Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!houxz!houxm!ihnp4!ihu1g!fish From: fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: GP rating of movies Message-ID: <442@ihu1g.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Jun-84 11:07:36 EDT Article-I.D.: ihu1g.442 Posted: Thu Jun 21 11:07:36 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 06:25:14 EDT References: <1435@pegasus.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 23 The GP rating for movies was in use in the 1960s, and replaced the ambiguous "M" (mature) rating. It was intended to make it clearer to the public just how old you had to be to see a given film without parental consent. The "G" meant that they'd let anybody in; the "P" meant "Parental guidance suggested," i.e., the material might contain some mild violence or adult themes, etc, that some very conservative parents might flap about. The "GP" was later changed to "PG," and has remained so. However, PG=GP=M, as far as admission standards are concerned. I saw on the local news last night that some people want to split the "PG" rating into two groups, PG and PG13. The "PG13" group would be for more violent films like "Indy Jones," that nevertheless are devoid of the graphic violence, nudity, sex, or raw language that usually earn a film an "R" rating. In this group, kids under 13 would not be admitted without a parent or guardian. Dumb? I think so. However, it does illustrate the ambiguity of the PG rating group, which runs the gamut from family films like "ET" to some films which have no business being shown to an 8-year-old, if for no other reason than they would bore them. -- Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish