, we can thank our government, who is always there “to help us!”

For too long white people have felt “other white people will have babies; I don’t want to”; Obama’s re-election was the result (I understood the original election - desperate people will try anything, and McCain was a horrible candidate).

For the Giants, it is hard to blame the coach who brought them 2 Super Bowls. Football is now designed for equal outcomes, between salary caps and draft picks (socialist football); these things ended dynasties in football.

As I understand it, the special election in NJ was set up so Christie didn’t have to face Booker in a governor’s race (though I can’t believe Booker was a threat). Lonegan is a long shot, but between the horrible economy here in NJ and the daily revelations about ObamaCare, I’m hoping for a surprise result (the media told us months ago Booker was entitiled to, and would easily win, the seat). The media is hushing up the ObamaCare problems (not the technical glitches, but the costs and co-payments involved), so a Lonegan victory will be difficult.

“I understood the original election - desperate people will try anything, and McCain was a horrible candidate”

Yep. The reelection symbolized a majority of the people’s complete surrender to government.

Giants: True, football is socialist. Parity, right? I liked dynasties in the NFL.

Thanks for the info on the October election. Hopefully, Lonegan pulls it out.

Speaking of ObamaCare’s problems:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/is-obamacare-s-first-enrollee-bogus-.html

“Yep. The reelection symbolized a majority of the people’s complete surrender to government.”

If I was a betting man I would have lost a lot in 2012; it still stands out as a masterpiece of propaganda that the media could convince so many people that were so much worse off than four years before to vote for Obama. Rush was right that the trick was to disassociate Obama from the results of his policies; I’m just glad to work with Obama supporters who are MUCH worse off that four years ago.

“I liked dynasties in the NFL.”

I could see why they were problematic in the sense that you couldn’t have the same few teams winning and the same few teams sucking year after year. The Giants have won four Super Bowls, but never had a “dynasty”.

If Lonegan wins in October the Dems should be terrified of the mid-terms; Lonegan is good, but the media has been working double-time to take him out.

“If I was a betting man I would have lost a lot in 2012; it still stands out as a masterpiece of propaganda...”

Me too. Romney was/is an uber-RINO, but compared to Obama, he was Ronald Reagan with dual turbochargers. Goebbels would be very proud.

It is nice to see the Obamaphiles suffer in (near) silence. The “Bush’s fault” card is played out; the “race card” is played out. Only the most idiotic of the idiotic won’t admit their media-made god is a complete failure. Think about it: Obama was bitch slapped by the ruler of SYRIA. Speaking of which, boy, that story has disappeared, eh?

“I could see why they were problematic in the sense that you couldn’t have the same few teams winning and the same few teams sucking year after year.”

True, but doesn’t it still seem that even with sport-sanctioned socialism, even in the salary cap era, generally the same franchises are good and the same ones suck? Sort of like AA hires: You can change the playing field, but if they’re incompetent, they’re incompetent.

“If Lonegan wins in October the Dems should be terrified of the mid-terms...”

You bet! If the “shutdown” is still going on, Lonegan winning might be the final shot that brings the RATS down.

“Obama was bitch slapped by the ruler of SYRIA. Speaking of which, boy, that story has disappeared, eh?”

At this point I believe Obama’s biggest fear is being remembered as either 1) insignificant, or 2) incompetent. At this stage of his career it is all about legacy, and it isn’t looking good for him. At this point, even if ObamaCare gets off the ground, it will not be remembered kindly.

“Sort of like AA hires: You can change the playing field, but if they’re incompetent, they’re incompetent.”

Well it is closer than it had been; once crappy teams can pick up better players it comes down to coaching.

If the truth about Obama’s legacy is to ever be spoken ir written it will be:

“He was the most incompetent holder ever of the office of POTUS. He was a media creation elected on the basis of his (half) black race.”

“Well it is closer than it had been; once crappy teams can pick up better players it comes down to coaching.”

Yes, but if the management is bad, the results on the field are bad. Look at a franchise like BUF, for example. They’ve sucked for almost two decades (since Jim Kelly retired), no matter who they have managing, coaching or drafting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.