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