|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 348 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 82 of 348:
| 
Jul 14 14:51 UTC 1999 |
Jackson Road is Scio Township's only commercial corridor, and Scio
Township plans to keep it that way. I don't believe Pittsfield has any
such restrictions, however.
|
krj
|
|
response 83 of 348:
|
Jul 14 19:20 UTC 1999 |
resp:79 :: My recollection is that the site of the Ann Arbor Theater was
slated to become more downtown condominium housing. So the closing
of the theatre doesn't really reflect a flight from the city.
The New York Times had a piece (yesterday?) on how consumers are flocking
to the new stadium-seating megaplexes, and the older "shoebox"
multiplexes like Briarwood (and to some degree the Ann Arbor)
are now a drag on exhibitor profits.
|
md
|
|
response 84 of 348:
|
Jul 14 20:04 UTC 1999 |
I hear the government is taking some of the
stadium-seating chains to court under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The stadium
seats are mostly inaccessible to wheelchair-
bound customers, so they have to use the
level-floor seats down in front, which can't be
a fun experience.
|
scg
|
|
response 85 of 348:
|
Jul 14 21:19 UTC 1999 |
The stadium seating theaters I've seen have often had the entrances to the
theaters somewhere in the middle of the seats, and have had some slots for
wheelchairs on a flat area at that point. They're probably not the best seats
in the house, but it doesn't look awful.
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 348:
|
Jul 14 21:24 UTC 1999 |
"GODS AND MONSTERS"-- movie about the last days of James Whale, the openly
gay director of "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" among others.
Ian McKellan plays Whale as an ill, deeply depressed, ouvertly sexual old
man living his last days in seclusion in the 1950's. Brendan Fraser plays
this young stud who mows his lawn for him, and lets Whale draw him.
McKellan and Fraser talk about their lives and develop a bond, though much
to McKellan/Whale's regret, Fraser is heterosexual. Its a movie about
loneliness and the need for friendship, and draws a parallell between
Whale and the Frankenstein monster, who in the movie is shown constantly
searching for companionship and affection and acceptance. The monster
never finds such in the movie; Whale however does or did in his life, but
was sadly unable to realize it. Good movie. *** 1/2 (three and a half
stars...good video rental)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 87 of 348:
|
Jul 14 22:04 UTC 1999 |
I recall some old 'flashlight' movie theatres. You know, 10 seats
wide, fourty seats deep.
|
senna
|
|
response 88 of 348:
|
Jul 15 00:34 UTC 1999 |
I concur with Steve. The stadium seating theaters I've seen have been
wheelchair accessible. In addition, Showcase has an additional
handicap accessible entrance at the top of its theaters.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 89 of 348:
|
Jul 15 04:38 UTC 1999 |
Yes, most of the "stadium seating" theaters I've seen have had much
better accomodations for wheelchair-bound moviegoers than other theaters
I've seen. Not sure how they compare for people with disabilities that
don't require wheelchairs. I'm sure they must somehow offend someone --
everything does..
|
scg
|
|
response 90 of 348:
|
Jul 15 04:53 UTC 1999 |
I'm assuming the wheelchair accomodations in newer theaters are partly a
function of the age of the theater (theater designers are presumably much more
aware of the usefulness of such accomodations now than they were in the past),
and partly because having the seats that steep means it's possible to have
a level area large enough for a wheelchair, and still not have it interfere
with the view from the rest of the seats. Thinking back to the multiplexes
built 10 or 15 years ago, which the steadily sloping floors and fairly densely
packed seats, I'm not sure where a wheelchair could have parked easily.
|
md
|
|
response 91 of 348:
|
Jul 15 11:14 UTC 1999 |
Here's a web news item about it:
"After seven months of unsuccessful negotiations,
the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has
filed suit in the United States District Court in
Los Angeles against American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and
AMC Entertainment for failing to provide stadium-
style seating for individuals whose disabilities
prevent them from climbing stairs. Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USCA ''12181
et seq.) requires places of public accommodation to
provide equal access, service, and quality of goods
to individuals with disabilities as are provided to
members of the general public.
"Most of AMC's theaters contain the popular stadium-
style seats which are located on stepped 18-inch
risers and provide an unobstructed view of the movie
screen over the persons seated ahead. In all but a
few AMC theaters, wheelchair seating is located in
the front section of the theater, which does not
provide the same unobstructed view. The DOJ alleges
that, by placing almost all wheelchair seating in the
front section, access to the better, stadium-style
seats is denied to individuals whose disabilities
prevent them from climbing stairs. In addition to
requiring the availability of wheelchair seating,
the ADA also requires that those wheelchair seating
locations provide comparable lines of sight. In most
of AMC's stadium-style theaters, the lines of sight
for wheelchair seating are not comparable because they
are much closer to the screen with inferior viewing
angles.
"In addition to seeking civil penalties and damages for
individuals with disabilities who have patronized AMC
theaters, the DOJ seeks an order to compel AMC to build
new theaters in compliance with the ADA and to require
AMC to modify existing structures as necessary for ADA
compliance."
|
other
|
|
response 92 of 348:
|
Jul 15 13:15 UTC 1999 |
They could install relatively low profile 'chair lifts' which run along the
stairs...
Jim, the growth of the Jackson area is not in the least an indication that
people are fleeing downtown Ann Arbor, it is *exactly* the opposite.
The development rate of downtown Ann Arbor is constrained by ordinance, and
the available office space, as reported in the June Observer, is filled
almost (but not quite) to capacity.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 93 of 348:
|
Jul 15 16:08 UTC 1999 |
re #91: sigh..
you can't offer wheelchair users seating near the front (bottom) of the
theater. obviously you can't just put the theater entrance at the back (top)
either -- then you're giving them seats which are too far from the screen.
similarly, it's not fair, either to put the wheelchair spots at the sides,
along the aisles. some people prefer to sit in the center and it's not fair
to deny wheelchair users the same access as "temporarily abled" people get.
and let us not forget blind users. they can't see these "moving pictures"
at all. fairness dictates that we shouldn't offer sighted users a better
movie experience than blind users..
you get the picture. perhaps I'm exaggerating the case slightly, but
possibly not by much. I earnestly agree with what I *think* was the
original goal of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It's a good thing
for society to make whatever minor accomodations it can to help the
disabled, but it's wrong to expect the law to be able to make everything
equal for everyone.
does anyone else but me expect Diana Moon Glampers to file an amicus curiae
brief in this case?
|
void
|
|
response 94 of 348:
|
Jul 15 16:32 UTC 1999 |
geez..."harrison bergeron," anyone?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 95 of 348:
|
Jul 15 20:19 UTC 1999 |
Well, it's more than just the seating area issue, I suspect. A year or
two ago in the Toledo area, a stadium-seating theater was built (by AMC,
I believe) that didn't even have the handicap-accessible basics, such as
front entrance ramps or wide bathroom stalls until the authorities came
down hard, and said features were put in *after* the place opened.
Which is to say that AMC seems not to be putting much effort or thought
at all into the needs of the handicapped. Would it be so difficult to
put in a couple of ramps and a few removable seats a dozen rows up?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 96 of 348:
|
Jul 15 20:46 UTC 1999 |
Given the pitch of the typical "stadium" theater, it might well be
very difficult to put in a ramp useful for wheelchairs.
If AMC is really building new theaters without any accomodations for
handicapped access then that's clearly a Bad Thing. Requiring wheelchair
accessible bathrooms, however, is not the same as mandating that the
wheelchair accessible seating be placed so that it has an optimal view
angle.
|
senna
|
|
response 97 of 348:
|
Jul 16 05:25 UTC 1999 |
Quality 16:
This looks like more of a cookie cutter corporate budget model than a
lavish spare-no-expense theater in the tradition of Showcase.
Everything seems to be about half the size, except the price. The price
is only one dollar or fifty cents cheaper, depending on what day it is.
This is not to say that it's a bad complex. The lobby is clean and
funnels traffic well. Decoration will presumably touch up the sparse
interior a bit, and I anticipate the large screen mounted in the most
accessible corner to shortly be filled with previews or show listings or
both.
The movie experience, watching the Matrix, left something to be desired.
Hardly surprising, given the age of the film and the unfamiliarity of
the employees. The main problems involved a periodic appearance of a
vertical string on the screen, and a problem dimming the house lights
in time for the show. Nothing huge. The theaters are substantially
smaller than Showcase's and remind me of chain stadia I've seen in other
large cities. Seats are acceptably comfortable and the view from the
back is good. I believe that this was the smallest theater in the
complex, so I'll have to check out one of their first run houses soon.
It's a nice place, and a good alternative to Showcase. I think United
Artists is getting priced out of the business.
|
scg
|
|
response 98 of 348:
|
Jul 16 05:36 UTC 1999 |
How was the wheelchair accessability? ;)
I've only been in an AMC theater once. Now that I think about it, we may have
entered from the very front of the theater, rather than the middle of the
theater like they do in Showcase, so the wheelchair accessability would have
been considerably worse, but I don't really remember clearly what it looked
like.
|
jazz
|
|
response 99 of 348:
|
Jul 16 16:46 UTC 1999 |
Yeah, is there wheelchair access to the light bulbs abovehead?
|
gull
|
|
response 100 of 348:
|
Jul 16 20:50 UTC 1999 |
Re #97: The 'vertical string' was probably a scratch on the film. It
probably was on the print when they got it, if my short experience working
at a theater was any guide. A lot of places don't clean their projector
every day like they should, and dust gets drawn into the film gate and
scratches the film as it goes past. THat's why the film often looks like
crap by the time second run theaters get it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 101 of 348:
|
Jul 16 22:53 UTC 1999 |
man...cripples really piss me off.
|
mary
|
|
response 102 of 348:
|
Jul 18 12:10 UTC 1999 |
"Run Lola Run" is a German film that takes "What if..." and tells
a story three ways. It's fresh and clever and the soundtrack is
absolutely right. Unless you simply can't deal with subtitles
don't miss this one. It's at the Michigan through the 25th.
|
richard
|
|
response 103 of 348:
|
Jul 18 22:19 UTC 1999 |
EYES WIDE SHUT-- The last film of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, about
a wealthy New York doctor (Tom Cruise) whose adulterous fantasies lead him
to a brief experience with the sexual underworld. Nicole Kidman play's
Cruise's wife (and since she IS his wife in real life, you cant fault the
casting) This is about the search for intimacy in a world where it doesnt
seem to exsist. Its a really dense film which one needs to see more than
once (every scene is filled with imagery-- Kubrick filmed each scene
dozens if not hundreds of times over more than two years)
This is not a film many of you might enjoy, as it is dark, perverse and
kinky. I think it is a great film with one quite obvious flaw-- the
central character (Cruise) has a credibility issue-- if you are married to
Nicole Kidman why would you possibly cheat?
A worthy if intriguing end to Kubrick's career....(four stars) highly
recommended only if you feel comfortable with such provocative subject
matter.
|
senna
|
|
response 104 of 348:
|
Jul 19 00:59 UTC 1999 |
Actually, richard, one of the great parts of the film is deciding what it's
about, and I think you may have gotten it wrong. But that's the beauty of
the film. I, personally, found Cruise's ccharacter quite credible. His
motive is not sexual boredom when he plays with temptation. He's consumed
with jealousy. Or maybe it's *not* jealousy. :)
|
drewmike
|
|
response 105 of 348:
|
Jul 19 11:49 UTC 1999 |
I haven't seen it, so temper my opinions with that knowledge, but, yes,
Richard, I *can* fault the casting! Why would you want to watch a married
couple making out? It's like, okay, yeah, that's probably their "kids at
Grandma's" routine, but so what? Now a married couple fighting? Yes sir!
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 348:
|
Jul 19 13:15 UTC 1999 |
I heard the exact point in #105 made, on an editorial on NPR's evening
news program, "All Things Considered". It is a silly viewpoint.
|
