VICUG-L Archives

Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List

VICUG-L@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Zielinski <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
VICUG-L: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
Date:
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 07:08:56 -0500
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (43 lines)
This market analysis of cost to determine if the theaters should provide a
service is rather specious.  When talkies came out, did the theaters start
charging extra to cover the cost of sound on the films.  No, because they
knew that it would be an aset to overall attendance at the movies, that
the movie would then be a more complete fullfilling experience and that
attendance would increase, not decrease.  Same for audio discriptions I
think.  Nobody is complaining about closed caption on television.  Did
this raise the cost of television movie production?  Perhaps higher
advertizing fees, actor salaries etc. have more to do with raising costs
of tickets and television production than closed caption.  The fact is,
movie prices have gone up at a slower rate than inflation for many years.
Besides, the industry is quite healthy.

I can't recall deaf persons seeing a benefit to create a serendipidous
situation by getting together, pooling their own money together, and
hiring out a sign interpreter for a movie.  Why should the blind be any
different?  I'm not saying movie description is an absolutely necessary
feature of every movie on the market.  But it is a nice touch, won't cost
the theaters too much, provides good publicity for them, makes the movie
experience more fullfilling for blind patrons, and generally promotes good
business in the long run.  Many business practices which we take for
granted today and view as good business practices were forced on
businesses by progressive thinking legislative action.  Examples include
forcing them to polute less when manufacturing, having better fuel
economy.  And these actions have actually developed industries in
products which improve fuel production, and polute less while
manufacturing.  Why am I not surprised?  Somehow it seems the business
attitude of can do, falls back to "you're forcing costly regulations on
us" when governments force them to improve their act.  Why am I not
surprised?

No, I think I'd rather have the service provided to us as a benefit and
take the chance of higher prices.  Higher pricing of movies will not
occur because of audio description, and I won't be surprised at that either.

Steve


 +----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      [log in to unmask]      |
+----------------------------+

ATOM RSS1 RSS2