Deaf people and Cinemas.. Just accept your lot?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/cinemas-deaf-people-subtitled-screenings

Imagine the following scenario. You go to the cinema, buy your ticket and your popcorn and after taking your seat, sit through 20 minutes of trailers and adverts before the start of the film. But, as the opening scene begins, you realise the sound's not working, and you can't understand a thing. The cinema staff run around fiddling with wires before deciding they can't fix it and, with that being the last screening of the night, you toddle off home with an apology and a free ticket for a future show. You'd feel gutted, wouldn't you? I mean, how often does that happen? Maybe if you were a glass half-full kind of person you'd figure that you were unlucky – you caught them on a bad night.

For deaf people, the chain of events I've described isn't just a one-off – it's happened to nearly every deaf cinema-goer I know. Except it's not the sound that goes missing, it's subtitles. Which we need to understand the film. Right now, deaf film fans have very little trust left in cinema chains, and many people I know have stopped bothering; they prefer to watch DVDs (or, ahem, downloads) at home.

......

Article annoyed me.. IMO, the cinema is a luxury visual and auditory experience. There's nothing that gives people an entitlement to see a movie in a cinema so if you can't hear it, then that's just how life goes.

Yea, it's good that there are cinemas doing subtitles but for the most part, I don't see the point.. If I was deaf, I'd just accept that the cinema isn't an option. Going writing articles and crying out at the humanitarian injustice of a fuking cinema is ridiculous. Subtitles ruin movies those who are able to watch them so it's just a bit selfish to demand them and cry discrimination when you don't get them.

super_furry

Hate to say it but as a hearing person, subtitles on an English speaking film would out me put me off big time. I'd be so distracted that I wouldn't enjoy the film and wouldn't bother going. I honestly can't see a solution outside of maybe offering one subtitled film a week, but even then would they get the numbers in to make it worth it?

Maybe foreign cinema, which is already subtitled would be a better option.

MrStuffins

And then what? They'll be saying that subs aren't enough anymore because there happens to be some deaf people who can't read, so we gotta put up with a dude in the bottom right of the corner signing.

And then they'll want audio descriptions for the blind. And all appearences of cats will be banned from movies, because why should the guide dogs have to sit through that?

Also, why aren't you allowed bring cadavers to the cinema? Are you saying just because my granny is dead she's not allowed see Sex and the City 2? WELL F*CK YOUR DISCRIMINATING ASS MR.CINEMA MAN!!

Melion

I have no problem with subtitles on movies, 2 of my top 5 movies are foreign speaking.

But if i had to look at subtitles every time i went to the cinema i would quickly stop going.

Giblet

Yeah!, also FUCK THE BLIND!

jester77

super_furry wrote: »

Hate to say it but as a hearing person, subtitles on an English speaking film would out me put me off big time. I'd be so distracted that I wouldn't enjoy the film and wouldn't bother going. I honestly can't see a solution outside of maybe offering one subtitled film a week, but even then would they get the numbers in to make it worth it?

Maybe foreign cinema, which is already subtitled would be a better option.

Not to worry. Sony is currently developing subtitle glasses that will allow only the people wearing them to see the subtitles and not distract anyone else. They are hoping to have them ready to trial in UK cinemas early next year.

MrStuffins

Giblet wrote: »

Yeah! **** THE BLIND!

You can't f*ck the deaf though. If you want to talk dirty to them, you'll have to carry around a really long sheet of cardboard and a black marker so you can have make shift dirty subtitles!

Melion

Melion wrote: »

I have no problem with subtitles on movies, 2 of my top 5 movies are foreign speaking.

But if i had to look at subtitles every time i went to the cinema i would quickly stop going.

I actually love subtitled movies but only when you don't understand the audio.. If it's in English and you can read it before it's spoken, the movie is fuked. All the comments in the Guardian are calling out for more peak hour subtitle shows which in my opinion is madness. I would never demand that an entire audience caters to my disability.

Even when I'm with my GF here, her and her friends speak Vietnamese and English.. I tell them to chat among themselves in Vietnamese because English is harder for them. I don't understand anything but the friends who don't speak English as well as my GF appreciate it. It would be selfish off me to demand they speak English just because I'm there.. Much like subtitles just because a deaf person is there.

KTRIC

Good work on the serious AH thread OP

Nice to see them back again.

Skerries

does any cinema in Ireland show subtitled films that are not foreign?

reprazant

I was under the impression the article is referring to the special deaf friendly screenings that cinema's have.

If I were deaf and went to one of those screenings and the subtitles didn't work, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Possibly as annoyed as the OP but I'd actually have something to get annoyed about instead of working myself up into self-righteous indignation.

Cactus Colm

Deleted User wrote: »

If I was deaf, I'd just accept that the cinema isn't an option. Going writing articles and crying out at the humanitarian injustice of a fuking cinema is ridiculous.

If I was deaf I'd create a device or surgical procedure to ensure my hearing returned, then there wouldn't be a problem at all.

Have seen a few (english language) movies with subtitles on, and it's never bothered me, find it quite interesting to see how the dialogue has been changed and condensed from what's spoken.

Article does have a point though, I'd be pretty miffed to turn up at a cinema for a scheduled film to find out that it wasn't on.

Billy86

MrStuffins wrote: »

You can't f*ck the deaf though. If you want to talk dirty to them, you'll have to carry around a really long sheet of cardboard and a black marker so you can have make shift dirty subtitles!

Either that or just be a wizard with the sign language.

Seriously though, those subtitle glasses are an incredible idea! I would have thought it was a wind up if not for the link.

MrStuffins

Cactus Colm wrote: »

Article does have a point though, I'd be pretty miffed to turn up at a cinema for a scheduled film to find out that it wasn't on.

The article is talking ballocks. There is absolutely no comparision between you buying a ticket for a movie and the sound not working and a deaf person turning up to a movie and finding there are no subtitles.

One is a person who knows how the cinema works and the other is not only deaf but a f*cking moron too!

L'prof

Jesus lads, I don't see the harm in having special screenings with subtitles to cater for the deaf audience. I certainly don't agree with the attitude that "if you're deaf then you shouldn't be going to the cinema anyway!".

reprazant

MrStuffins wrote: »

The article is talking ballocks. There is absolutely no comparision between you buying a ticket for a movie and the sound not working and a deaf person turning up to a movie and finding there are no subtitles.

One is a person who knows how the cinema works and the other is not only deaf but a f*cking moron too!

The article is talking about deaf screenings where there is meant to be subtitles. The sub-title of the article even mentions it. How exactly are they morons?

Cactus Colm

MrStuffins wrote: »

The article is talking ballocks. There is absolutely no comparision between you buying a ticket for a movie and the sound not working and a deaf person turning up to a movie and finding there are no subtitles.

One is a person who knows how the cinema works and the other is not only deaf but a f*cking moron too!

Of course there is, the people in the article are going to shows that have been advertised as having subtitles, they go with that expectation.

That's one of the main points of the article, cinemas advertising subtitled screenings (or loopback systems) that they then don't provide. The problem is repeated a few times in the article, I'm surprised you missed it.

i dont see the problem with it but then i sometimes watch tv with the subtitles on anyway
especially not if they're special screenings for the deaf

So just because they're deaf means they can't go to the cinema?

Right.

I used to work in a cinema that would provide a weekly AD/ST screening, Audio Description/Subtitles. It always alarmed me how uppity people got once they heard there were going to be subtitles!

120_Minutes

You're right op, it's awful selfish for people with disabilities to expect to have a life, sure we'll take out the the wheelchair ramps too.


Better yet, let's euthanise them all.
:rolleyes:

MrStuffins

Deleted User wrote: »

So just because they're deaf means they can't go to the cinema?

Right.

I used to work in a cinema that would provide a weekly AD/ST screening, Audio Description/Subtitles. It always alarmed me how uppity people got once they heard there were going to be subtitles!

Once they HEARD there was subtitles? I hope you signed it for those who couldn't hear!

St.Spodo

120_Minutes wrote: »

You're right op, it's awful selfish for people with disabilities to expect to have a life, sure we'll take out the the wheelchair ramps too.


Better yet, let's euthanise them all.
:rolleyes:

They shouldn't expect their special requirements to impede upon the enjoyment of everyone else.

reprazant

MrStuffins wrote: »

Once they HEARD there was subtitles? I hope you signed it for those who couldn't hear!

Seriously?

He obviously means that people who got uppity were those that could hear and didn't want to have subtitles on the screen.

SV

120_Minutes wrote: »

You're right op, it's awful selfish for people with disabilities to expect to have a life, sure we'll take out the the wheelchair ramps too.


Better yet, let's euthanise them all.
:rolleyes:

and we should have audio descriptive voice overs for the blind too, right?

Azureus

I wouldn't go to a film that had subtitles if it was in English because personally I find it very distracting, but there should be the option for the deaf:the OP says they should just accept their lot and not go, but why should they when theres such an easy alternative? A few special screenings advertised with subtitles-easy, you can choose whether to go to that screening or wait for a later one-everyones happy. Or not, because some people just like to moan.

If I went to a Spanish film that was advertised with subtitles and I didnt get the subtitles Id be annoyed. The deaf have just as much right to be a bit annoyed if they don't get what was advertised!

MrStuffins

MrStuffins wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

So just because they're deaf means they can't go to the cinema?

Right.

I used to work in a cinema that would provide a weekly AD/ST screening, Audio Description/Subtitles. It always alarmed me how uppity people got once they heard there were going to be subtitles!

Once they HEARD there was subtitles? I hope you signed it for those who couldn't hear!

I was referring to people who could hear, obviously. Generally it was people who were too lazy to read the movie listings properly to see it clearly said this was an AD/ST screening.

Elmidena

How many showings are there in a cinema in a week? And how many of those have subtitles? Yeah, and the regular crowd object to the absolute minority....

Your attitude is impeding on THEIR designated schedule here!

120_Minutes

SV wrote: »

and we should have audio descriptive voice overs for the blind too, right?

If they're able to invent subtitle glasses then it's not impossible to create audio description headphones.


Problem?

MrStuffins

reprazant wrote: »

Seriously?

Obviously not!

120_Minutes

120_Minutes wrote: »

SV wrote: »

and we should have audio descriptive voice overs for the blind too, right?

If they're able to invent subtitle glasses then it's not impossible to create audio description headphones.


Problem?

They do have audio description headphones...

The King of Moo

St.Spodo wrote: »

They shouldn't expect their special requirements to impede upon the enjoyment of everyone else.

I don't see how their requirements impede on the hearing.

How many hearing people have knowingly gone to a special subtitled or audio description screening?

I don't get how people can have a problem with this. There's so few of these screenings, so why begrudge deaf people them?
They don't affect hearing viewers in any way.

It's like complaining about having the option to turn subtitles on on the TV.

Methinks some people haven't realised the article was about special subtitled screenings for deaf people.

The King of Moo

SV wrote: »

and we should have audio descriptive voice overs for the blind too, right?

Most cinemas do!

120_Minutes

Deleted User wrote: »

They do have audio description headphones...

Then tell that to sv. I think it's great that these services are being provided, or are in development. Although I dont have a disability myself or regularly attend the cinema as people are cnuts, and judging by this thread and the reactions of some abled people about having about subtitles, it looks like I'm right.

Forest Master

How can deaf people be cinema "fans"? If you can't hear the subtleties in the actors voices, etc, how will you ever know if a performance was good, and how can you ever get emotionally involved in something that's aurally dramatic? There is no tension built with music or sound fx, etc, etc. You're missing half the experience, subtitles or not! Why bother?

Forest Master

There have been AD headphones for years. I think they work via Bluetooth, but I might be wrong about that! One ear has the normal sound from the movie and then do other has someone narrating what happens. As far as I remember, they sometimes have famous people doing the narrating.

Forest Master wrote: »

How can deaf people be cinema "fans"? If you can't hear the subtleties in the actors voices, etc, how will you ever know if a performance was good, and how can you ever get emotionally involved in something that's aurally dramatic? There is no tension built with music or sound fx, etc, etc. You're missing half the experience, subtitles or not! Why bother?

Because they go for the experience of it. sic or sound fx, etc, etc. You're missing half the experience, subtitles or not! Why bother? [/Quote]

Because they go for the experience of it.

Forest Master

The King of Moo wrote: »

Methinks some people haven't realised the article was about special subtitled screenings for deaf people.

That's because either the article doesn't say it it, or because the OP omitted it.

Snakeblood

While the assigned viewing times should be adhered to for deaf screenings, the bit where they want subtitled English screenings moved into the weekend\prime slots is madness/impractical. If I have a choice between a subtitled English move and not going to the cinema, I won't go. I read a lot faster than people speak, so instead of getting the actor telling me what happened, I find out what happened, then I'm waiting for the actor to catch up with what I already know.

And subtitles cover some of the explosions too. :mad:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/cinemas-deaf-people-subtitled-screenings



Article annoyed me.. IMO, the cinema is a luxury visual and auditory experience. There's nothing that gives people an entitlement to see a movie in a cinema so if you can't hear it, then that's just how life goes.

Yea, it's good that there are cinemas doing subtitles but for the most part, I don't see the point.. If I was deaf, I'd just accept that the cinema isn't an option. Going writing articles and crying out at the humanitarian injustice of a fuking cinema is ridiculous. Subtitles ruin movies those who are able to watch them so it's just a bit selfish to demand them and cry discrimination when you don't get them.

I don't even know where to start. What an incredibly selfish and shockingly ignorant attitude. Deaf people should never be allowed to go to the cinema just in case the occasional special screening with subtitles is inconvenient for you? There's nothing that gives people an entitlement to see a movie in a cinema? Why aren't deaf people as entitled to see movies as you are? Do you also begrudge wheelchair ramps and special seating for people in wheelchairs? Sure, shouldn't they just stay at home? The nerve of these disabled people, thinking they have the same rights as the rest of us. :rolleyes:

The fact is, you are still MUCH better off than any deaf person. You can go to ANY screening. They have to make sure they can attend the one a day/week (whatever it is) with subtitles. You would think that the slight inconvenience of attending a movie with subtitles (but still being able to hear it) would help you to understand how inconvenient it is to be deaf but no, you complain about how unfair it is that their rights impede on the enjoyment of the film for you.

If I'd posted some of the responses on here, I'd be ashamed of myself. What a me, me, me attitude. You'd think you would just be grateful that you were born being able hear instead of begrudging the little bit of help deaf people get. I think some people also need to remember that anyone can become disabled. A bad accident or an illness and you too could end up blind, deaf or paralysed. I'm sure you'd hope for a bit more empathy and compassion than you're showing here.

stovelid

Only maladroit weirdos and teenage couples go to the cinema anyway.

Andre80Johnson

I'm Deaf and a filmmaker. Some people in this thread are ignorant. This is 2011. For people who can walk, hear or see, that is a luxury. Unfortunately for Deaf people, we don't HAVE the luxury of going to see whatever film we want on any given day. There are subtitled films (Usually a Monday/Saturday) but then that does not guarantee that subtitles will be on. Just because there isn't a Hollywood film on showing in town that doesn't have subtitles does NOT mean we should we shouldn't go, or limit ourselves to World Cinema releases.

I LOVE going to the cinema. With or without subtitles. Sure what's the point of going if there isn't any subtitles, there's more to films than audio/dialogue. The direction of the film, little things that are happening on screen. And most importantly, the acting. We might not be able to hear the actors, but we certainly can see the acting, and one thing you don't know and that's when Deaf people can see through acting from experience of Sign Language, being expressive everyday. Emotionally and happy. Acting isn't all talk.

So why do I love films? Because I can, and being Deaf will never change that. Subtitles or not.

hatrickpatrick

Such an easy solution to this problem. Do some kind of thing with polarized glasses or something like that so as only people wearing the glasses can actually see the subtitles. Problem solved.

Lady von Purple

Forest Master wrote: »

How can deaf people be cinema "fans"? If you can't hear the subtleties in the actors voices, etc, how will you ever know if a performance was good, and how can you ever get emotionally involved in something that's aurally dramatic? There is no tension built with music or sound fx, etc, etc. You're missing half the experience, subtitles or not! Why bother?

I know, it's like watching some kind of 'silent movie.' How could anyone ever like one of them? (Aside- not saying silent movies are superior to movies today, just saying they can be great. And for the love of god, yes, I'm sure people can enjoy a film without special effects.)

ShooterSF

This is probably a stupid question but why do blind people go? Surely the lure of the big screen is the best part of the cinema experience?

Forest Master

Lady von Purple wrote: »

I know, it's like watching some kind of 'silent movie.' How could anyone ever like one of them?

I know you're being sarcastic, but silent movies are sh*te.

Elmidena

ShooterSF wrote: »

This is probably a stupid question but why do blind people go? Surely the lure of the big screen is the best part of the cinema experience?

People don't have to be fully blind to be classed blind, FYI. Maybe they can see a big screen easier than a tv or pc which they can't use well at home, and want to enjoy it, but due to AMD or whatever they're not able to focus. AD is for helping those that can't make out faces etc. If someone wants to go and listen to the film in the cinema and can't see anything, literally, then what harm? Their money, their choice, their bit of excitement.

Snakeblood

Forest Master wrote: »

I know you're being sarcastic, but silent movies are sh*te.

They're not though. Buster Keaton movies are amazing. So is Metropolis And Nosferatu.

Logical Fallacy

OP....did you even read the article?

I strongly suggest you stick to falling off mopeds.

It leads to better threads.

kraggy

Am I the only person who thinks that it's perfectly clear from reading the letter that the person who wrote it is referring to special screenings where there are supposed to be subtitles displayed but in his experience, they have often not worked?

The letter writer was not saying that subtitles should be displayed during films in general.

Logical Fallacy

kraggy wrote: »

Am I the only person who thinks that it's perfectly clear from reading the letter that the person who wrote it is referring to special screenings where there are supposed to be subtitles displayed but in his experience, they have often not worked?

The letter writer was not saying that subtitles should be displayed during films in general.

Not at all...the OP just wanted something to moan about on a Monday.

mikemac

Our local cinema does these screenings on a Monday.
If a person paid in and the subtitles weren't working they are right to complain and get a refund

OP, you have failed to understand the same article you posted

pickarooney

Forest Master wrote: »

How can deaf people be cinema "fans"? If you can't hear the subtleties in the actors voices, etc, how will you ever know if a performance was good, and how can you ever get emotionally involved in something that's aurally dramatic? There is no tension built with music or sound fx, etc, etc. You're missing half the experience, subtitles or not! Why bother?

Same goes for everyone who lives in a country where they routinely dub films. I consider the opinions of such people as less than worthless.

kraggy wrote: »

Am I the only person who thinks that it's perfectly clear from reading the letter that the person who wrote it is referring to special screenings where there are supposed to be subtitles displayed but in his experience, they have often not worked?

The letter writer was not saying that subtitles should be displayed during films in general.

No but you have to bear in mind that there are a lot of people on this thread who complain about being forced to read stuff so both the article and your post will go ignored in favour of some half-cooked bull**** response.

Lazy people and Internet forums... Just accept your lot?