Deaf people and Cinemas.. Just accept your lot?

12-09-2011 09:06AM #1

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 · 12-09-2011 09:10AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:12AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:12AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:13AM

Yeah!, also FUCK THE BLIND!

jester77 · 12-09-2011 09:14AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:15AM

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!

12-09-2011 09:17AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:21AM

Good work on the serious AH thread OP

Nice to see them back again.

Skerries · 12-09-2011 09:21AM

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

reprazant · 12-09-2011 09:22AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:42AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:44AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:45AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:51AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:57AM

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 · 12-09-2011 09:58AM

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.

12-09-2011 09:59AM

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

12-09-2011 10:01AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:01AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:02AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:04AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:04AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:04AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:05AM

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!

12-09-2011 10:05AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:07AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:08AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:08AM

reprazant wrote: »

Seriously?

Obviously not!

12-09-2011 10:10AM

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 · 12-09-2011 10:13AM

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.

Deaf people and Cinemas.. Just accept your lot?

Comments