inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek on 08/20/15 at 11:41 am

When I look on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook comments, people seem to think "early 2000s" = 2000 to 2005/6, and "late 2000s" = 2007 to 2009. Granted, most of the commenters on those sites are brain-dead memespewing idiots, but still.

Would you say that culturally, 04-05/6 still had traits of the early 00s, or not really? Is it just people who can't do math and think there is no middle part of a decade?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/20/15 at 12:03 pm

No, not really, the early 2000's culture ended in 2004 for so many reasons I've mentioned before. The discontinuation of 5th generation games & consoles. DVD's becoming the dominant form of home distribution in the United States over VHS. The U.S. going into war with Iraq. The release of the Nintendo DS (which marked end of the Gameboy era). The release of social media sites like Myspace (which would be the predecessor of Facebook, Youtube, & Twitter releases the following years). The cancellation/ending of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek, Even Stevens, Lizzie McGuire, Fraiser, Friends, etc. The end of Cartoon Network's golden age. Broadbands becoming the majority source of internet in most people's homes and dial-up going on a huge decline. Ipod's starting to become real popular in huge sales for the first time. By 2004 the 2000's decade had fully formed its own identity, it was when the core 2000's was in full effect. So much more I could come up with. 2003 was the last full year of the early 2000's to me. 2004 & 2005 may have still had some early 2000's influences with some fashion or what but by then it didn't feel like the early 2000's to me anymore. 2004 & 2005 were like the classic mid 2000's years. 2006 & 2007 were more like modern mid 2000's years. That's how I divide the core 2000's years.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/20/15 at 12:15 pm


When I look on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook comments, people seem to think "early 2000s" = 2000 to 2005/6, and "late 2000s" = 2007 to 2009. Granted, most of the commenters on those sites are brain-dead memespewing idiots, but still.

Would you say that culturally, 04-05/6 still had traits of the early 00s, or not really? Is it just people who can't do math and think there is no middle part of a decade?


I would say 2004 was still a part of early '00s culture but not 2005.  2005 and 2006 were distinctly mid '00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/15 at 12:29 pm

I don't think 2004 and 2005 are cultural years from the early 2000s. In fact, the mid 2000s started in 2004. Since that was the year when Nick started to get rid of all of their shows from the 90s and early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/20/15 at 12:55 pm


I would say 2004 was still a part of early '00s culture but not 2005.  2005 and 2006 were distinctly mid '00s.


I would say the 1st half of 2004 was the last gasp of any early 2000's culture, but by the 2nd half of 2004 it strictly felt mid 2000's by then and the core 2000's was in full effect. 2003 was really the last full full year of the true early 2000's and any type of late 90's pop cultural influences left whatsoever.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/20/15 at 2:27 pm


I would say the 1st half of 2004 was the last gasp of any early 2000's culture, but by the 2nd half of 2004 it strictly felt mid 2000's by then and the core 2000's was in full effect. 2003 was really the last full full year of the true early 2000's and any type of late 90's pop cultural influences left whatsoever.


I agree with this! Basically this how I see the culture from the late 80's through today using school years:


Neon/NES Era (1987-1993)
1987-1988 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1988-1989 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1989-1990 - Neon-Full House-MC Hammer-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's) - Ultimate Neon School Year

1990-1991 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-NES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1991-1992 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1992-1993 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)



Grunge/PC Boom Era (1993-1997)
1993-1994 - Core 90's-Seinfeld-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1994-1995 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Soundgarden-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1995-1996 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Tupac-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's) - Ultimate 1990's School Year

1996-1997 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Spice Girls-N64 Era (Cultural Mid 90's)



Millennial/AOL Era (1997-2004)
1997-1998 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1998-1999 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1999-2000 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

2000-2001 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-NSYNC-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's) - Ultimate Millennial School Year

2001-2002 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-NSYNC-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2002-2003 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2003-2004 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)



Emo/Myspace Era (2004-2009)
2004-2005 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2005-2006 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2006-2007 - Modern 00's-iPod-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's) - Ultimate 2000's School Year

2007-2008 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2008-2009 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)



Electropop/Facebook Era (2009-2013)
2009-2010 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2010-2011 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2011-2012 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's) - Ultimate Electropop School Year

2012-2013 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's)



Hipster/Twitter Era (2013-Present)
2013-2014 - Core 10's-iPhone-Lorde-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2014-2015 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2015-2016 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/20/15 at 3:17 pm


I agree with this! Basically this how I see the culture from the late 80's through today using school years:


Neon/NES Era (1987-1993)
1987-1988 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1988-1989 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1989-1990 - Neon-Full House-MC Hammer-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's) - Ultimate Neon School Year

1990-1991 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-NES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1991-1992 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1992-1993 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)



Grunge/PC Boom Era (1993-1997)
1993-1994 - Core 90's-Seinfeld-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1994-1995 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Soundgarden-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1995-1996 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Tupac-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's) - Ultimate 1990's School Year

1996-1997 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Spice Girls-N64 Era (Cultural Mid 90's)



Millennial/AOL Era (1997-2004)
1997-1998 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1998-1999 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1999-2000 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

2000-2001 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-NSYNC-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's) - Ultimate Millennial School Year

2001-2002 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-NSYNC-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2002-2003 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2003-2004 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)



Emo/Myspace Era (2004-2009)
2004-2005 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2005-2006 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2006-2007 - Modern 00's-iPod-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's) - Ultimate 2000's School Year

2007-2008 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2008-2009 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)



Electropop/Facebook Era (2009-2013)
2009-2010 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2010-2011 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2011-2012 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's) - Ultimate Electropop School Year

2012-2013 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's)



Hipster/Twitter Era (2013-Present)
2013-2014 - Core 10's-iPhone-Lorde-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2014-2015 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2015-2016 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)


I agree with your whole list except for the following I have in bold. I hardly consider the 2008-2009 school year as a core 2000's school year, that's the start of the early 2010's IMO. The stock market crash occurred and Barack Obama was elected and became president, it had a COMPLETELY different feel than 2007-2008 school year, it completely changed. Youtube had went HD that year and actually by that time HD had became the standard. Here in Georgia the fashion had changed too but I'm not going into detail of that. I have year book pictures of how different everybody looks during the 2007-2008 school year compared to 2008-2009 when all of that changed. Also, as someone already mentioned before, maybe not to middle school folks at the time, but to high school & college students Myspace was past its prime and Facebook became the norm by then.

The 2012-2013 school year was the first full school year Twitter entered its prime. I know this myself because everybody was talking about getting Twitter accounts by then like everybody was excited. Jersey Shore's popularity went down and came to an end. Although electropop music is still going on like today, it seemed like music had a huge attitude change throughout school year, go to billboard 2013 songs and you can tell that by this time hit songs from like 2009-2010 sound a little dated. Also, as soon as 2013 hit, it seemed like the 2010's decade fully formed its own identity. I don't consider that as the same era as Late 2008-early 2012 anymore.

As for the 2015-2016 school year, we really can't say yet we have to see how this year progresses. I noticed that coming into this school year there was a Church massacre around the same time Gay Marriage had been legalized across the United States with flag controversies. Our country is setting up an Iran Nuclear Deal or whatever you call it right now. I'm not calling out a possible Global Financial Crisis or crash this upcoming fall but its possible with what I've seen going on around the news lately. We just have to see though I honestly don't know for sure.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/20/15 at 5:08 pm


I agree with your whole list except for the following I have in bold. I hardly consider the 2008-2009 school year as a core 2000's school year, that's the start of the early 2010's IMO. The stock market crash occurred and Barack Obama was elected and became president, it had a COMPLETELY different feel than 2007-2008 school year, it completely changed. Youtube had went HD that year and actually by that time HD had became the standard. Here in Georgia the fashion had changed too but I'm not going into detail of that. I have year book pictures of how different everybody looks during the 2007-2008 school year compared to 2008-2009 when all of that changed. Also, as someone already mentioned before, maybe not to middle school folks at the time, but to high school & college students Myspace was past its prime and Facebook became the norm by then.

The 2012-2013 school year was the first full school year Twitter entered its prime. I know this myself because everybody was talking about getting Twitter accounts by then like everybody was excited. Jersey Shore's popularity went down and came to an end. Although electropop music is still going on like today, it seemed like music had a huge attitude change throughout school year, go to billboard 2013 songs and you can tell that by this time hit songs from like 2009-2010 sound a little dated. Also, as soon as 2013 hit, it seemed like the 2010's decade fully formed its own identity. I don't consider that as the same era as Late 2008-early 2012 anymore.

As for the 2015-2016 school year, we really can't say yet we have to see how this year progresses. I noticed that coming into this school year there was a Church massacre around the same time Gay Marriage had been legalized across the United States with flag controversies. Our country is setting up an Iran Nuclear Deal or whatever you call it right now. I'm not calling out a possible Global Financial Crisis or crash this upcoming fall but its possible with what I've seen going on around the news lately. We just have to see though I honestly don't know for sure.


True you got a point on the first one! However Bush was still president for a chunk of that school year, you still had a lot of emo, indie, & crunk/snap rap popular that year. On top of that flip phones were still dominant, and while facebook was taking over myspace that year it was more of a gradual change.

Objectively 2007-2008 was the last firm myspace year, 2008-2009 was the transition, 2009-2010 was the first facebook year.

So 2008-2009 is very borderline indeed but I still think it leans more to the core 2000's but just barely though. 2009 itself was a very transformative year (Obama becoming president, rap/emo starting to lose ground, rise of Lady Gaga & Katy Perry, Blackberrys becoming the phone of choice and the iphone slowly catching up, The 7th gen video game consoles entering their peak, the rise of the Tea Party Movement, etc.).

While 2008 ushered in the 10's with the decline of the economy, the huge unpopularity of the Iraq War & the height of Democrat vs. Republican warfare, but 2007 (and even late 06 to an extent) also had a lot of those things and the whole bubble just popped around late 08/early 09'. It wasn't really until Feb 09 when Pres Obama passed the American Recovery Act, when things started to feel like a new era. By mid 09 we were starting to lean more towards the 10's both culturally and politically but for much of early 09 (aka 08-09) you still had that lingering 00's feeling in the air.

So 2008 & 2009 are both transformative years but 2008 (2007-2008 & 2008-2009) is slightly leaning towards 00's while 2009 (especially 2009-2010) is leaning more on 10's.



On the second point, well you are right, twitter did gain some major ground this year and it did become the main social network of during this year, however this was also the last school year when facebook had a major stronghold.

Also the last to have certain elements from late 00's/early 10's pop sounds to be in music, the last year dubstep was well with the public, the last school year of the 7th generation video game consoles, shows like Jersey Shore & Breaking Bad were still on the school year, the subcultures of this era like Scene & Guido were still dominant for the most part etc.

Its the same case for 2008 & 2009. 2012 & 2013 were indeed transformative years but the 2012-2013 school year (especially if you take account for anything from August/Sep 2012 to Feb/March 2013, almost 3 thirds of the school year) then it leans slightly more towards the electropop era than the core 10's era.

When the economy started to improve in late 2013, along with the debuts of musicians like Lorde and Sam Smith, the complete 180 of musicians like Miley Cyrus, the debut of House of Cards & Orange is the New Black, movies like Anchorman 2, and the release of PS4 & Xbox One; all of these taking place around mid-late 2013, is when the 10's truly began.

For much of early 13' (which is part of the 12-13 school year) a lot of these hadn't come to fruition just yet.

So 2012-2013, while yes very borderline, is still leaning more towards the electropop era but slightly

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/20/15 at 7:43 pm

I graduated high school in 2004 so it was a pretty significant  and transitional year for me in my personal life.  Looking back though, most of that year still feels very early '00s with the exception of the late portion of it.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/20/15 at 8:18 pm


I graduated high school in 2004 so it was a pretty significant  and transitional year for me in my personal life.  Looking back though, most of that year still feels very early '00s with the exception of the late portion of it.

Kinda like 2014 was for me!! ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ArcticFox on 08/20/15 at 10:52 pm

In some cases yes, in some cases no. By the 2004-2005 school year, emo had kicked off and rock was beginning to cater towards that audience. Although there are some songs from 2001-early 2004 that have that "early emo" type of vibe. "The Middle" and "Perfect" anyone?

This is what was happening in mid-late 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0U0AlLVqpk
Yeah, pretty emo..

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/20/15 at 11:56 pm

2003 was around when I started hearing about emo which was right around the time of Simple Plan.  Jimmy Eat World - The Middle was a bit too early in my opinion. 

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/21/15 at 3:12 am

2004 was definitely mid-2000s, not early 2000s.  Lil Jon was now the dominant urban music producer instead of The Neptunes, DVD had completely overtaken VHS, CG Animation was standard in cinema, Friends, Frasier, and Buffy were over, MySpace had become significant, iPods were more popular than portable CD players, and backlash agains the War on Terror had completely overtaken post-9/11 patriotism due to the WOMD and Abu Ghraib controversies.  Movies from that year like Mean Girls, Anchorman, Dodgeball, Napoleon Dynamite, and Shark Tale were unmistakably mid-2000s, not pseudo-millennial.  Video games were now truly 2000s in terms of gameplay, thanks to the standardization of online titles and the release of groundbreaking titles like Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, The Sims 2, and Halo 2, not to mention the debut of the Nintendo DS.

I agree with ocarinafan96 about the 2012-2013 school year, as that was the period when early 2010s culture started to really decline, but the mid-2010s had not yet established a clear identity.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/21/15 at 8:37 am


2004 was definitely mid-2000s, not early 2000s.  Lil Jon was now the dominant urban music producer instead of The Neptunes, DVD had completely overtaken VHS, CG Animation was standard in cinema, Friends, Frasier, and Buffy were over, MySpace had become significant, iPods were more popular than portable CD players, and backlash agains the War on Terror had completely overtaken post-9/11 patriotism due to the WOMD and Abu Ghraib controversies.  Movies from that year like Mean Girls, Anchorman, Dodgeball, Napoleon Dynamite, and Shark Tale were unmistakably mid-2000s, not pseudo-millennial.  Video games were now truly 2000s in terms of gameplay, thanks to the standardization of online titles and the release of groundbreaking titles like Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, The Sims 2, and Halo 2, not to mention the debut of the Nintendo DS.

I agree with ocarinafan96 about the 2012-2013 school year, as that was the period when early 2010s culture started to really decline, but the mid-2010s had not yet established a clear identity.


I agree with your first point! Maybe early 04' might of had a few millennial influences but by mid 04 were in the 2000's full force! Also as someone who was a Junior during 2012-2013 school year it was the tail end of electropop influences (most specifically the early 10's side) similar to how the 2003-2004 school year was the last to have any millennial influences (the early 00's side).

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/15 at 9:49 am


2004 was definitely mid-2000s, not early 2000s.  Lil Jon was now the dominant urban music producer instead of The Neptunes, DVD had completely overtaken VHS, CG Animation was standard in cinema, Friends, Frasier, and Buffy were over, MySpace had become significant, iPods were more popular than portable CD players, and backlash agains the War on Terror had completely overtaken post-9/11 patriotism due to the WOMD and Abu Ghraib controversies.  Movies from that year like Mean Girls, Anchorman, Dodgeball, Napoleon Dynamite, and Shark Tale were unmistakably mid-2000s, not pseudo-millennial.  Video games were now truly 2000s in terms of gameplay, thanks to the standardization of online titles and the release of groundbreaking titles like Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, The Sims 2, and Halo 2, not to mention the debut of the Nintendo DS.

I agree with ocarinafan96 about the 2012-2013 school year, as that was the period when early 2010s culture started to really decline, but the mid-2010s had not yet established a clear identity.


How? The mid-2010s already established an identity now. There's clearly no early 2010s music that's being played non stop on the radios and everybody is just trying to listening to other artists that were never heard of maybe. I simply don't care about this decade's pop culture, but I already know that the mid-2010s is at full swing right now, culturally and chronologically.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/21/15 at 10:21 am


How? The mid-2010s already established an identity now. There's clearly no early 2010s music that's being played non stop on the radios and everybody is just trying to listening to other artists that were never heard of maybe. I simply don't care about this decade's pop culture, but I already know that the mid-2010s is at full swing right now, culturally and chronologically.


She was reffefring to the 2012-2013 school year

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/21/15 at 11:19 am


2004 was definitely mid-2000s, not early 2000s.  Lil Jon was now the dominant urban music producer instead of The Neptunes, DVD had completely overtaken VHS, CG Animation was standard in cinema, Friends, Frasier, and Buffy were over, MySpace had become significant, iPods were more popular than portable CD players, and backlash agains the War on Terror had completely overtaken post-9/11 patriotism due to the WOMD and Abu Ghraib controversies.  Movies from that year like Mean Girls, Anchorman, Dodgeball, Napoleon Dynamite, and Shark Tale were unmistakably mid-2000s, not pseudo-millennial.  Video games were now truly 2000s in terms of gameplay, thanks to the standardization of online titles and the release of groundbreaking titles like Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, The Sims 2, and Halo 2, not to mention the debut of the Nintendo DS.



All of this describes the second half of 2004.  The first half still had an early '00s feel with some mid 00s influences.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/15 at 1:21 pm


She was reffefring to the 2012-2013 school year


That year was still early 2010s, culturally maybe.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/15 at 1:27 pm


That year was still early 2010s, culturally maybe.


More like transition from early 2010's to mid 2010's. I remember as soon as New Years 2013 began and looking at people's new hairstyles, fashion, and how the music had suddenly changed like the release of Harlem Shake and all that, and when Twitter exploded, it no longer felt like late 2008-mid 2012 to me anymore. That's just how I felt though.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/15 at 1:36 pm


More like transition from early 2010's to mid 2010's. I remember as soon as New Years 2013 began and looking at people's new hairstyles, fashion, and how the music had suddenly changed like the release of Harlem Shake and all that, and when Twitter exploded, it no longer felt like late 2008-mid 2012 to me anymore. That's just how I felt though.


Harlem Shake wasn't really something that people would define the early 2010s, since people only cared about in 2013. After that, it became extremely obscure on the Internet. But besides that, I guess the mid 2010s sort of began in late 2013 maybe.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ArcticFox on 08/21/15 at 1:50 pm


Harlem Shake wasn't really something that people would define the early 2010s, since people only cared about in 2013. After that, it became extremely obscure on the Internet. But besides that, I guess the mid 2010s sort of began in late 2013 maybe.


I consider Harlem Shake a late 2012-2013 kind of thing. I hated that trend!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/21/15 at 1:58 pm

I don't know how a thread about 2004 and 2005 became about the transition from early to mid 2010s, but I will comment on it.

I think the early '10s died during the summer of 2012.  Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" was the song of the summer and was a foreshadow of where music was going.  One Direction was also huge that summer as was Justin Bieber's second album.  Music very quickly went from mature to very teenybopperish. Lady Gaga was not as popular and mid '10s trap hip-hop overtook the late '00s sound that year.  Dubstep also started to lose popularity around that time.  Post-grunge was gone for good.

Fashion became decidedly mid-10s that year, with the last traces of emo and scene culture finally gone.  The side-buzz haircut on men started to become more popular.  Skinny jeans as well as logo t-shirts went out of style.

That was also a time of significant change culturally, especially on the front of LGBT issues.  Obama came out publicly in support of same-sex marriage for the first time.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/15 at 2:10 pm


I don't know how a thread about 2004 and 2005 became about the transition from early to mid 2010s, but I will comment on it.

I think the early '10s died during the summer of 2012.  Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" was the song of the summer and was a foreshadow of where music was going.  One Direction was also huge that summer as was Justin Bieber's second album.  Music very quickly went from mature to very teenybopperish. Lady Gaga was not as popular and mid '10s trap hip-hop overtook the late '00s sound that year.  Dubstep also started to lose popularity around that time.  Post-grunge was gone for good.

Fashion became decidedly mid-10s that year, with the last traces of emo and scene culture finally gone.  The side-buzz haircut on men started to become more popular.  Skinny jeans as well as logo t-shirts went out of style.

That was also a time of significant change culturally, especially on the front of LGBT issues.  Obama came out publicly in support of same-sex marriage for the first time.


DING! DING! DING! and this is why I believe the early 2010's was dead by the end of 2012 too, good facts and there's more to it. The logo T-shirts going out of style was a huge mention, here in Georgia I remember my first two years of high school when everybody was crazy about brands like Ralph Lauren Polo, Aeropostale, Nike, North Face, Rocka-wear, etc. Since 2013-now in this weird Twitter-Hipster era everybody has been wearing what ever the hell they want to in any type of style, plus with all the songs that debuted in 2013 with these new teenybopper songs and many other songs that year. Many songs made in 2010 from artists like Black Eyed Peas or T.I. started feeling real distant and a tiny bit dated.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/15 at 2:25 pm


I don't know how a thread about 2004 and 2005 became about the transition from early to mid 2010s, but I will comment on it.

I think the early '10s died during the summer of 2012.  Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" was the song of the summer and was a foreshadow of where music was going.  One Direction was also huge that summer as was Justin Bieber's second album.  Music very quickly went from mature to very teenybopperish. Lady Gaga was not as popular and mid '10s trap hip-hop overtook the late '00s sound that year.  Dubstep also started to lose popularity around that time.  Post-grunge was gone for good.

Fashion became decidedly mid-10s that year, with the last traces of emo and scene culture finally gone.  The side-buzz haircut on men started to become more popular.  Skinny jeans as well as logo t-shirts went out of style.

That was also a time of significant change culturally, especially on the front of LGBT issues.  Obama came out publicly in support of same-sex marriage for the first time.


What we were saying is that the 2003-2004 school year was the transition from the early 2000's (millennial era) to the core 2000's. Similar to how 2008-2009 school year was transition from core 2000's to early 2010's, and how 2012-2013 was transition from early 2010's to core 2010's.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/15 at 2:58 pm


I consider Harlem Shake a late 2012-2013 kind of thing. I hated that trend!


It seems like you hate everything from 2012. I'm not that surprised since I actually hate that year, nor would I want to become nostalgic over it.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 08/21/15 at 3:42 pm


It seems like you hate everything from 2012. I'm not that surprised since I actually hate that year, nor would I want to become nostalgic over it.


That's how I feel about 2013.  I will never be nostalgic about that year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/15 at 3:48 pm


It seems like you hate everything from 2012. I'm not that surprised since I actually hate that year, nor would I want to become nostalgic over it.


2012 may have been bad pop culturally for certain people, but you can't deny that year was one of the best for movies ever. 2013 was a better year pop culturally but at the same time I didn't like the stuff it brought out, however, it was still a pretty good year for music and another great year for movies. However, in my personal life when it comes to high school, that 2nd semester of my junior year (Spring 2013) was the worst for me. The classes and even that terrible lunch I had ??? 8-P My 4th block American Lit. class was the only good thing about that semester which actually made my day better after the bad parts about it. My senior year from Fall 2013-Spring 2014 was a huge improvement though and I had a great time and graduated.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/15 at 4:24 pm


That's how I feel about 2013.  I will never be nostalgic about that year.


Meh. 2013 just seems forgettable to me.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 08/21/15 at 9:19 pm


All of this describes the second half of 2004.  The first half still had an early '00s feel with some mid 00s influences.


There was still sort of a mid-2000s vibe, imo, as early as the autumn of 2003, since early 2000s culture was past its peak then and the tone of popular music, gaming, fashion, etc. was becoming significantly more removed from the late 90s.  From what I remember, people were hardly talking about Yu-Gi-Oh! during the 2003/2004 school year the way they were in 2002/2003.  Damning headlines about the War on Terror were frequent.  The Abu Ghraib stories were first published in November 2003, while the first report of no Weapons of Mass Destruction being found in Iraq was from October 2003.  Lil Jon's Get Low was popular around this time, and Usher's Yeah!, the biggest crunk song ever, was huge during the first few months of 2004.  Mean Girls, Napoleon Dynamite, and Dodgeball all came out during the first half of 2004.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The X-Files were over, while Cartoon Network was just starting to decline, due to the cancellation of Dexter's Laboratory and Courage the Cowardly Dog, as well as the decline in quality of the Powerpuff Girls, plus the transition from the classic Cartoon Cartoons theme to the TRL-style Fridays.  DVD's had already overtaken VHS tapes and more people were starting to pick up on iTunes.  Mid-2000s culture hadn't really peaked yet, but the whole post-9/11, Neptunes-dominated, pseudo-90s atmosphere of 2001-mid-2003 was basically expired by fall 2003.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/15 at 9:57 pm


There was still sort of a mid-2000s vibe, imo, as early as the autumn of 2003, since early 2000s culture was past its peak then and the tone of popular music, gaming, fashion, etc. was becoming significantly more removed from the late 90s.  From what I remember, people were hardly talking about Yu-Gi-Oh! during the 2003/2004 school year the way they were in 2002/2003.  Damning headlines about the War on Terror were frequent.  The Abu Ghraib stories were first published in November 2003, while the first report of no Weapons of Mass Destruction being found in Iraq was from October 2003.  Lil Jon's Get Low was popular around this time, and Usher's Yeah!, the biggest crunk song ever, was huge during the first few months of 2004.  Mean Girls, Napoleon Dynamite, and Dodgeball all came out during the first half of 2004.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The X-Files were over, while Cartoon Network was just starting to decline, due to the cancellation of Dexter's Laboratory and Courage the Cowardly Dog, as well as the decline in quality of the Powerpuff Girls, plus the transition from the classic Cartoon Cartoons theme to the TRL-style Fridays.  DVD's had already overtaken VHS tapes and more people were starting to pick up on iTunes.  Mid-2000s culture hadn't really peaked yet, but the whole post-9/11, Neptunes-dominated, pseudo-90s atmosphere of 2001-mid-2003 was basically expired by fall 2003.


Hands down. By late 2003/early 2004 the early 2000's no longer peaked anymore and those were transitional times into the mid 2000's before it peaked by late 2004. Let me add on to this, Toonami was taken from the weekday afternoons to Saturday nights only in place for Miguzi, which actually happened in April 2004, even before the new logo and CN City went full effect two months later. Really I consider Summer 1999 up to Summer 2003 to be the real peak of Cartoon Network in all honesty when it comes to all the events and the max popularity of the things that defined the Powerhouse era. Fall 2003 was the start of the network watering down all the elements that defined the golden age before all the changes went full effect by Summer or Fall 2004. Also, might I also add is that Drake & Josh premiered in 2004 and That's So Raven despite it already being out by 2003, had reached its max popularity by 2004 as well. Nicktoons like Hey Arnold, Rugrats, Rocket Power, etc. had all came to an end by 2004 too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

"Though the iPod was released in 2001, its price and Mac-only compatibility caused sales to be relatively slow until 2004. The iPod line came from Apple's "digital hub" category, when the company began creating software for the growing market of personal digital devices. Digital cameras, camcorders and organizers had well-established mainstream markets, but the company found existing digital music players "big and clunky or small and useless" with user interfaces that were "unbelievably awful," so Apple decided to develop its own."

"Since October 2004, the iPod line has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players. During the year from January 2004 to January 2005, the high rate of sales caused its U.S. market share to increase from 31% to 65% and in July 2005, this market share was measured at 74%."

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/21/15 at 10:47 pm


Hands down. By late 2003/early 2004 the early 2000's no longer peaked anymore and those were transitional times into the mid 2000's before it peaked by late 2004. Let me add on to this, Toonami was taken from the weekday afternoons to Saturday nights only in place for Miguzi, which actually happened in April 2004, even before the new logo and CN City went full effect two months later. Really I consider Summer 1999 up to Summer 2003 to be the real peak of Cartoon Network in all honesty when it comes to all the events and the max popularity of the things that defined the Powerhouse era. Fall 2003 was the start of the network watering down all the elements that defined the golden age before all the changes went full effect by Summer or Fall 2004. Also, might I also add is that Drake & Josh premiered in 2004 and That's So Raven despite it already being out by 2003, had reached its max popularity by 2004 as well. Nicktoons like Hey Arnold, Rugrats, Rocket Power, etc. had all came to an end by 2004 too.

Agreed!! Cartoon Network was in a MAJOR transitional phase that 03-04 school year! Just like Disney Channel was in a transitional phase 2002-03!
BTW!! 2004-05 school year, things felt VERY weird for me! It no longer felt like my peak kid years due to some MAJOR changes taking place on Nick, CN, and Toon Disney. New TV series on prime time premiered and movies were beginning to look brand new! I also went through a chubby phase during that time too. ;D ;D ;D  It was a strange time indeed,even doing slightly older kid things but I didn't quite feel like an older kid yet until fall 2005, ya know what I mean!!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 08/23/15 at 11:22 pm


Agreed!! Cartoon Network was in a MAJOR transitional phase that 03-04 school year! Just like Disney Channel was in a transitional phase 2002-03!
BTW!! 2004-05 school year, things felt VERY weird for me! It no longer felt like my peak kid years due to some MAJOR changes taking place on Nick, CN, and Toon Disney. New TV series on prime time premiered and movies were beginning to look brand new! I also went through a chubby phase during that time too. ;D ;D ;D  It was a strange time indeed,even doing slightly older kid things but I didn't quite feel like an older kid yet until fall 2005, ya know what I mean!!


Yeah 2003-2004, was a transitional era but slightly leaning more towards the millennial era, especially in the realm of cartoons. Cartoon Network, while made a few controversial changes this such as turing Cartoon Cartoon Fridays into simply Fridays & of course the lack of the traditional powerhouse music during the bumpers, for the most part was still in its golden age aka Powerhouse Era (albeit the tail end) especially since shows like Johnny Bravo & Powerpuff Girls were still on the air and shows like Cow & Chicken & Dexter's Lab were still airing reruns. Plus for much of that school year, Toonami was still on the weekdays!

The same could be said with Nickelodeon, it was the tail end of the Klasky Csupo Era aka Nick's Silver Age. You still had shows like Hey Arnold, Rocket Power, The Wild Thornberry's, & Rugrats on the air and or showing reruns regularly this school year. Its considered the last golden era for Spongebob & Fairly Odd Parents. Plus it was the last school year when SNICK was in effect.

In the realm of Toon Disney, this was the school year Jetix debuted, but for the most part the channel still had a lot of variety of older toons and (at the time) newer toons.

I would say the 2004-2005 school year was when Toon Disney, Nick, & CN, started to go downhill albeit a slight decline. For much of 2004-2005 & 2005-2006 many of these channels were in their silver/bronze ages and still having quality shows. The problem was that they started to lose a lot of variety, so you saw less of older cartoons.

By 2006-2007, it was a very noticeable decline, so much so that I really started lose interest in kid channels this year.

This is just one of the many reasons why I cringe when people say the 2003-2004 school year was the core 00's, when in reality in the realm of kid channels it was possibly the last school year of the golden age.

So it makes sense for 2003-2004 school year to be a early 00'ish millennial school year rather than a core 00's school year, but this is just one of the many reasons!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/24/15 at 12:32 am


Yeah 2003-2004, was a transitional era but slightly leaning more towards the millennial era, especially in the realm of cartoons. Cartoon Network, while made a few controversial changes this such as turing Cartoon Cartoon Fridays into simply Fridays & of course the lack of the traditional powerhouse music during the bumpers, for the most part was still in its golden age aka Powerhouse Era (albeit the tail end) especially since shows like Johnny Bravo & Powerpuff Girls were still on the air and shows like Cow & Chicken & Dexter's Lab were still airing reruns. Plus for much of that school year, Toonami was still on the weekdays!


The same could be said with Nickelodeon, it was the tail end of the Klasky Csupo Era aka Nick's Silver Age. You still had shows like Hey Arnold, Rocket Power, The Wild Thornberry's, & Rugrats on the air and or showing reruns regularly this school year. Its considered the last golden era for Spongebob & Fairly Odd Parents. Plus it was the last school year when SNICK was in effect.

In the realm of Toon Disney, this was the school year Jetix debuted, but for the most part the channel still had a lot of variety of older toons and (at the time) newer toons.

I would say the 2004-2005 school year was when Toon Disney, Nick, & CN, started to go downhill albeit a slight decline. For much of 2004-2005 & 2005-2006 many of these channels were in their silver/bronze ages and still having quality shows. The problem was that they started to lose a lot of variety, so you saw less of older cartoons.

By 2006-2007, it was a very noticeable decline, so much so that I really started lose interest in kid channels this year.

This is just one of the many reasons why I cringe when people say the 2003-2004 school year was the core 00's, when in reality in the realm of kid channels it was possibly the last school year of the golden age.

So it makes sense for 2003-2004 school year to be a early 00'ish millennial school year rather than a core 00's school year, but this is just one of the many reasons!

They probably say that because the kid and even teen culture was SLIGHTLY different than the adult culture at that time! But you're correct, I cringe when they say stuff like that because, it was still more millennial than core in the adult culture due to series like The Practice, Friends, Frasier, and NYPD Blue were all still airing, Online gaming was popular yet, Youtube wasn't a thing yet, Glam and bling bling rap was still the rage, Contemporary R&B still had that early 00s sound, Nu metal was STILL the rage before metalcore took over, Animated movies in 2D were still being released(even though pixar and dreamworks had already made cgi animated films), WWE was still in it's early ruthless agression era stage; because The Rock and SCSA weren't completely gone yet and HHH and Brock Lesnar were still the faces of RAW and SmackDown. etc. etc.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 08/24/15 at 2:21 am


They probably say that because the kid and even teen culture was SLIGHTLY different than the adult culture at that time! But you're correct, I cringe when they say stuff like that because, it was still more millennial than core in the adult culture due to series like The Practice, Friends, Frasier, and NYPD Blue were all still airing, Online gaming was popular yet, Youtube wasn't a thing yet, Glam and bling bling rap was still the rage, Contemporary R&B still had that early 00s sound, Nu metal was STILL the rage before metalcore took over, Animated movies in 2D were still being released(even though pixar and dreamworks had already made cgi animated films), WWE was still in it's early ruthless agression era stage; because The Rock and SCSA weren't completely gone yet and HHH and Brock Lesnar were still the faces of RAW and SmackDown. etc. etc.


*wasn't*

Then you got a perfect description! ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 08/24/15 at 2:32 pm

WWE was still in it's early ruthless agression era stage; because The Rock and SCSA weren't completely gone yet and HHH and Brock Lesnar were still the faces of RAW and SmackDown. etc. etc.

The Rock and Stone Cold were on their way out so that made way for John Cena and Randy Orton to debut later in 2002.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/24/15 at 3:44 pm


The Rock and Stone Cold were on their way out so that made way for John Cena and Randy Orton to debut later in 2002.

WWE was in a weird transitional period during the early ruthless aggression years. Smackdown having the smackdown six and RAW mainly having the older attitude guys. But, Rock and Austin were still part time in 03 and early 04. (I know Austin retired in ring at wrestlemania 19, but he was still Co-GM of Raw with Bischoff) Eddie and Benoit's wins were brief. But yeah, after Wrestelmania 20 Cena, Orton, and Batista were built as the new faces of the WWE. With Orton winning the world title at SS 2004 and both Cena and Batista winning at WM 21. The focus shifted towards those three during the latter part of the aggression years!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 09/08/15 at 11:03 pm

I would definitely consider 2004 still apart of early 2000s culture. Not 2005 by a long shot. 2005 is even nothing like 2004. As soon as 2005 hit, it was a instant change.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 09/09/15 at 1:13 am


I would definitely consider 2004 still apart of early 2000s culture. Not 2005 by a long shot. 2005 is even nothing like 2004. As soon as 2005 hit, it was a instant change.


In what ways?  YouTube wasn't popular yet in 2005, and Wikipedia didn't catch on until the end of the year.  All of the key 90s and millennial era shows aired their final seasons by the spring of '04, while new ones quickly took their place.  Crunk was dominant from the beginning of the year and beyond, and MySpace was pretty well-established that year, as well.  The only huge difference between 2004 and 2005, imo, is that the former was a notably superior year for movies and music.  I would certainly not say there was "instant change" once 2005 came around.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/09/15 at 7:09 am

Yeah, I don't understand why people think the core 2000's started in 2003 when you know 2003 is still strictly early 2000's with tons of millennial influences left, or some people think 2004 is similar to 2003 pop culturally in terms of what was relevant, but no. 2002 & 2003 are more related to each other. 2004 is a lot more related to 2005 than 2003. So 2004-2007 are the core 2000's and 2004 is when 2000's culture fully formed its own identity, not 2003 which was still strictly early 2000's with very little late 90's influences left. 2003 is in the same category as late 2001 and 2002 post-9/11 early 2000's feel.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/09/15 at 7:19 am


Crunk was dominant from the beginning of the year and beyond, and MySpace was pretty well-established that year, as well.  The only huge difference between 2004 and 2005, imo, is that the former was a notably superior year for movies and music.  I would certainly not say there was "instant change" once 2005 came around.


Funny how Myspace debuted in August 2003 and Facebook debuted 6 months later in February 2004, which would be the predecessors to Youtube and Twitter releases the following years. So on a technical note most of 2003 there was no such thing as any of these social media sites, but then by 2004 Myspace & Facebook at the same damn time first full year those were in full swing. Man the attitude changes between 2003 and 2004 is mind blogging. Of course 2003 was a transitional year especially the late part of it, but transitional meaning that it was still mostly early 2000's despite the mid 2000's slowly creeping in. Doesn't mean 2003 is a core 2000's year although politically, worldly, and music wise 2003 might be core 2000's but to me in order for a year of the decade to be core everything including the pop culture most be 100% defined in every aspect and pop culturally 2003 was still missing a lot of things strictly 2000's that 2004 & 2005 had to offer.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 09/09/15 at 9:25 am


In what ways?  YouTube wasn't popular yet in 2005, and Wikipedia didn't catch on until the end of the year.  All of the key 90s and millennial era shows aired their final seasons by the spring of '04, while new ones quickly took their place.  Crunk was dominant from the beginning of the year and beyond, and MySpace was pretty well-established that year, as well.  The only huge difference between 2004 and 2005, imo, is that the former was a notably superior year for movies and music.  I would certainly not say there was "instant change" once 2005 came around.


I admit to being blinded by the music change. By 2005, music evolved in such a breath taking way that created a whole different fresh  atmosphere. As if the world was a new beginning. I have no knowledge on 2005 internet due to I didn't start using computers till mid 2006.
Yeah, I don't understand why people think the core 2000's started in 2003 when you know 2003 is still strictly early 2000's with tons of millennial influences left, or some people think 2004 is similar to 2003 pop culturally in terms of what was relevant, but no. 2002 & 2003 are more related to each other. 2004 is a lot more related to 2005 than 2003. So 2004-2007 are the core 2000's and 2004 is when 2000's culture fully formed its own identity, not 2003 which was still strictly early 2000's with very little late 90's influences left. 2003 is in the same category as late 2001 and 2002 post-9/11 early 2000's feel.


To be honest, I was really saying that 2004 has more in common with the Early 2000 then 2005. But not by a long show. Just to a fair extension. The vibe during 2004 felt similar to 2001. 2004 was a pretty colorful year. 2005 had more of a gold coloring.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Shemp97 on 09/09/15 at 6:47 pm

Some people call the '00s decade the early-2000s century-wise. Seems like a mouthful and incredibly vague, but people do it.

That aside, 2004-06 and even '07 had it's own flavour distinct from the early and late 00s. nu-metal, punk rock, country, alternative rock and post-grunge were in with Nickleback, Greenday, Shania twain, Shilo and Avril Lavigne . Hiphop saw the death of gangsta rap and the rise of glam, grime and alternative rap with emerging artists like Kanye, Lupe fiasco, K-OS, Shad, Nate Dogg and the Boondocks featured artists among others.

Politically, it was as nice and stable as the early '00s. Thanks to the government getting us out of the economic issues of the previous decade, though where I live, Harper got voted in in 2006 and politics has been going downhill from there.

TV and film were a little closer to the late 00s with shows like LOST and Supernatural/films like HSM, Pixar films and Fast n furious. The end of 90s cartoons ushered in a fully 00s era with more serious toned cartoons like Teen titans, Di-gata, Chaotic, Avatar and  Storm hawks as well as Mighty bee, Johnney Test, The tofus, My Dad's a rock star on the light hearted side. Like music, there was still alot of variety thanks to the explosion of creators hitting the scene. Alot, and I mean alot of cartoons came out in the mid to late 00s, it was insane.

All in all, the mid-00s were pretty firm in their own era.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/09/15 at 6:52 pm


Some people call the '00s decade the early-2000s century-wise. Seems like a mouthful and incredibly vague, but people do it.


Why would call the whole 2000s decade as the "early 2000s century-wise"?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Shemp97 on 09/10/15 at 9:36 am


Why would call the whole 2000s decade as the "early 2000s century-wise"?

The same reason you'll hear about the Wright brothers flying in the" early 1900s" while others will just say "1900s". Some people just late the pre-'20s part of a century  "the early-whatevers" instead of by decade. It takes me a while to figure out what these people are referring to.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/05/16 at 8:45 pm

Pardon the bump, but I'm guessing Facebook/YouTube people say 2004-2005 are "early 2000s" because it's simpler than "early-mid 2000s", maybe? Like how everyone calls the United States of America "America" - even though it's not America, it's the United States OF America (i.e. North America). It's incorrect, but it's been used that way for so long that nobody can be arsed to say it right.

People tend to do this with other decades, too. I've heard people say Sonic SatAM (1993-1994) is an "early 90s" show, even though it's probably a bit more of a mid-90s show. They also say Adventures of pete & pete (1991-1996) is an early 90s show, but it's both an early 90s show AND a mid-90s show.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 8:55 pm


Pardon the bump, but I'm guessing Facebook/YouTube people say 2004-2005 are "early 2000s" because it's simpler than "early-mid 2000s", maybe? Like how everyone calls the United States of America "America" - even though it's not America, it's the United States OF America (i.e. North America). It's incorrect, but it's been used that way for so long that nobody can be arsed to say it right.

People tend to do this with other decades, too. I've heard people say Sonic SatAM (1993-1994) is an "early 90s" show, even though it's probably a bit more of a mid-90s show. They also say Adventures of pete & pete (1991-1996) is an early 90s show, but it's both an early 90s show AND a mid-90s show.


A lot of people divide the decade into two instead of threes, in that case 2000-2005 for early 2000s and 2006-2009 for late 2000s makes sense.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/05/16 at 8:57 pm


Pardon the bump, but I'm guessing Facebook/YouTube people say 2004-2005 are "early 2000s" because it's simpler than "early-mid 2000s", maybe? Like how everyone calls the United States of America "America" - even though it's not America, it's the United States OF America (i.e. North America). It's incorrect, but it's been used that way for so long that nobody can be arsed to say it right.

People tend to do this with other decades, too. I've heard people say Sonic SatAM (1993-1994) is an "early 90s" show, even though it's probably a bit more of a mid-90s show. They also say Adventures of pete & pete (1991-1996) is an early 90s show, but it's both an early 90s show AND a mid-90s show.


Well, Sonic SatAM was more likely to be a half early-90s/half mid-90s show, since it did air between '93 and '94. If it aired in like 1995, then it would be a mid-90s show.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/05/16 at 8:57 pm


A lot of people divide the decade into two instead of threes, in that case 2000-2005 for early 2000s and 2006-2009 for late 2000s makes sense.


Technically, 2000-2005 is not the "first half" of the 00s, that's 2000-2004 - but once again, most people are too dumb to realize that (like how 2000 is considered the start of the new millennium when it's actually 2001).

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 03/05/16 at 8:59 pm


A lot of people divide the decade into two instead of threes, in that case 2000-2005 for early 2000s and 2006-2009 for late 2000s makes sense.


Or especially the 40s, which were clearly split between the World War II era (1940-mid-1945) and postwar era (late 1945-1949).  Same pretty much goes with the 50s, which are basically the crooner/McCarthyism era (1950-early 1955) and the Elvis/greaser/doo-wop/rockabilly era (mid-1955 to 1959).


Technically, 2000-2005 is not the "first half" of the 00s, that's 2000-2004 - but once again, most people are too dumb to realize that (like how 2000 is considered the start of the new millennium when it's actually 2001).


Which also means 2000 is a 90s year by definition, not just culturally.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/05/16 at 9:00 pm


Technically, 2000-2005 is not the "first half" of the 00s, that's 2000-2004 - but once again, most people are too dumb to realize that (like how 2000 is considered the start of the new millennium when it's actually 2001).


The general population doesn't give a sh*t, Zelek. If they would know 2001 was the actual start of the new millennium, then we wouldn't get the Y2K craze in the late 90s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 9:10 pm


Technically, 2000-2005 is not the "first half" of the 00s, that's 2000-2004 - but once again, most people are too dumb to realize that (like how 2000 is considered the start of the new millennium when it's actually 2001).


Yeah, I'm aware, but I've heard a lot of 2005 things such as Fall Out Boy and All-American Reject's 2005 albums being called "early 2000s" albums, so I think in most people's minds 2005 = early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/05/16 at 9:11 pm

This came out in 2005. Not the early 2000s, but feels quite dated surprisingly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTs0AoaMYGA

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 9:13 pm


Or especially the 40s, which were clearly split between the World War II era (1940-mid-1945) and postwar era (late 1945-1949).  Same pretty much goes with the 50s, which are basically the crooner/McCarthyism era (1950-early 1955) and the Elvis/greaser/doo-wop/rockabilly era (mid-1955 to 1959).

Which also means 2000 is a 90s year by definition, not just culturally.


Yeah, those are good examples. I think the 90s can also be divided into two, into pre-Internet Explorer early 90s (1990-mid 1995) and the late 90s (late 1995 - 1999), although I don't hear 1995 being called an early 90s year often.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/05/16 at 10:24 pm


Technically, 2000-2005 is not the "first half" of the 00s, that's 2000-2004 - but once again, most people are too dumb to realize that (like how 2000 is considered the start of the new millennium when it's actually 2001).


That divide is uneven. 2000-2005 is 6 years. 2006-2009 is 4 years. First half of the '00s is actually 2000-2004. 2nd half being 2005-2009. An even 5 year split of the 10 year decade.  Not sure how or why people got that confused. Same with 2000 being seen as the new millennium. People weren't celebrating the new millennium they were celebrating the end of the old millennium or rather the millennium year. Can just chalk down the "2000 being the new millennium" as another common misconception. Even if a lot of people believe it to be that way (mostly due to being dumb) it doesn't make it anymore true.


As for the topic the only part of 2004-2005 that can relate to the early '00s is early 2004 to me. Most of 2004-2005 is core '00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 10:37 pm

http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1257003814239.jpg

What!? No!! What on earth would I!?!?!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/05/16 at 10:39 pm


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1257003814239.jpg

What!? No!! What on earth would I!?!?!


Apparently there are people who think the early '00s existed up to 2005.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 10:44 pm


Apparently there are people who think the early '00s existed up to 2005.


Are these the same people who think the 90's ended in 2007?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: musicguy93 on 03/05/16 at 10:53 pm


Apparently there are people who think the early '00s existed up to 2005.


Some even extend it to 2006.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/05/16 at 10:54 pm


Apparently there are people who think the early '00s existed up to 2005.
Maybe it's because some are dividing the decade into two groups instead of 3. If that's the case, I can see why. Otherwise, 2005 is definitely mid 00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: musicguy93 on 03/05/16 at 10:56 pm


Are these the same people who think the 90's ended in 2007?


I think it's the same people who post stuff like "I miss 2000-2006". Or people who consider bands like Hawthorne Heights to be "early 00s". I really wish I were kidding.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 11:01 pm


I think it's the same people who post stuff like "I miss 2000-2006". Or people who consider bands like Hawthorne Heights to be "early 00s". I really wish I were kidding.


Oh god... You know, I really really hate this. "lol remmeber duh early 00s? lol we wood sing ohio iz 4 luvrz~ all nite!"

It's either "omg remmeber the first Used and Taking Back Sunday record from 2002? duh four minute mile git up kidz in 1997 n bleed american jimmy eat wurld? ahhh myspace dayz..." or "hawthorn hightz n fromt frizt 2 last is early 00s emo." I don't understand this... If they actually went to those bands shows/concerts then they wouldn't be saying this.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/05/16 at 11:03 pm

I can't stand it so much when people include 2004-2006 as part of the early 2000's, heck, even some cultural stuff that started around 2002 or 2003 that peaked for the majority of the mid 2000's shouldn't belong with the early 2000's as well.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 11:06 pm


Some even extend it to 2006.


Big Comfy Couch ended in 2006, right?  ;D

It might also be the case that the "early 2000s" are semi-cool on the Internet, so some people are trying to call 2005 "early 2000s", the same way people call 2000-2002 "the 90s"? So they can look like they have cred?

But I notice it's mostly people who were mostly teens then who do it, so I doubt they'd be looking for cred like that. *shrugs*

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/05/16 at 11:08 pm


Maybe it's because some are dividing the decade into two groups instead of 3. If that's the case, I can see why. Otherwise, 2005 is definitely mid 00s.


Well yeah in that case I can see how 2005 is grouped in with the early '00s, but in terms of culture and numerical placement it's not early '00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 11:09 pm


Big Comfy Couch ended in 2006, right?  ;D

It might also be the case that the "early 2000s" are semi-cool on the Internet, so some people are trying to call 2005 "early 2000s",the same way people call 2000-2002 "the 90s"? So they can look like they have cred?

But I notice it's mostly people who were mostly teens then who do it, so I doubt they'd be looking for cred like that. *shrugs*


Are you saying little children are trying to rip my cred?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 11:13 pm


Are you saying little children are trying to rip my cred?


It probably doesn't have much to do with cred. I guess it's because "early 2000s" are semi-cool, so people like to qualify anything nostalgic from the 2000s as "early 2000s". Just saying "2000s" would make it sound recent and not worthy of nostalgia?

edit: topic is getting pretty mundane lol. I think "some people see the decade in two parts instead of three" is probably the right answer.  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/05/16 at 11:16 pm


Big Comfy Couch ended in 2006, right?  ;D


IDK, but that was my show from 1998-2000.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 11:17 pm


It probably doesn't have much to do with cred. I guess it's because "early 2000s" are semi-cool, so people like to qualify anything nostalgic from the 2000s as "early 2000s".


So, what you're saying is the children aren't trying to rip my cred? You sure? My cred is valuable.


Just saying "2000s" would make it sound recent and not worthy of nostalgia?

edit: topic is getting pretty mundane lol. I think "some people see the decade in two parts instead of three" is probably the right answer.  ;D


Just saying "2000s" fills certain somebodies up with rage and contempt for terrible wing-haired times.

Some people see the decades as quantum space leaps, too.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Jquar on 03/06/16 at 2:35 am



Which also means 2000 is a 90s year by definition, not just culturally.


2000 is not a 90s year by definition since 90s literally just refers to the decade from 1990 to 1999. What 2000 is however is the last year of the 20th century, so of course it is apart of the last decade of that century (1991-2000). Not the same thing as the 90s though.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 9:15 am


Big Comfy Couch ended in 2006, right?  ;D

It might also be the case that the "early 2000s" are semi-cool on the Internet, so some people are trying to call 2005 "early 2000s", the same way people call 2000-2002 "the 90s"? So they can look like they have cred?

But I notice it's mostly people who were mostly teens then who do it, so I doubt they'd be looking for cred like that. *shrugs*


Well of course, it ended in 2006. I don't know why the f*ck did I even watch that show back when I was 6. It was like any other PBS Kids show, but it looked like it came from the early 90s. Even outside of the Internet, television was absolutely nostalgic towards the early 90s for some reason.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/07/16 at 1:53 pm


When I look on YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook comments, people seem to think "early 2000s" = 2000 to 2005/6, and "late 2000s" = 2007 to 2009. Granted, most of the commenters on those sites are brain-dead memespewing idiots, but still.

Would you say that culturally, 04-05/6 still had traits of the early 00s, or not really? Is it just people who can't do math and think there is no middle part of a decade?


No.  Certain things from the early 2000s were still lingering through those years, but 2004 and 2005 had a distinct mid '00s vibe, and were a lot different compared to say 2001.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/07/16 at 3:07 pm


No.  Certain things from the early 2000s were still lingering through those years, but 2004 and 2005 had a distinct mid '00s vibe, and were a lot different compared to say 2001.


This I agree with. The mid 2000s were different than the early 2000s. For one, you don't have those 90s/Y2K vibes anymore, as people were already transitioned from the new millennium. Also, kids networks like Nickelodeon already ended their shows that aired from the 90s/early 2000s. So, you pretty have some reasons.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/08/16 at 9:26 pm


It probably doesn't have much to do with cred. I guess it's because "early 2000s" are semi-cool, so people like to qualify anything nostalgic from the 2000s as "early 2000s". Just saying "2000s" would make it sound recent and not worthy of nostalgia?

edit: topic is getting pretty mundane lol. I think "some people see the decade in two parts instead of three" is probably the right answer.  ;D


Well yeah, it is recent to most people. Although, I think it would sound less modern in the late 2010s/early 2020s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/08/16 at 10:54 pm


It probably doesn't have much to do with cred. I guess it's because "early 2000s" are semi-cool, so people like to qualify anything nostalgic from the 2000s as "early 2000s". Just saying "2000s" would make it sound recent and not worthy of nostalgia?

edit: topic is getting pretty mundane lol. I think "some people see the decade in two parts instead of three" is probably the right answer.  ;D


Well the thing is if you say "2000's nostalgia" people would assume you're referring to 2000-2009. And the mid-late 2000s isn't part of mainstream nostalgia yet. Just saying "early 2000s" would let everyone know you're referring to 2000-2003 which seeing a rise in nostalgia among people as of a late. Again the same thing happened when 1990's nostalgia began back in the around 2006 or so. It was mostly just early 90's nostalgia. It took longer for the mid-late '90s to be seen as nostalgia among people.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/08/16 at 10:56 pm

Hahahahaha, you guys and girls are funny!  ;D  ;D  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/08/16 at 10:57 pm


Hahahahaha, you guys and girls are funny!  ;D  ;D  ;D


How so? ???

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/08/16 at 10:59 pm


How so? ???


To me, 2004 and 2005 isn't early 00's.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/08/16 at 11:01 pm


To me, 2004 and 2005 isn't early 00's.


Ah. Well yeah they aren't. Only parts that can be considered early '00s to me is the early part of 2004. But 2004 only had some leftovers as it was mainly a core '00s year. Not sure how'd anyone consider 2004-2005 as early '00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/08/16 at 11:02 pm


To me, 2004 and 2005 isn't early 00's.


http://i.imgur.com/f7FdEdG.jpg

Calling 2004 and 2005 the early 00's is sacrilege.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/08/16 at 11:06 pm

I saw a Spotify playlist for "late 90s/early 2000s songs (1995-2005)"

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/08/16 at 11:06 pm


I saw a Spotify playlist for "late 90s/early 2000s songs (1995-2005)"


http://imgfave-herokuapp-com.global.ssl.fastly.net/image_cache/1394371141892033.jpg

Include 1995-1997 all you want but leave crap like 2004-2005 out of it!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/08/16 at 11:07 pm


I saw a Spotify playlist for "late 90s/early 2000s songs (1995-2005)"

??? Should be called mid '90s-mid '00s then.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/08/16 at 11:08 pm


??? Should be called mid '90s-mid '00s then.

Yup!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/08/16 at 11:09 pm


http://i.imgur.com/f7FdEdG.jpg

Calling 2004 and 2005 the early 00's is sacrilege.


Morgan Freeman is literally God. Everyone knows that.  8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 03/08/16 at 11:10 pm


http://imgfave-herokuapp-com.global.ssl.fastly.net/image_cache/1394371141892033.jpg

Include 1995-1997 all you want but leave crap like 2004-2005 out of it!


That's a scary gorilla!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/08/16 at 11:13 pm


Morgan Freeman is literally God. Everyone knows that.  8)


If both Morgan Freeman and Jordan agrees, then you know the facts have been presented.


That's a scary gorilla!


He only comes out when somebody calls 2004 and 2005 "early 2000's."

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/09/16 at 12:17 am

No the mid 00's started in 2003.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/09/16 at 12:20 am


No the mid 00's started in 2003.


Pop culturally, it started in 2004, and that's what the majority of the people always refer to, get over it lol. You're not going to force people to believe that the mid 2000's started in 2003, now maybe if you say the core 2000's started in 2003 then I could get by that. We're always talking about the pop culture when having these discussions, not the numerical time period.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 12:23 am


Pop culturally, it started in 2004, and that's what the majority of the people always refer to, get over it lol. You're not going to force people to believe that the mid 2000's started in 2003, now maybe if you say the core 2000's started in 2003 then I could get by that. We're always talking about the pop culture when having these discussions, not the numerical time period.

Yup..... the LATTER HALF of 2003 was when core 00s culture started NOT mid, No way in hell!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/09/16 at 12:24 am


Pop culturally, it started in 2004, and that's what the majority of the people always refer to, get over it lol. You're not going to force people to believe that the mid 2000's started in 2003, now maybe if you say the core 2000's started in 2003 then I could get by that. We're always talking about the pop culture when having these discussions, not the numerical time period.

Why are you saying my opinion is wrong? These types of things are not facts. If you think something started in one year and saying someone else is wrong for their opinion you are clearly a decadologist. Like really how does one year make a difference in our giant universe? And you're the one saying there's a difference between core and mid 2000s... Never once have I called you out for your opinion but you always do on mine.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/09/16 at 12:30 am


Why are you saying my opinion is wrong? These types of things are not facts. If you think something started in one year and saying someone else is wrong for their opinion you are clearly a decadologist. And you're the one saying there's a difference between core and mid 2000s...


I'm the one saying there's a difference between the core and mid 2000's? Hahahaha, oh wow, you haven't read every post on here buddy. You out of all the people calling me the D word? People who use that word uses it as an excuse to get by all their conversations or debates the easy way. I'm not comparing numbers at all, I'm just debating about my thoughts on the pop culture. Have you ever brought up your reasons on why the mid 2000's started in 2003? What's your definition of mid 2000's culture? and don't say because April 2003 was the start of the mid 2000's numerically, like I said before, we discuss about the pop culture on here.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/09/16 at 12:33 am


Well the thing is if you say "2000's nostalgia" people would assume you're referring to 2000-2009. And the mid-late 2000s isn't part of mainstream nostalgia yet. Just saying "early 2000s" would let everyone know you're referring to 2000-2003 which seeing a rise in nostalgia among people as of a late. Again the same thing happened when 1990's nostalgia began back in the around 2006 or so. It was mostly just early 90's nostalgia. It took longer for the mid-late '90s to be seen as nostalgia among people.

This will make Jordan cringe but 2004 and 2005 seem to also have a bit of nostalgic "cred" to them among people, though not quite as much as 2000-2003.

I mean, just look at the comments on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBDeswu2dI

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/09/16 at 12:42 am


I'm the one saying there's a difference between the core and mid 2000's? Hahahaha, oh wow, you haven't read every post on here buddy. You out of all the people calling me the D word? People who use that word uses it as an excuse to get by all their conversations or debates the easy way. I'm not comparing numbers at all, I'm just debating about my thoughts on the pop culture. Have you ever brought up your reasons on why the mid 2000's started in 2003? What's your definition of mid 2000's culture? and don't say because April 2003 was the start of the mid 2000's numerically, like I said before, we discuss about the pop culture on here.

I listed my reasons many times. Because it felt like a different time than 2000-2002. 50 Cent came out with his smash hit In Da Club which kickstarted the 2000s rap sound, the feeling and culture felt different. Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love" sounds completely different than songs from 2000-2002, teen pop died out, the classic IPod became popular (released in 2002). 2003 felt like a very different year from 2002 and especially 2001. 2003 and 2004 were relatively similar. Numerically it is also important. But I listed my opinions, you may disagree with them but don't say "get over it" like it's a hard true fact the mid 2000s started in 2004... And I really don't understand this "core" stuff. Is there really a difference? Change happens gradually anyway, don't make a big deal out of 12 months...

As for decadology, it is true talking like that is decadology. There was actually a thread that talked about it when we were discussing this before. Mentioning how these things are opinion based and they're are no real facts behind it.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/09/16 at 12:45 am


This will make Jordan cringe but 2004 and 2005 seem to also have a bit of nostalgic "cred" to them among people, though not quite as much as 2000-2003.

I mean, just look at the comments on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBDeswu2dI


Zelek, you try to pass off 2004 and 2005 as having mighty nostalgia cred but the first nostalgic comment I see is yours. 


I listed my reasons many times. Because it felt like a different time than 2000-2002. 50 Cent came out with his smash hit In Da Club which kickstarted the 2000s rap sound, the feeling and culture felt different. Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love" sounds completely different than songs from 2000-2002, teen pop died out, the classic IPod became popular (released in 2002). 2003 felt like a very different year from 2002 and especially 2001. 2003 and 2004 were relatively similar. Numerically it is also important. But I listed my opinions, you may disagree with them but don't say "get over it" like it's a hard true fact the mid 2000s started in 2004...


I agree with this. 2000, 2001 and 2002 all had a similar feel and that time period is definitely uniquely early 00's in it's own way that was separate from the rest of the decade. Only thing is the classic iPod was actually released in 2001, not 2002.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/09/16 at 12:47 am


Only thing is the classic iPod was actually released in 2001, not 2002.

Oh sorry but I saw people only using it a lot in 03'. It was still a luxury item in 02' I think.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 12:49 am


I listed my reasons many times. Because it felt like a different time than 2000-2002. 50 Cent came out with his smash hit In Da Club which kickstarted the 2000s rap sound, the feeling and culture felt different. Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love" sounds completely different than songs from 2000-2002, teen pop died out, the classic IPod became popular (released in 2002). 2003 felt like a very different year from 2002 and especially 2001. 2003 and 2004 were relatively similar. Numerically it is also important. But I listed my opinions, you may disagree with them but don't say "get over it" like it's a hard true fact the mid 2000s started in 2004... And I really don't understand this "core" stuff. Is there really a difference? Change happens gradually anyway, don't make a big deal out of 12 months...

As for decadology, it is true talking like that is decadology. There was actually a thread that talked about it when we were discussing this before. Mentioning how these things are opinion based and they're are no real facts behind it.

2003 did not feel different from 2002, to me at least... and Mq is NOT a decadeoloist! >:( ;D  Sheesh! BTW, Teen pop died out in late 01/ 02ish.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/09/16 at 12:55 am


Oh sorry but I saw people only using it a lot in 03'. It was still a luxury item in 02' I think.


You're definitely right about it being a luxury item. The iPod didn't even sell well at all until about 2004-ish.


2003 did not feel different from 2002, to me at least... and Mq is NOT a decadeoloist! >:( ;D  Sheesh! BTW, Teen pop died out in late 01/ 02ish.


I agree with slim. 2003 felt very distinct from 2002. Teen Pop was also still on the charts from beginning to end of 2002 even if it's presence wasn't as big.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/09/16 at 1:00 am

Honestly, I agree with Mqg and Eric. 2003 wasn't actually even that different from 2002. If we look at both years in general, there's more similarities than differences.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/09/16 at 1:17 am


I listed my reasons many times. Because it felt like a different time than 2000-2002. 50 Cent came out with his smash hit In Da Club which kickstarted the 2000s rap sound, the feeling and culture felt different. Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love" sounds completely different than songs from 2000-2002, teen pop died out, the classic IPod became popular (released in 2002).


Teen pop died out around 2001, which was at the height of its popularity during the peak of the Y2K era around 1999 and 2000. Teen pop was already dead by 2002, which was the peak of early 2000's culture, not much different than a huge chunk of 2003. The iPod was originally released in 2001, but it didn't get really popular until 2004.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/09/16 at 1:20 am


I agree with slim. 2003 felt very distinct from 2002. Teen Pop was also still on the charts from beginning to end of 2002 even if it's presence wasn't as big.


2003 was different from 2002 pop culturally, because 2002 was the quintessential year for early 2000's culture, while 2003 was still mostly early 2000's but the transition into the core 2000's, but 2003 didn't have enough pop cultural stuff relevant yet for it to be called strictly "mid 2000's", that wasn't until 2004.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 1:21 am


Honestly, I agree with Mqg and Eric. 2003 wasn't actually even that different from 2002. If we look at both years in general, there's more similarities than differences.

Agreed! Post 9/11 paranoia/patriotism, nu metal, glam and bling bling rap, even in kid culture the early 00s post Disney renaissance was still going,Cartoon Network for example was still in it's golden age run, Nick was still Nick etc.  2003 was still early 00s as it gets... until the VERY latter half.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 1:22 am


2003 was different from 2002 pop culturally, because 2002 was the quintessential year for early 2000's culture, while 2003 was still mostly early 2000's but the transition into the core 2000's, but 2003 didn't have enough pop cultural stuff relevant yet for it to be called strictly "mid 2000's", that wasn't until 2004.

2003 was a LITTLE different... but not by that much. 2002 and the first half of 2003 were the quintessential parts of the early 00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/09/16 at 2:57 am

Not sure how 2003 is not comparable to 2002. I understand if we're talking about late 2003, but most of 2003 had the same vibe as 2002 did. I remember Jordan, Mqg96, and I were listing things from 2003 that made it either an early '00s or core '00s year. Most of the stuff we mentioned described 2003 as more of an early '00s year culturally.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/09/16 at 3:40 am

Comparison time!!

2000:
http://s1.musicvideos.to/i/01/00000/dvg1tz7s02h5.jpg

2001:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Aaq7yXXgDBY/TWTY0TLwPnI/AAAAAAAAAAk/dleJrB_Uc4A/s1600/Sum41.jpg

2002:
http://www.supermusic.sk/obrazky/131807_zy43.jpg

2003:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/85341261-photo-of-dave-baksh-and-sum-41-and-cone-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QYOTONQ8T5O7CECSy15sTY7mlEcz%2BFgyqkwnv8SIxyz2qyVHzK%2BlOMN%2FahI%2FBCtA6A%3D%3D

2004:
http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2004+Spike+TV+Video+Game+Awards+Arrivals+dnvu-DCUMMil.jpg

2003 is clearly closer to 2000-2002 than it is 2004.

2000:
http://www.nyrock.com/img/2000/papa3.jpg

2001:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/104842064-papa-roach-during-rock-in-rio-ii-day-1-at-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=R4V%2FQay2ANwpmCZhkZDSEgHUt%2BxWfxoB4WekJ5ZVnksn7uCG5y5jAcsDjpkiTY1Ez0%2F1iSFBNt04%2FgPQIudDGg%3D%3D

2002:
http://static.tvgcdn.net/mediabin/galleries/celebrities/m_r/pa_pat/papa_roach/1/papa-roach4.jpg

2003:
http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Papa%20Roach-17.jpg

2004:
http://www.100xr.com/artists/P/Papa_Roach/Papa.Roach-band-2006.jpg

Once again, 2003 is closer to 2000-2002 than 2004. Late 2003 they started looking more like 2004, though. It's also when they recorded their Faux-Emo-Post-Post-Grunge album.

2001:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_SM0Ehwo6Hc/hqdefault.jpg

2002:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/af4s8_aPQGQ/maxresdefault.jpg

2003:
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-12/2/16/enhanced/webdr09/enhanced-12758-1449093370-7.png

Looks more like 2004 but the guy still has bleached hair which puts it in the middle.

2002:
http://56.media.tumblr.com/0ced813542667bece1a381d5f5187bd9/tumblr_mk4meuhTlx1s1lqheo1_1280.jpg

2003:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*MmwXCbpa1Wn8DBV52dzBvA.jpeg

2004:
http://lamusicblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mcr.jpg

2003, once again, leans in the middle but some of the hair is more real 00's. These guys defined everything 00's rock music was and what that was started to take shape in 2003.

2000:
http://images.moviepostershop.com/new-found-glory-movie-poster-2003-1020424129.jpg

2001-ish (might be 2000 or 2002, I don't remember. They looked the same in all three years anyway so whatever):
http://www.geocities.ws/dolcevita_010/newfg.jpg

2002:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZBRTlU7-il0/UQKd1q2fC4I/AAAAAAAAA_w/AUEaCfUUhNA/s1600/new_found_glory%2B%25281%2529.jpg

2003 (early-mid 2003 looked more like the years prior but the rest of 2003 had this look):
http://media4.popsugar-assets.com/files/2013/09/12/891/n/1922398/06e02ded910938d6_2293193_10.xxxlarge_2x/i/New-Found-Glory-performed-TRL-2003.jpg

2003 just got weird and f*cked up. What the hell kind of look is that!?

2001:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61JyYQyR%2BcL.jpg

2002:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517jARFQ%2BrL.jpg

2003:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61FQe7VCptL.jpg

What hell is this sh!t!?!?! You expect me to buy this Peta benefit crap??? Absolutely nothing like good ol' 2001 or 2002!!! >:( >:( >:(

2002:
https://cdn.discogs.com/2wgr-O4R6W_7PFB86ATtuIfPZ0Y=/fit-in/600x594/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(96)/discogs-images/R-2789215-1410066956-6136.jpeg.jpg

2003:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030609173247/http://www.allisterrock.com/images/gallery/allisterbaybridge.jpg

2003 is pretty similar. The guy has his hair down but that's more early 00's than real 00's... so I guess I'll allow it. The 2003 photo doesn't give me huge nostalgia (complete with butterflies) like 2002 does, though.

2002:
https://web.archive.org/web/20031206204332/http://www.homegrownonline.com/sub_pages/image_gallery/images/promo01.jpg

2003:
https://web.archive.org/web/20031206204332/http://www.homegrownonline.com/sub_pages/image_gallery/images/promo04.jpg

Ok, I guess the other dude's look ok but Dan's hair got pretty stupid in 2003. I am not sure I want to allow this (Darren represent, though).

2000:
https://web.archive.org/web/20000407185420/http://www.gobnet.com/images/gobhockey.jpg

2001:
http://www.lacoccinelle.net/544763-3121.jpg?20120608

2002:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91M6CCkXGuL._SL1500_.jpg

2003:
http://www.100xr.com/artists/G/Gob/Gob-band-2003.jpg

2003 is definitely like 2000-2002 for sure. Bleached hair, backwards caps, it's got it all. No "fringes" to be seen! Canadians will be delighted to see them playing Hockey, too. I dunno if the photo with the hammers could of been taken in 2003, though. It might be too intimidating for the post-Pro Skater Peta benefits era.

2000:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FJZMEGENL.jpg

2001:
http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/6/6/0/13660_front.jpg

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tonyhawkgames/images/b/ba/Game_Cover_THPS3_PS2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150716160411

2002:
http://img1.game-oldies.com/sites/default/files/packshots/sony-playstation/tony-hawks-pro-skater-4-usa.jpg

http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/9/2/7/17927_front.jpg

2003:
http://myvideogamelist.com/images/boxart/8242.jpg

2004:
http://media.moddb.com/images/games/1/1/162/boxshot.1.jpg

2003 is still a bit like 2000-2002 but it did not have a Pro Skater so how can I really put it in the same league as 2000-2002? 2003 is like 2000-2002 (but it's missing a Pro Skater so clearly not much) but with a bit of 2004 (quite as bit as it has Underground) so it's distinct from both eras.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jacko/v2/wp-content/uploads/TheFacts.gif



Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 5:49 am


This will make Jordan cringe but 2004 and 2005 seem to also have a bit of nostalgic "cred" to them among people, though not quite as much as 2000-2003.

I mean, just look at the comments on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBDeswu2dI


All I could was one comment related to what you said. And I commented on it now.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/09/16 at 6:18 am


All I could was one comment related to what you said. And I commented on it now.


Replied.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 8:24 am

Lol at Jordan's post and lol at Zelek's comment. ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/09/16 at 8:54 am


Lol at Jordan's post and lol at Zelek's comment. ;D


I don't see what's so funny here.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 8:58 am


I don't see what's so funny here.


I'm surprised you don't just copy and paste your old posts, you always find new photos to illustrate the difference  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/09/16 at 9:04 am


I'm surprised you don't just copy and paste your old posts, you always find new photos to illustrate the difference  ;D


But that wouldn't be fun, now would it and I gotta drive the point home even further than I've already done so. My old posts are just as magnificent but I look forward to the future, you know. Forward thinking Early 00's Guy (the early 00's which are 1998-2002, not 2004-2005 or whatever). I always got some photos/videos up my sleeve. ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/09/16 at 2:38 pm

My comment on that video isn't the only nostalgic one, there's also several others.

http://i.imgur.com/sgEecQY.png

Also, Jordan may find himself agreeing with this argumentative guy here (he's even the same age as Jordan, according to his profile ;D):
http://i.imgur.com/MpenScb.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/bPt3abN.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/MJ1XYkt.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/TuPGCTK.png

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 03/09/16 at 2:49 pm


To me, 2004 and 2005 isn't early 00's.


It's middle 2000's.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 2:53 pm


My comment on that video isn't the only nostalgic one, there's also several others.

http://i.imgur.com/sgEecQY.png

Also, Jordan may find himself agreeing with this argumentative guy here (he's even the same age as Jordan, according to his profile ;D):
http://i.imgur.com/MpenScb.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/bPt3abN.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/MJ1XYkt.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/TuPGCTK.png


Then I stand corrected.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 3:04 pm

Yeah there a few, but most are from kids and this mivish92 guy who sounds unpleasant to be around. xreddragonx is saying it like it is "And it didn't even take 20 years for someone to become delusional about the mid-2000s. It took fudgeing 7!
People are getting sicker."  ;D Preach.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 3:14 pm


Yeah there a few, but most are from kids and this mivish92 guy who sounds unpleasant to be around. xreddragonx is saying it like it is "And it didn't even take 20 years for someone to become delusional about the mid-2000s. It took fudgeing 7!
People are getting sicker."  ;D Preach.


Yeah. I really didn't get nostalgic over the mid-2000s until 2014. Yet, I'm actually glad that it's 10-12 years old now.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 3:21 pm


Yeah. I really didn't get nostalgic over the mid-2000s until 2014. Yet, I'm actually glad that it's 10-12 years old now.


I'm okay with nostalgia, but acting like everyone was happy and everything was simple in 2005 is a bit much. He's also a 19 year old dude complaining about "the twerking teenagers of today who say swear words" lmao like teens were angels in 2005.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 03/09/16 at 3:23 pm


Yeah there a few, but most are from kids and this mivish92 guy who sounds unpleasant to be around. xreddragonx is saying it like it is "And it didn't even take 20 years for someone to become delusional about the mid-2000s. It took fudgeing 7!
People are getting sicker."  ;D Preach.


Heck even in 2016 it's still too early to be nostalgia of the mid 2000's. Yeah they were 10 years ago but they aren't that old in the grand scheme of things. Besides if people have a troubled time accepting early 00's nostalgia as legitimate than the mid 00's are most definitely still too recent!

Also fun thing to imagine, 'Noughties Nostalgia Parties' in the 2020's lol!

I already know you and JordanK would want to burn those places down ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 3:28 pm

If there was a noughties party, unfortunately for you guys it will mostly concentrate on the late 2000s, just like the 80s parties.  :P

But we haven't even had 90s parties yet, so 2000s parties might take a while.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 3:45 pm


I'm okay with nostalgia, but acting like everyone was happy and everything was simple in 2005 is a bit much. He's also a 19 year old dude complaining about "the twerking teenagers of today who say swear words" lmao like teens were angels in 2005.


There were already teens who swear a lot back in 2005. F*ck, they had teens swearing since the dawn of time. How is that a problem? Twerking, it is really bad IMO, but I wouldn't say that everyone was angelic as some 1950s utopia. These guys probably never heard of emo/goth kids, which were pop-culture icons back in the mid-late 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 4:36 pm


There were already teens who swear a lot back in 2005. F*ck, they had teens swearing since the dawn of time. How is that a problem? Twerking, it is really bad IMO, but I wouldn't say that everyone was angelic as some 1950s utopia. These guys probably never heard of emo/goth kids, which were pop-culture icons back in the mid-late 2000s.


Emo/goth weren't even the worst, they keep to themselves. The wangster and dudebro kids are the ones who pissed me off the most, and the girls who acted like they were on Thirteen (a terrible movie) or Mean Girls.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 03/09/16 at 4:53 pm


Heck even in 2016 it's still too early to be nostalgia of the mid 2000's. Yeah they were 10 years ago but they aren't that old in the grand scheme of things. Besides if people have a troubled time accepting early 00's nostalgia as legitimate than the mid 00's are most definitely still too recent!

Also fun thing to imagine, 'Noughties Nostalgia Parties' in the 2020's lol!

I already know you and JordanK would want to burn those places down ;D


Its not too early for mid 2000s nostalgia. 2004-2005 is in full swing for me. The music and video games from then instantly give me nostalgic vibes. People that have trouble accepting Early to mid 2000s nostalgia are just critics. I wouldn't take their word for it.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 4:59 pm

"Everything after 9/11 /2002/2003 sucks" is probably still the most commonly typed sentence on all of YouTube. Mid 2000s nostalgia is definitely not a big thing right now.

edit: oh but if you're personally nostalgic for it then nobody's stopping you.  :D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 5:16 pm


Its not too early for mid 2000s nostalgia. 2004-2005 is in full swing for me. The music and video games from then instantly give me nostalgic vibes. People that have trouble accepting Early to mid 2000s nostalgia are just critics. I wouldn't take their word for it.


I think mid 2000s nostalgia is an obscure thing to people now. Sure, it's more than 10 years old, but I wouldn't think a lot of people are accepting it now.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/09/16 at 5:51 pm


"Everything after 9/11 /2002/2003 sucks" is probably still the most commonly typed sentence on all of YouTube. Mid 2000s nostalgia is definitely not a big thing right now.

edit: oh but if you're personally nostalgic for it then nobody's stopping you.  :D


But then again those are just youtube comments. And youtube is one of the worst places in terms of opinions to me. Most people just bandwagon what others say or say certain things because of stupid reasons.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 5:57 pm


Its not too early for mid 2000s nostalgia. 2004-2005 is in full swing for me. The music and video games from then instantly give me nostalgic vibes. People that have trouble accepting Early to mid 2000s nostalgia are just critics. I wouldn't take their word for it.

It was only a decade ago, so MOST people think it is too early. We are still in the 00s backlash, IN THE REAL WORLD it is not cool to like that time period, Give it another decade!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 6:56 pm

I don't understand how ANY of these are considered early 00s?! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://s.emuparadise.org/fup/up/150565-God_of_War_(USA)-1.jpg http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/gtawiki/images/9/92/GTA_San_Andreas_Box_Art.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090429021856

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/The_Incredibles.jpg http://nick.mtvnimages.com/nick/promos-thumbs/games/drake-and-josh/drake-and-josh-word-search-4x3.jpg?quality=0.51&maxdimension=600 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/TEENick_Logo_2005.png http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/rugrats-toybox/images/6/69/All_Grown_Up_Main-Page.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110224061411http://jscustom.theoldcomputer.com/images/manufacturers_systems/Nintendo/DS/876432NintendoDS.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Jetix.png http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjA3NzMyMzU1MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjc1ODUwMg@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTE5OTcxOTIxMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTk3NDI0MQ@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTA3MDAwNzA1ODVeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDAzMzAwNTE@._V1._CR43,35,298,451_SX640_SY720_.jpg http://www.epguides.com/RescueMe/cast.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Green_Day_-_American_Idiot_cover.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9i9vh3Hwguw/hqdefault.jpg

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 6:57 pm

Drake & Josh is 90s :P :P

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/af/78/74/af7874de4d71d97c13d53ae2b3e8506f.jpg

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 6:58 pm


Drake & Josh is 90s :P :P

You trolling!!! ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 6:58 pm



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/af/78/74/af7874de4d71d97c13d53ae2b3e8506f.jpg

XD ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/09/16 at 7:04 pm


I don't understand how ANY of these are considered early 00s?! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Well, funny thing is, I see a lot of people on social media consider those things you listed to be "early 00s". Especially Drake and Josh, All Grown Up, Nintendo ds, and (this'll rile Jordan up) American Idiot.

As Slowpoke said, they probably just split the decade in halves instead of thirds.


Drake & Josh is 90s :P :P

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/af/78/74/af7874de4d71d97c13d53ae2b3e8506f.jpg

It didn't say it was a 90s show, just that 90s kids would remember it. However, this is probably one of those cases where the poster thinks "90s kid" = "born 1994-1999". :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/09/16 at 7:11 pm


I think mid 2000s nostalgia is an obscure thing to people now. Sure, it's more than 10 years old, but I wouldn't think a lot of people are accepting it now.

I'm nostalgic for the late 2000s, so it's totally acceptable to be nostalgic for the mid 00's that was a long time ago.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 7:14 pm


Well, funny thing is, I see a lot of people on social media consider those things you listed to be "early 00s". Especially Drake and Josh, All Grown Up, Nintendo ds, and (this'll rile Jordan up) American Idiot.

As Slowpoke said, they probably just split the decade in halves instead of thirds.
It didn't say it was a 90s show, just that 90s kids would remember it. However, this is probably one of those cases where the poster thinks "90s kid" = "born 1994-1999". :P

It was a pretty decent TV show, I liked it. ;D

The opening song was catchy too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqb0jiwGoM

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 7:23 pm


I'm nostalgic for the late 2000s, so it's totally acceptable to be nostalgic for the mid 00's that was a long time ago.


Well yeah, but the late 2000s are 7-9 years old now. I am a little bit nostalgic for the late 2000s, but not that much. I'll just wait until 2017, when 2007 is at least 10 years old.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 7:24 pm


I don't understand how ANY of these are considered early 00s?! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://s.emuparadise.org/fup/up/150565-God_of_War_(USA)-1.jpg http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/gtawiki/images/9/92/GTA_San_Andreas_Box_Art.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090429021856

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/The_Incredibles.jpg http://nick.mtvnimages.com/nick/promos-thumbs/games/drake-and-josh/drake-and-josh-word-search-4x3.jpg?quality=0.51&maxdimension=600 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/TEENick_Logo_2005.png http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/rugrats-toybox/images/6/69/All_Grown_Up_Main-Page.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110224061411http://jscustom.theoldcomputer.com/images/manufacturers_systems/Nintendo/DS/876432NintendoDS.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Jetix.png http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjA3NzMyMzU1MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjc1ODUwMg@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTE5OTcxOTIxMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTk3NDI0MQ@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTA3MDAwNzA1ODVeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDAzMzAwNTE@._V1._CR43,35,298,451_SX640_SY720_.jpg http://www.epguides.com/RescueMe/cast.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Green_Day_-_American_Idiot_cover.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9i9vh3Hwguw/hqdefault.jpg


Man, they're so mid 2000s.  :D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 7:24 pm


Well yeah, but the late 2000s are 7-9 years old now. I am a little bit nostalgic for the late 2000s, but not that much. I'll just wait until 2017, when 2007 is at least 10 years old.

Yeah the late 2000s are nowehre near the old yet. Slim's just trying to make himself feel older! XD lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 7:30 pm


Yeah the late 2000s are nowehre near the old yet. Slim's just trying to make himself feel older! XD lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


True. Even though I was a kid in the late 2000s, I wouldn't say that it's pure nostalgia for me yet.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/09/16 at 8:10 pm


Drake & Josh is 90s :P :P

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/af/78/74/af7874de4d71d97c13d53ae2b3e8506f.jpg

http://media1.giphy.com/media/6OWIl75ibpuFO/giphy.gif
Anyone less than 8 by the end of a decade isn't a child of that decade.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/09/16 at 8:40 pm


http://media1.giphy.com/media/6OWIl75ibpuFO/giphy.gif
Anyone less than 8 by the end of a decade isn't a child of that decade.


Aren't they a hybrid of two decades as a child, then? Especially 1992 babies?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/09/16 at 9:10 pm


Aren't they a hybrid of two decades as a child, then? Especially 1992 babies?

8 by the end of the 1990s means a person is from 1991 which is mainly a late 90's kid. 7 by the end means someone is from 1992 which is a hybrid. To me anyways. Not sure on what anyone else thinks.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 03/09/16 at 9:19 pm


It was only a decade ago, so MOST people think it is too early. We are still in the 00s backlash, IN THE REAL WORLD it is not cool to like that time period, Give it another decade!


Your a cool dude, but that sound really forced. Especially since you added the exclamation mark at the end. Their saying the mid 2000s need 20 years for nostalgia acceptance? The mid 2000s hate is real. Haha I'm not one of those most people. By the time they catch on, they'll be late to the party. I don't care about being cool anymore, man.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/09/16 at 9:28 pm

Hey everyone's different. Even I can get nostalgia over something that happened 10-15 years ago. Although I'm sure for everyone else it would take longer. I mainly get nostalgic for years that I consider to be the greatest. 2005 was one of my most favorite years in terms of personal life. It's been 11 years since then and I haven't had another year that was like 2005 (although there are years after 2005 that come close).

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/09/16 at 9:40 pm


Your a cool dude, but that sound really forced. Especially since you added the exclamation mark at the end. Their saying the mid 2000s need 20 years for nostalgia acceptance? The mid 2000s hate is real. Haha I'm not one of those most people. By the time they catch on, they'll be late to the party. I don't care about being cool anymore, man.


That's what's cool.  8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/09/16 at 10:05 pm


True. Even though I was a kid in the late 2000s, I wouldn't say that it's pure nostalgia for me yet.

I have had nostalgia for the late 2000s for already 2 years now. Remember that nostalgia doesn't mean retro. It means a time you look back with joy, and the late 00's I was 12-14 years old and I look back at those years with joy.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 11:02 pm


Your a cool dude, but that sound really forced. Especially since you added the exclamation mark at the end. Their saying the mid 2000s need 20 years for nostalgia acceptance? The mid 2000s hate is real. Haha I'm not one of those most people. By the time they catch on, they'll be late to the party. I don't care about being cool anymore, man.

I did not mean to sound like an asshole earlier! ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 03/09/16 at 11:08 pm


The mid 2000s hate is real.


I'm going to be real honest with you, but the majority of the people I know hate the mid 2000's because of what happened to the mainstream culture at the time. A lot of folks who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's blame the year 2004 for all of their worries and problems for killing all the great pop culture that was around from 2003 & earlier. Therefore, they hate on 2005 or 2006 a lot. The mid 2000's didn't have much of a cultural identity either, even the late 2000's had more of a cultural identity. By the time you get to the late 2000's (2007-2009) people have moved on and they're like we're used to real 2000's culture now, but throughout the mid 2000's people weren't used to the changes that happened once the early 2000's were over, so a lot of people hate on 2004 a lot, probably more than any other mid 2000's year, and looking back 2004 or 2005 were one of the best years pop culturally for being a kid and even the urban culture was great too, but it's underappreciated and people tend to focus on the negative immediately. 2006 was really the lackluster mid 2000's year IMO. Most people I know didn't blame the mid 2000's because of the kid culture although some did of course, and thank God I was still a kid throughout the mid 2000's instead of a teen or young adult.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/09/16 at 11:23 pm


I'm going to be real honest with you, but the majority of the people I know hate the mid 2000's because of what happened to the mainstream culture at the time. A lot of folks who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's blame the year 2004 for all of their worries and problems for killing all the great pop culture that was around from 2003 & earlier. Therefore, they hate on 2005 or 2006 a lot. The mid 2000's didn't have much of a cultural identity either, even the late 2000's had more of a cultural identity. By the time you get to the late 2000's (2007-2009) people have moved on and they're like we're used to real 2000's culture now, but throughout the mid 2000's people weren't used to the changes that happened once the early 2000's were over, so a lot of people hate on 2004 a lot, probably more than any other mid 2000's year, and looking back 2004 or 2005 were one of the best years pop culturally for being a kid and even the urban culture was great too, but it's underappreciated and people tend to focus on the negative immediately. 2006 was really the lackluster mid 2000's year IMO. Most people I know didn't blame the mid 2000's because of the kid culture although some did of course, and thank God I was still a kid throughout the mid 2000's instead of a teen or young adult.

The problem is the first half of 2004 was sooo AWESOME and then... the second half had kind of a lackluster feel!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 12:19 am


My comment on that video isn't the only nostalgic one, there's also several others.



Also, Jordan may find himself agreeing with this argumentative guy here (he's even the same age as Jordan, according to his profile ;D):



I agree. In 2004-2005, they wanted to plant microchips in children's brains like some 1984 big brother sh!t. Who wants to relive that? Also, for god sakes! 2004/2005 isn't early 00's! Why do they keep insisting it is?


I already know you and JordanK would want to burn those places down ;D


Definitely gonna burn it down unless it's a 2000-2002 party!


There were already teens who swear a lot back in 2005. F*ck, they had teens swearing since the dawn of time. How is that a problem? Twerking, it is really bad IMO, but I wouldn't say that everyone was angelic as some 1950s utopia. These guys probably never heard of emo/goth kids, which were pop-culture icons back in the mid-late 2000s.


Goth? Goth died in 2004 thanks to faux-Emo.


Emo/goth weren't even the worst, they keep to themselves. The wangster and dudebro kids are the ones who pissed me off the most, and the girls who acted like they were on Thirteen (a terrible movie) or Mean Girls.


Do you want me to re-post my description of the real 2000's again?


"Everything after 9/11 /2002/2003 sucks" is probably still the most commonly typed sentence on all of YouTube. Mid 2000s nostalgia is definitely not a big thing right now.

edit: oh but if you're personally nostalgic for it then nobody's stopping you.  :D


You forgot "everything sucks after 1997/1998/1999" which I still see a lot. The only factually correct answer is "everything sucks after 2003" in case you're wondering.


Well, funny thing is, I see a lot of people on social media consider those things you listed to be "early 00s". Especially Drake and Josh, All Grown Up, Nintendo ds, and (this'll rile Jordan up) American Idiot.

As Slowpoke said, they probably just split the decade in halves instead of thirds.
It didn't say it was a 90s show, just that 90s kids would remember it. However, this is probably one of those cases where the poster thinks "90s kid" = "born 1994-1999". :P


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1257003814239.jpg



Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/10/16 at 12:22 am

A lot of people online say 2005 and before is the early 00's which isn't true, unless you split the decade in half. But most decades are split into thirds culturally, early mid and late.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 12:24 am


A lot of people online say 2005 and before is the early 00's which isn't true, unless you split the decade in half. But most decades are split into thirds culturally, early mid and late.


Yeah, exactly. 2005 had nothing in common with 2000-2002 at all. Frosted tips/Nu Metal vs. Wing Fringes/Faux-Emo, how is that the same!?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 12:08 pm


I have had nostalgia for the late 2000s for already 2 years now. Remember that nostalgia doesn't mean retro. It means a time you look back with joy, and the late 00's I was 12-14 years old and I look back at those years with joy.


Dann, you're the first I've seen here that enjoyed their preteen years. I hated 12/13 lol. Being 14 in 2007 wasn't that bad though now that I think about it, it had an upswing feel. There was the 7th generation of consoles which was fun and exciting, out felt fun to go to the video game store again. Then we were also firmly into golden age of television with the airing of Heroes, Dexter, Big Bang Theory and the mega hyped season of Lost. The crunk/snap rap and ringtone rap was also on its way out and fast. Also fashion was starting to look half decent after being in the dark ages for the previous 10 years.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 12:24 pm


Dann, you're the first I've seen here that enjoyed their preteen years. I hated 12/13 lol. Being 14 in 2007 wasn't that bad though now that I think about it, it had an upswing feel. There was the 7th generation of consoles which was fun and exciting, out felt fun to go to the video game store again. Then we were also firmly into golden age of television with the airing of Heroes, Dexter, Big Bang Theory and the mega hyped season of Lost. The crunk/snap rap and ringtone rap was also on its way out and fast. Also fashion was starting to look half decent after being in the dark ages for the previous 10 years.


Fashion in the dark ages from 1997 to 2003!? What? Don't like frosted tips? ;)

2007 was all about wing haired madness and rap, rap, rap.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 12:42 pm


Fashion in the dark ages from 1997 to 2003!? What? Don't like frosted tips? ;)

2007 was all about wing haired madness and rap, rap, rap.


It's the overly baggy stuff I don't like. 2007 was starting to slim down. I was still wearing bootcuts, but at least they were fitted bootcuts lol.

http://i.stpost.com/product~p~4036P_01~1500.1.jpg

2007 did have weird hair though, can't lie.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 12:48 pm


It's the overly baggy stuff I don't like. 2007 was starting to slim down. I was still wearing bootcuts, but at least they were fitted bootcuts lol.

http://i.stpost.com/product~p~4036P_01~1500.1.jpg

2007 did have weird hair though, can't lie.


What about this?

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/85341261-photo-of-dave-baksh-and-sum-41-and-cone-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QYOTONQ8T5O7CECSy15sTY7mlEcz%2bFgyqkwnv8SIxyz2qyVHzK%2blOMN%2fahI%2fBCtA6A%3d%3d

The best baggy are the dickies pants and shorts of the early 00's, especially with the chains. The worst was when people thought you were down with Nu Metal 'cause you had a chain wallet. 8-P The fashion ruled, though. Isn't 2006 when it started to skinny up?

2004-2011/2012 hair is awful.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 12:58 pm


What about this?

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/85341261-photo-of-dave-baksh-and-sum-41-and-cone-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QYOTONQ8T5O7CECSy15sTY7mlEcz%2bFgyqkwnv8SIxyz2qyVHzK%2blOMN%2fahI%2fBCtA6A%3d%3d

The best baggy are the dickies pants and shorts of the early 00's, especially with the chains. The worst was when people thought you were down with Nu Metal 'cause you had a chain wallet. 8-P The fashion ruled, though. Isn't 2006 when it started to skinny up?

2004-2011/2012 hair is awful.


Those guys would look better if they were wearing skinny jeans lol.

2009-2012 hair was amazing. Mad Men was on the air for a few years at that point, I don't get how you can say any of those styles are bad.

And then there was the GOAT
http://brostrick-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/05192345/mens-spike-hairstyle-2016-2000.jpg

It says 2000s but everyone and their dog knows that was a 2008-2012 hairstyle.  8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 1:03 pm


Those guys would look better if they were wearing skinny jeans lol.

2009-2012 hair was amazing. Mad Men was on the air for a few years at that point, I don't get how you can say any of those styles are bad.

And then there was the GOAT
http://brostrick-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/05192345/mens-spike-hairstyle-2016-2000.jpg

It says 2000s but everyone and their dog knows that was a 2008-2012 hairstyle.  8)


No they wouldn't! Man, I'd be so pissed if they were wearing skinny jeans; I just don't know what I would do with myself.

I am pretty sure 2009-2012 still had the Zac Afron wings haircut but yeah, that dumb pompadour was catching on around then.

That's definitely not 2000's in any sense unless maybe talking about 2008/2009. This is 2000's hair (2004-2009):

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d2/46/e8/d246e82ced989555e9f945ff3ec8c354.jpg



Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 2:57 pm

I would say this video got it right for 2009 hairstyles. Big hair was on its way out once everyone saw Justin Bieber with it. :P

http://ca.askmen.com/fashion/trends_400/484_2009-mens-hairstyles.html

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/10/16 at 3:00 pm


Dann, you're the first I've seen here that enjoyed their preteen years. I hated 12/13 lol. Being 14 in 2007 wasn't that bad though now that I think about it, it had an upswing feel. There was the 7th generation of consoles which was fun and exciting, out felt fun to go to the video game store again. Then we were also firmly into golden age of television with the airing of Heroes, Dexter, Big Bang Theory and the mega hyped season of Lost. The crunk/snap rap and ringtone rap was also on its way out and fast. Also fashion was starting to look half decent after being in the dark ages for the previous 10 years.


Yeah, those sound really better than what we have for TV now. I wish the mid 2010s had those kind of shows.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/10/16 at 3:04 pm

Wonder if people still looked like this in the mid-late '00s.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7b/a6/05/7ba60571c2d5a13621c748c6045acf97.jpg

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 3:05 pm


Yeah, those sound really better than what we have for TV now. I wish the mid 2010s had those kind of shows.


I personally see mid-2000s (2005 or so) and onward as the same TV era, as do most critics. There are shows like Suits, Scandal and House of Cards that I'm really into.


Wonder if people still looked like this in the mid-late '00s.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7b/a6/05/7ba60571c2d5a13621c748c6045acf97.jpg

Haha, don't remember seeing much of that.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/10/16 at 3:06 pm


I personally see mid-2000s (2005 or so) and onward as the same TV era, as do most critics. There are shows like Suits, Scandal and House of Cards that I'm really into.


Well the mid '00s onward is part of the golden age of television. It can all be grouped into one era.

First golden age is said to be from 1946-1960. Second golden age is from 2005 to present. Not sure when the golden age will end.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/10/16 at 3:15 pm


Well the mid '00s onward is part of the golden age of television. It can all be grouped into one era.

First golden age is said to be from 1946-1960. Second golden age is from 2005 to present. Not sure when the golden age will end.


In my opinion, I think we've been in the same era since the early 2000s. HBO was pretty big back then, and that's when other TV networks started to copy their style. Just sayin'.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 3:25 pm


In my opinion, I think we've been in the same era since the early 2000s. HBO was pretty big back then, and that's when other TV networks started to copy their style. Just sayin'.


I can see that too, since a lot of people think that The Wire and Sopranos are the ones who kicked it all off. Really, both the 2000s and 2010s fit into it comfortably. If you look at this list

http://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/

Most of the started airing in the 2000s or the 2010s. (though not all are associated with the Golden Age)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/10/16 at 3:33 pm


I can see that too, since a lot of people think that The Wire and Sopranos are the ones who kicked it all off. Really, both the 2000s and 2010s fit into it comfortably. If you look at this list

http://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/

Most of the started airing in the 2000s or the 2010s. (though not all are associated with the Golden Age)


Oh wow nearly all of the top 10 shows are from the 2000s or 2010s.

250 shows are shown.
+90 are from the 2000s
+70 are from the 2010s
+40 are from the 1990s
+20 are from the 1980s
+10 are from the 1970s

Most of the highest rated shows are from the 2000s-2010s. Guess it's easy to see why the 2000s - present is seen as a golden age. Hope the 2020s can continue the golden age.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/10/16 at 3:42 pm


Haha, don't remember seeing much of that.


Last time I remember seeing any girls look like that it was 2004. Weird hair antennas and the solid bright clothing. Actually kind of makes me cringe to see people dressed like that nowadays.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 3:44 pm


Last time I remember seeing any girls look like that it was 2004. Weird hair antennas and the solid bright clothing. Actually kind of makes me cringe to see people dressed like that nowadays.


That dog collar on Lizzie has also been out for quite a while now.  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 03/10/16 at 4:12 pm


What about this?

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/85341261-photo-of-dave-baksh-and-sum-41-and-cone-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QYOTONQ8T5O7CECSy15sTY7mlEcz%2bFgyqkwnv8SIxyz2qyVHzK%2blOMN%2fahI%2fBCtA6A%3d%3d

The best baggy are the dickies pants and shorts of the early 00's, especially with the chains. The worst was when people thought you were down with Nu Metal 'cause you had a chain wallet. 8-P The fashion ruled, though. Isn't 2006 when it started to skinny up?

2004-2011/2012 hair is awful.


How were they able to keep their hair like that in shape? :o

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/10/16 at 4:21 pm


Dann, you're the first I've seen here that enjoyed their preteen years. I hated 12/13 lol. Being 14 in 2007 wasn't that bad though now that I think about it, it had an upswing feel. There was the 7th generation of consoles which was fun and exciting, out felt fun to go to the video game store again. Then we were also firmly into golden age of television with the airing of Heroes, Dexter, Big Bang Theory and the mega hyped season of Lost. The crunk/snap rap and ringtone rap was also on its way out and fast. Also fashion was starting to look half decent after being in the dark ages for the previous 10 years.

My pre-teen/early teen years was the best period of my life. Probably because that was the only time of my life where I had friends and didn't feel anxious. Elementary school and High School was tough for me, Junior High school was the best. Definitely the best years for my personal life was 2007-2009 when I was 12-14 years old. But of course it is different for everyone.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/10/16 at 4:25 pm


My pre-teen/early teen years was the best period of my life. Probably because that was the only time of my life where I had friends and didn't feel anxious. Elementary school and High School was tough for me, Junior High school was the best. Definitely the best years for my personal life was 2007-2009 when I was 12-14 years old. But of course it is different for everyone.


Damn, I wish I had your middle school experience. Mine was the opposite. It was terrible as f*ck.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/10/16 at 4:49 pm

Preteen-early teen years were terrible for me. Mainly due to the people I was around. If it was any moment related to middle-high school then I hate it. Last year I was able to fully enjoy school was 5th grade. Although I did enjoy my moments from 6th-9th grade when it came to friends. But everything else was awful. 

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/10/16 at 5:03 pm


Preteen-early teen years were terrible for me. Mainly due to the people I was around. If it was any moment related to middle-high school then I hate it. Last year I was able to fully enjoy school was 5th grade. Although I did enjoy my moments from 6th-9th grade when it came to friends. But everything else was awful. 

They sucked for me too!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/10/16 at 6:18 pm


Preteen-early teen years were terrible for me. Mainly due to the people I was around. If it was any moment related to middle-high school then I hate it. Last year I was able to fully enjoy school was 5th grade. Although I did enjoy my moments from 6th-9th grade when it came to friends. But everything else was awful.


With you there on that one. University is the only one that's been consistently good, even if it can be tough at times.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 10:45 pm


How were they able to keep their hair like that in shape? :o


Lots and lots of hair gel! Peroxide defines the early 2000's.


Preteen-early teen years were terrible for me. Mainly due to the people I was around. If it was any moment related to middle-high school then I hate it. Last year I was able to fully enjoy school was 5th grade. Although I did enjoy my moments from 6th-9th grade when it came to friends. But everything else was awful. 


I loved my pre-teen/teen/young adult years! Man, the era of my life from 1995-2003 was the best ever and I would go back in a heartbeat! You must of been a teen in the real 00's so that's why it musta sucked. :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/10/16 at 11:05 pm


I loved my pre-teen/teen/young adult years! Man, the era of my life from 1995-2003 was the best ever and I would go back in a heartbeat! You must of been a teen in the real 00's so that's why it musta sucked. :P


I love my young adult years onward, but that's because I was finished with school. College is a pain in the ass, but it certainly beats middle school and high school. When it comes to the real '00s the thing that upset me the most is probably that upbeat feel that the first half of the '00s had. Core '00s seemed to have moved on from that. You already know how much I love that Xtreme, Colorful, Carefree vibe. So to see it all go away annoys me. The crazy hair, sound of the music, variety in video games, quality of cartoons, style of fashion, extreme sports popularity, colorful/upbeat vibe. These are things that comes to my mind when I think of 2000-2003. All that is gone by the time we got to late 2003-early 2004. Although I don't truly hate 2004-2005 as when it comes to personal life they were pretty great and I also love some of the pop cultural things about them.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/10/16 at 11:14 pm


I love my young adult years onward, but that's because I was finished with school. College is a pain in the ass, but it certainly beats middle school and high school. When it comes to the real '00s the thing that upset me the most is probably that upbeat feel that the first half of the '00s had. Core '00s seemed to have moved on from that. You already know how much I love that Xtreme, Colorful, Carefree vibe. So to see it all go away annoys me. The crazy hair, sound of the music, variety in video games, quality of cartoons, style of fashion, extreme sports popularity, colorful/upbeat vibe. These are things that comes to my mind when I think of 2000-2003. All that is gone by the time we got to late 2003-early 2004. Although I don't truly hate 2004-2005 as when it comes to personal life they were pretty great and I also love some of the pop cultural things about them.


I totally get 'ya, man. I miss how exciting and fun everything in 2000-2003 was. Pro-Skater, peroxide (the defining early 00's chemical) in everyone's spiky hair, Pop Punk bands with hammers and mallets, colorful fashion, Xtreme! Tony Hawk tricks, Emo being true to it's roots, variety in music/TV/Video games, etc., etc. Even the stuff I don't like such as Nu Metal I'm nostalgic for because at least it's fun, loud and captures the vibe of exactly what it was like to live in 2000-2003. The 90s and early 00's spoke to me to a T. It's like those pictures I've shown in this thread. Take a band like Sum 41. When they went semi-serious in 2002, they went in a more metallic direction and played fast heavy loud Punk-Pop-Metal similar to bands like Strung Out. There's even Rap on the album! In 2004, their style got really plain and they released some Faux-Emo-MySpace record. What's the fun in that? My personal life wasn't terrible in the real 00s (as some might of concluded) but I didn't like most of the pop culture at all.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/12/16 at 12:56 pm

Now, I don't listen to pop-punk, grunge, or general "skater" music like Jordan does, ;D so I'm not really familiar with how those genres changed throughout the 00s.

But I think the reason why people tend to lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s is because they didn't seem *quite* so distant from 2000-2003 as 2006-09 would. In 2004-05, we were still getting some movies with bright color palettes and "fishbowl" camera angles, much like a Y2K-era film.

Yes, I know this scene (and movie) sucks, but still, it's a good example of Y2K holdovers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ

Also, 90s-early 2000s shows (Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody loves raymond, etc.) that ended were still rerunning prominently throughout 2004-05, which likely kept them "fresh" in the public's eye. By late 2006, those shows were all gone, washed away in a sea of "new".

And as Jordan said, the first season of the show Danny Phantom, released in 2004, felt more like a chill Y2K-era show, before getting more generic and annoying around 2005-6, when the "real 00s" kicked in.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/12/16 at 1:00 pm


Now, I don't listen to pop-punk, grunge, or general "skater" music like Jordan does, ;D so I'm not really familiar with how those genres changed throughout the 00s.

But I think the reason why people tend to lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s is because they didn't seem *quite* so distant from 2000-2003 as 2006-09 would. In 2004-05, we were still getting some movies with bright color palettes and "fishbowl" camera angles, much like a Y2K-era film. Yes, I know this scene sucks, but still, it's a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ

Also, 90s-early 2000s shows (Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody loves raymond, etc.) that ended were still rerunning prominently throughout 2004-05, which likely kept them "fresh" in the public's eye. By late 2006, those shows were all gone, washed away in a sea of "new".


All of those shows you mentioned are still airing on reruns. Especially on The CW and Nick @ Nite.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Toon on 03/12/16 at 3:16 pm


I totally get 'ya, man. I miss how exciting and fun everything in 2000-2003 was. Pro-Skater, peroxide (the defining early 00's chemical) in everyone's spiky hair, Pop Punk bands with hammers and mallets, colorful fashion, Xtreme! Tony Hawk tricks, Emo being true to it's roots, variety in music/TV/Video games, etc., etc. Even the stuff I don't like such as Nu Metal I'm nostalgic for because at least it's fun, loud and captures the vibe of exactly what it was like to live in 2000-2003. The 90s and early 00's spoke to me to a T. It's like those pictures I've shown in this thread. Take a band like Sum 41. When they went semi-serious in 2002, they went in a more metallic direction and played fast heavy loud Punk-Pop-Metal similar to bands like Strung Out. There's even Rap on the album! In 2004, their style got really plain and they released some Faux-Emo-MySpace record. What's the fun in that? My personal life wasn't terrible in the real 00s (as some might of concluded) but I didn't like most of the pop culture at all.


I wonder if the '10s kid-teen culture is dark and serious. I also wonder when/if we will ever go back to upbeat and carefree kid-teen culture (assuming it's not already like this). As I've said tons of times just looks at the media/trends of the early '00s and you'd be surprise how different things were. The things you've mentioned about the early '00s was gone by the time we reached 2004/2005. Hopefully culture can go back to be upbeat and carefree like before.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/12/16 at 3:36 pm


I wonder if the '10s kid-teen culture is dark and serious. I also wonder when/if we will ever go back to upbeat and carefree kid-teen culture (assuming it's not already like this). As I've said tons of times just looks at the media/trends of the early '00s and you'd be surprise how different things were. The things you've mentioned about the early '00s was gone by the time we reached 2004/2005. Hopefully culture can go back to be upbeat and carefree like before.


I find the entire 2010s to be rather colourful and upbeat. I mean, we started off the decade with a neon trend when I was in high school. That's more bright and colourful than even the early 2000s :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/12/16 at 4:05 pm


Now, I don't listen to pop-punk, grunge, or general "skater" music like Jordan does, ;D so I'm not really familiar with how those genres changed throughout the 00s.

But I think the reason why people tend to lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s is because they didn't seem *quite* so distant from 2000-2003 as 2006-09 would. In 2004-05, we were still getting some movies with bright color palettes and "fishbowl" camera angles, much like a Y2K-era film.

Yes, I know this scene (and movie) sucks, but still, it's a good example of Y2K holdovers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ

Also, 90s-early 2000s shows (Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody loves raymond, etc.) that ended were still rerunning prominently throughout 2004-05, which likely kept them "fresh" in the public's eye. By late 2006, those shows were all gone, washed away in a sea of "new".

And as Jordan said, the first season of the show Danny Phantom, released in 2004, felt more like a chill Y2K-era show, before getting more generic and annoying around 2005-6, when the "real 00s" kicked in.

The Core 00s kicked in before that! ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/12/16 at 4:10 pm

They still air Friends reruns today in the Year of our Lord 2016. It's that show, along with Family Guy, that you watch when you have absolutely nothing to do.  But eh, they were still airing Bill Cosby Show reruns in the mid-2000s, but no one would say it had an 80s vibe. :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/12/16 at 9:52 pm


Now, I don't listen to pop-punk, grunge, or general "skater" music like Jordan does, ;D so I'm not really familiar with how those genres changed throughout the 00s.


2001:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Aaq7yXXgDBY/TWTY0TLwPnI/AAAAAAAAAAk/dleJrB_Uc4A/s1600/Sum41.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IbZiqaIdW_8/TxZh-07ZtQI/AAAAAAAAAhc/2qM1kOdfeXs/s1600/Sum+41+2.jpg

http://www.100xr.com/artists/S/Sum_41/Sum.41-band-2001.jpg

http://cvr.mp3caprice.com/covers/albums/048/427/230.jpg

2002:

http://punk.musiclog.in/images/img_39501.jpg

http://s01.artist.images.jango.com/fed/fed66952c188c9940cb0d50aec43f552.jpg

http://www.nyrock.com/img/2003/sum4120032a.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E65iuhKIUik/TxZiKKg0oMI/AAAAAAAAAhs/7tc-rMzCOgg/s1600/Sum+41+4.jpg

2004  (8-P):
http://i.cbc.ca/1.2655707.1401210325!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_460/sum-41-band-members-pose-for-photo-in-london-ont-in-2004.jpg

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2004+Spike+TV+Video+Game+Awards+Arrivals+dnvu-DCUMMil.jpg

The changes are here, Zelek my man.


But I think the reason why people tend to lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s is because they didn't seem *quite* so distant from 2000-2003 as 2006-09 would. In 2004-05, we were still getting some movies with bright color palettes and "fishbowl" camera angles, much like a Y2K-era film.


That makes sense but 2005 is pretty distant already. 2004 at least still had some 2000-2003 holdovers (even if not much).


Yes, I know this scene (and movie) sucks, but still, it's a good example of Y2K holdovers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ


That movie sucked because Catwoman was supposed to be hot but she wasn't. What an awful, awful film... But yeah, the scene is pretty XTREME!!!!!!!


Also, 90s-early 2000s shows (Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody loves raymond, etc.) that ended were still rerunning prominently throughout 2004-05, which likely kept them "fresh" in the public's eye. By late 2006, those shows were all gone, washed away in a sea of "new".


Good point but I think when it comes to adult shows, I'd say the new was taking over starting around 2003-2005 with The OC and One Tree Hill, for example. You still had Malcolm in the Middle (an early 00's nostalgia show post-2003, in my opinion) on until 2006, though.


And as Jordan said, the first season of the show Danny Phantom, released in 2004, felt more like a chill Y2K-era show, before getting more generic and annoying around 2005-6, when the "real 00s" kicked in.


This is the truth but I'd still say real 00's began around 2003-2004.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Setemstraight on 09/03/16 at 2:18 am


2003 was around when I started hearing about emo which was right around the time of Simple Plan.  Jimmy Eat World - The Middle was a bit too early in my opinion.


Actually Jimmy Eat World and Dashboard Confessional(another "early "emo band)  and The Used  started getting recognition in 2002.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/03/16 at 2:51 am

Before I came on this site, I just split the decade up into two parts: 2000-2004 and 2005-2009. Early 2000s and Late 2000s. Now I think of the early 2000s as 2000-2002, mid 2000s as 2003-2006, and the late 2000s as 2007-2009. So no, I don't consider them a part of the early 2000s. I change my mind a lot though, so...

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Setemstraight on 09/03/16 at 3:44 am


Well yeah in that case I can see how 2005 is grouped in with the early '00s, but in terms of culture and numerical placement it's not early '00s.


Actually no. If you break the decade into two halves, and this goes for any decade BTW, you break it at 2004 and 2005. It's not hard to figure it out. 2000 to 2004 is five years, 2005 to 2009 is five years, just count it out. 2005 would be the beginning of the second half and 2004 would be the end of the first half. There you go
Actually Jimmy Eat World and Dashboard Confessional(another "early "emo band)  and The Used  started getting recognition in 2002.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 09/03/16 at 11:10 am


Actually Jimmy Eat World and Dashboard Confessional(another "early "emo band)  and The Used  started getting recognition in 2002.


That doesn't really mean much. Jimmy Eat World were the only big Emo hitters in 2002 (I could even argue that the JEW-styled Emo sound was already somewhat popular in 1997 when Color and Shape by the Foo Fighters came out). Other Emo bands like At The Drive In started getting the same amount of recognition that The Used and Dashboard got in 2002 (both bands who's early records weren't at all like the mid-late 00's incarnation of emo and truly didn't get big until 2003) back in 2000. Emo in 2002 was still all about sweater vests and thick rimmed glasses.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/03/16 at 11:15 am

Does Simple Plan count as emo?  :o

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/03/16 at 11:18 am


Does Simple Plan count as emo?  :o


To me, pretty much anybody who has done emo music as a main genre in the 2000s counts as emo.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 09/03/16 at 11:23 am


Does Simple Plan count as emo?  :o


The first record is out of the question. Totally not Emo. It's just blink-182's whinier younger cousin.

Their later albums, however, sound like bad Nickelback "Made in Canada" Emo. ;) :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/03/16 at 11:26 am


The first record is out of the question. Totally not Emo. It's just blink-182's whinier younger cousin.

Their later albums, however, sound like bad Nickelback "Made in Canada" Emo. ;) :P


Welcome to my Life is their song with the most nostalgic quality lol.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 09/03/16 at 1:08 pm


Welcome to my Life is their song with the most nostalgic quality lol.


I get the most nostalgic quality out of songs like Basket Case and Self Esteem. :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 09/03/16 at 1:33 pm

2004 does have Early 2000s perks. They just were divided in general moments. Soul Plane is a movie released in 2004 that has the same quirkiness as Friday After Next. 2005 is truly above the mark.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/03/16 at 1:42 pm


2004 does have Early 2000s perks. They just were divided in general moments. Soul Plane is a movie released in 2004 that has the same quirkiness as Friday After Next. 2005 is truly above the mark.


So, do you somehow think that 2005 is a bit like 2004, which has some early 2000s elements?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 09/03/16 at 2:07 pm


2001:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Aaq7yXXgDBY/TWTY0TLwPnI/AAAAAAAAAAk/dleJrB_Uc4A/s1600/Sum41.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IbZiqaIdW_8/TxZh-07ZtQI/AAAAAAAAAhc/2qM1kOdfeXs/s1600/Sum+41+2.jpg

http://www.100xr.com/artists/S/Sum_41/Sum.41-band-2001.jpg

http://cvr.mp3caprice.com/covers/albums/048/427/230.jpg

2002:

http://punk.musiclog.in/images/img_39501.jpg

http://s01.artist.images.jango.com/fed/fed66952c188c9940cb0d50aec43f552.jpg

http://www.nyrock.com/img/2003/sum4120032a.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E65iuhKIUik/TxZiKKg0oMI/AAAAAAAAAhs/7tc-rMzCOgg/s1600/Sum+41+4.jpg

2004  (8-P):
http://i.cbc.ca/1.2655707.1401210325!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_460/sum-41-band-members-pose-for-photo-in-london-ont-in-2004.jpg

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2004+Spike+TV+Video+Game+Awards+Arrivals+dnvu-DCUMMil.jpg


Time to take several more shots on that, using Sum 41 band images to prove the contrast between 1998-2002 and 2004! :D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/05/16 at 12:40 pm


I get the most nostalgic quality out of songs like Basket Case and Self Esteem. :P


Those songs don't have the cringe-worthy-but-I-like-it quality though.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/05/16 at 1:48 pm

No but it was far closer to the early 00s than the late 00s, especially late 08 and 09.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/05/16 at 1:51 pm


No but it was far closer to the early 00s than the late 00s, especially late 08 and 09.


No wonder why it felt more like the early 2000s. Especially with how they keep making VHS tapes around that time.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 09/05/16 at 5:06 pm


So, do you somehow think that 2005 is a bit like 2004, which has some early 2000s elements?


Only very early 2005. The year in general was like a new beginning.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/05/16 at 5:30 pm


Only very early 2005. The year in general was like a new beginning.


So about January to March of 2005 or something like that.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/05/16 at 6:13 pm


So about January to March of 2005 or something like that.


That felt like the peak of the mid-2000s. Late 2004 and early 2005. 50 Cent came out with The Massacre album and the song Candy Shop. People couldn't get enough of it  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/05/16 at 6:36 pm


That felt like the peak of the mid-2000s. Late 2004 and early 2005. 50 Cent came out with The Massacre album and the song Candy Shop. People couldn't get enough of it  ;D


To be fair with you, it really felt like it. Although, I was into kid culture at the time.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/05/16 at 7:09 pm


To be fair with you, it really felt like it. Although, I was into kid culture at the time.


I think Spongebob Square pants movie came out then. Also John Cena was at the height of popularity. I hated him before it was cool.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/05/16 at 7:14 pm

To me only early 2004 could fit in the "early 2000s" culturally. Mainly due to have some early 2000s leftovers.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/05/16 at 7:18 pm


I think Spongebob Square pants movie came out then. Also John Cena was at the height of popularity. I hated him before it was cool.


Yeah, I remember the Spongebob Squarepants Movie on DVD around early 2005. I was really into Spongebob (and other Nickelodeon shows) during my elementary school years. Having that DVD was pretty much priceless, even though I was more into the actual show when I got it.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 09/05/16 at 7:28 pm


To me only early 2004 could fit in the "early 2000s" culturally. Mainly due to have some early 2000s leftovers.

I don't think 2004 had any early 2000s leftovers.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/05/16 at 7:29 pm


To me only early 2004 could fit in the "early 2000s" culturally. Mainly due to have some early 2000s leftovers.


I can agree with that. It wasn't early 2000s, but it had some semblance of it. That was Beyblade's height of popularity  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/05/16 at 7:43 pm


I don't think 2004 had any early 2000s leftovers.


What about this Avril Lavigne song that came out early 2004

zMbIipvQL0c


Yeah, I remember the Spongebob Squarepants Movie on DVD around early 2005. I was really into Spongebob (and other Nickelodeon shows) during my elementary school years. Having that DVD was pretty much priceless, even though I was more into the actual show when I got it.


Avril Lavigne sung the Spongebob theme song!  :D Queen of the 2000s. She can swear and give out the middle finger and still get record deals singing kids' songs. Could your faves ever?!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/05/16 at 7:47 pm


Avril Lavigne sung the Spongebob theme song!  :D Queen of the 2000s. Sorry Britney.


She did sang it better than the actual person who sang it in the TV series.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 09/05/16 at 9:01 pm


What about this Avril Lavigne song that came out early 2004

zMbIipvQL0c



We had some songs like that many years after 2004 too. I don't see it as an early 00s leftover. When I think of the early 00s, I think about the Y2K, Bubblegump pop, and 9/11. I don't think about 50 Cent for example despite his song "In Da Club" coming out early 2003. I think of that as a mid 00s song.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 09/05/16 at 9:15 pm

Again, people focus so much on the "early 2000s" that the period hogs up everything around it, to the point that the rest of the 2000s decade is virtually insignificant. The early 2000s even have a legitimate Urban Dictionary page, which other decade sub-eras and even the 2000s decade as a whole do not.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/05/16 at 9:17 pm


Again, people focus so much on the "early 2000s" that the period hogs up everything around it, to the point that the rest of the 2000s decade is virtually insignificant. The early 2000s even have a legitimate Urban Dictionary page, which other decade sub-eras and even the 2000s decade as a whole do not.


Late 2000s and Mid 2000s are just as significant as the Early 2000s to me. When a decade has a lot of rapid changes all of those changes tend to stand out on their own.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 09/05/16 at 9:26 pm


Again, people focus so much on the "early 2000s" that the period hogs up everything around it, to the point that the rest of the 2000s decade is virtually insignificant. The early 2000s even have a legitimate Urban Dictionary page, which other decade sub-eras and even the 2000s decade as a whole do not.

As much as I like the early 00s, it is very annoying people don't care about the other parts of the 00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 09/05/16 at 9:48 pm


Again, people focus so much on the "early 2000s" that the period hogs up everything around it, to the point that the rest of the 2000s decade is virtually insignificant. The early 2000s even have a legitimate Urban Dictionary page, which other decade sub-eras and even the 2000s decade as a whole do not.


The Early 2000s provided a lot of general quality. That's not to say a Mid 2000s Dictionary page isn't in the making. The Late 2000s still isn't classic enough yet.
Late 2000s and Mid 2000s are just as significant as the Early 2000s to me. When a decade has a lot of rapid changes all of those changes tend to stand out on their own.


The Early and mid 2000s are on pair from my point of view. The Late 2000s were great for my personal life.
As much as I like the early 00s, it is very annoying people don't care about the other parts of the 00s.


Very annoying? How does it bother you so much?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 09/05/16 at 9:56 pm



Very annoying? How does it bother you so much?

I'm sensitive over the 2000s. Don't touch them! As a 2000s kid, I am very loyal.  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/06/16 at 11:58 am

The early 2000s were the only part of the decade that was fun, so the distinction is necessary lol. Also, I did find a few entries for the 2000s decade.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 09/06/16 at 12:58 pm


The early 2000s were the only part of the decade that was fun, so the distinction is necessary lol. Also, I did find a few entries for the 2000s decade.

The mid 2000s and late 00s were fun for me too.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 09/06/16 at 2:51 pm


I think Spongebob Square pants movie came out then. Also John Cena was at the height of popularity. I hated him before it was cool.


He had the rapper gimmick before 2005.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 09/06/16 at 4:24 pm


We had some songs like that many years after 2004 too. I don't see it as an early 00s leftover. When I think of the early 00s, I think about the Y2K, Bubblegump pop, and 9/11. I don't think about 50 Cent for example despite his song "In Da Club" coming out early 2003. I think of that as a mid 00s song.

I agree with 9/11. But... everything else you mentioned is VERY early 00s. The Y2K, Bubblegum pop stuff was 1999 type culture....
When I think of the cultural early 00s, I think of the early years of Bush, post 9/11 patriotism, PS2, glam rap, Nu metal, Lord of the Rings and the first two Harry Potter films etc.


And BTW, Toon is correct the first half of 2004 did have some early 00s leftovers.... Justice League TAS, Lizzie McGuire, The Practice, Friends, and Fraiser finished their runs. Gameboy Advanced,  Malcolm in the Middle and That's 70 Show were still somewhat popular etc. Hell, even the kids networks hadn't changed their identities yet.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/06/16 at 10:13 pm


I agree with 9/11. But... everything else you mentioned is VERY early 00s. The Y2K, Bubblegum pop stuff was 1999 type culture....
When I think of the cultural early 00s, I think of the early years of Bush, post 9/11 patriotism, PS2, glam rap, Nu metal, Lord of the Rings and the first two Harry Potter films etc.


And BTW, Toon is correct the first half of 2004 did have some early 00s leftovers.... Justice League TAS, Lizzie McGuire, The Practice, Friends, and Fraiser finished their runs. Gameboy Advanced,  Malcolm in the Middle and That's 70 Show were still somewhat popular etc. Hell, even the kids networks hadn't changed their identities yet.


I'm kinda in the minority with this opinion, but I consider Justice League/Justice League Unlimited to be it's own. I think the whole series lasted from 2001-2006 overall, and yes, I'm aware there is a huge difference between the original and unlimited, so I can see how you're talking about the original being early 2000's while unlimited is mid 2000's, therefore you use the original still being on the air throughout the first half of 2004 as an example of early 2000's influences still being leftover, but to me I consider both series to be its own in my heart being 5-10 years old throughout its entire run  :D

As for the Gameboy Advance/SP, I would say the handheld was still very popular throughout the rest of 2004 and the first half of 2005. The second half of 2005 is when the Nintendo DS really took over in popularity due to Mario Kart DS and Nintendogs being the first major hits.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 9:09 am


As for the Gameboy Advance/SP, I would say the handheld was still very popular throughout the rest of 2004 and the first half of 2005. The second half of 2005 is when the Nintendo DS really took over in popularity due to Mario Kart DS and Nintendogs being the first major hits.


The DS started to get more popular during late 2005/early 2006. But it was more like a late 2000s system, if we're talking about popularity.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/07/16 at 12:01 pm


The DS started to get more popular during late 2005/early 2006. But it was more like a late 2000s system, if we're talking about popularity.


Yep, late 2005 is when it started getting popular, and when the DS Lite came out in mid-2006, its sales really exploded.

Most of 2005 was PSP. It played music, games and porn. Everything a middle schooler could want.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 12:12 pm


Yep, late 2005 is when it started getting popular, and when the DS Lite came out in mid-2006, its sales really exploded.


True to that. I got the DS Lite around 2008, and it was pretty cool for its time. But it was basically the late 2000s version of the DS.


Most of 2005 was PSP. It played music, games and porn. Everything a middle schooler could want.


The PSP was the system of 2005. lol

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 12:26 pm


True to that. I got the DS Lite around 2008, and it was pretty cool for its time. But it was basically the late 2000s version of the DS.

The PSP was the system of 2005. lol


Heresy! 8-P Xbox 360 was the true system of 2005. ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/07/16 at 12:29 pm


Heresy! 8-P Xbox 360 was the true system of 2005. ;D


Lol, I remember when the Xbox fanboys were hyping Kameo as a system seller. Good times.  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 12:39 pm


Lol, I remember when the Xbox fanboys were hyping Kameo as a system seller. Good times.  ;D


Wow, I was on original Xbox that year, and I never talked to many people about video games, so I was unaware of the Xbox 360 until 2006 or 2007. The games I played most around that time were Star Wars Battlefront, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Fuzion Frenzy, a lot of other games.... and Shrek 2. ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 12:41 pm


Heresy! 8-P Xbox 360 was the true system of 2005. ;D


It was only released around November of 2005 in North America, so it's more like a system for 2006.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 12:49 pm


It was only released around November of 2005 in North America, so it's more like a system for 2006.


;D Yeah, I'm just messing around, for me it was like the system of 2009 since I got it Christmas Day, 2008.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 12:54 pm


;D Yeah, I'm just messing around, for me it was like the system of 2009 since I got it Christmas Day, 2008.


The Xbox 360 was like the system of the late 2000s. Although, the PS3 and the Wii were as great as the 360.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 12:59 pm


The Xbox 360 was like the system of the late 2000s. Although, the PS3 and the Wii were as great as the 360.


Yeah, I liked PS3 and the Wii, and they are as great as the 360. Would always play them at friends and family's houses. I guess I just like the 360 more since it was the one I owned and played when I was younger. I'm nostalgic for the late 2000s and that was a part of my life in the late 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 1:02 pm


Yeah, I liked PS3 and the Wii, and they are as great as the 360. Would always play them at friends and family's houses. I guess I just like the 360 more since it was the one I owned and played when I was younger. I'm nostalgic for the late 2000s and that was a part of my life in the late 2000s.


I usually played the 360 during the very early 2010s. I stopped playing it around early 2012, because I didn't really like it that much after that.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 1:07 pm


I usually played the 360 during the very early 2010s. I stopped playing it around early 2012, because I didn't really like it that much after that.


Yeah, I played it throughout the early 2010s as well, I'm not nostalgic for that yet though. I started playing Xbox One as my main console in 2014 (got it Dec. 25, 2013). I still play the 360 and original Xbox somewhat often though. I played both of them yesterday, and played two games I haven't played in 8 to 10 years with my brother.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 1:09 pm


Yeah, I played it throughout the early 2010s as well, I'm nostalgic for that yet though. I started playing Xbox One as my main console in 2014 (got it Dec. 25, 2013). I still play the 360 and original Xbox somewhat often though. I played both of them yesterday, and played two games I haven't played in 8 to 10 years with my brother.


I feel the same with my Wii (which I got around the summer of 2008). It was my first home console which I had fond memories with. I got introduced to a bunch of old games thanks to the Virtual Console.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 1:17 pm


I feel the same with my Wii (which I got around the summer of 2008). It was my first home console which I had fond memories with. I got introduced to a bunch of old games thanks to the Virtual Console.


Man, yeah, I haven't played the Wii in at least 6 years. The thing I always liked about the Wii is that it was so fun to play with other people (my experience at least), my most memorable moment with the Wii was when I went to my friends' house for his birthday in maybe 2007 or 2008, and there was a competition with the Wii Sports game.

There were like 16 people there, and we would have certain people face each other and if you lost the match, you got eliminated. I know it went from like 16 people to 8, and so on until the final match on boxing between the final two people. The fun part for me was winning. Only thing I've ever won. ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 1:21 pm


Man, yeah, I haven't played the Wii in at least 6 years. The thing I always liked about the Wii is that it was so fun to play with other people (my experience at least), my most memorable moment with the Wii was when I went to my friends' house for his birthday in maybe 2007 or 2008, and there was a competition with the Wii Sports game.

There were like 16 people there, and we would have certain people face each other and if you lost the match, you got eliminated. I know it went from like 16 people to 8, and so on until the final match on boxing between the final two people. The fun part for me was winning. Only thing I've ever won. ;D


I felt the same way when I had several Wii Sports tournaments at my after school program. I won the boxing tournament, since I was so fierce on beating anyone. This happened when I was about 11 or 12.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/07/16 at 1:44 pm


I felt the same way when I had several Wii Sports tournaments at my after school program. I won the boxing tournament, since I was so fierce on beating anyone. This happened when I was about 11 or 12.


Wow, yeah, that's awesome you did something similar as well, haven't met anyone else who did something like that, the only differences with the one that I did was that it was a variety tournament, and we sadly only had one. We played bowling first, then when it went to 8 people, we played baseball (I faced my brother ;D), when it went to 4, it was tennis, and then the boxing.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/07/16 at 3:31 pm


Wow, I was on original Xbox that year, and I never talked to many people about video games, so I was unaware of the Xbox 360 until 2006 or 2007. The games I played most around that time were Star Wars Battlefront, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Fuzion Frenzy, a lot of other games.... and Shrek 2. ;D


Haha, I didn't hear about it myself until early 2006. People chugged on and kept playing their PS2s.  ;D


The Xbox 360 was like the system of the late 2000s. Although, the PS3 and the Wii were as great as the 360.


I got a Wii for my 14th birthday in 2007, and Xbox 360 for my 15th haha.

Xbox 360 had the best games, although Wii was very fun when friends came over.

In gaming competitions, I won my high school's Mario Kart DS competition. I beat out 12 other people  ;D The snaking made my thumb fall off.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/07/16 at 5:57 pm


I got a Wii for my 14th birthday in 2007, and Xbox 360 for my 15th haha.

Xbox 360 had the best games, although Wii was very fun when friends came over.

In gaming competitions, I won my high school's Mario Kart DS competition. I beat out 12 other people  ;D The snaking made my thumb fall off.


This is why I say Mario Kart DS was the best handheld Mario Kart game of the series hands down. The jump from Double Dash to DS was huge and a lot of its new features at the time have revolutionized the way the Mario Kart series is today. I could have beaten all of your casual friends/classmates in school as well. I was an intense snaker/PRB online too.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/07/16 at 6:01 pm

I got a Wii in Christmas 2007, and my favorite games were Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart Wii, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Wii Sports & Wii Fit were fun the first few months I had the console but it got boring after while and once I got Super Mario Galaxy for my 12th birthday I never touched Wii Sports again lol. I didn't get an XBOX 360 until 2011 which was kinda late, but thankfully I didn't have to go through the old white XBOX 360 which had red ring of death symptoms. Call of Duty Black Ops I & II were my favorite games of the XBOX 360 hands down.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/07/16 at 6:18 pm


This is why I say Mario Kart DS was the best handheld Mario Kart game of the series hands down. The jump from Double Dash to DS was huge and a lot of its new features at the time have revolutionized the way the Mario Kart series is today. I could have beaten all of your casual friends/classmates in school as well. I was an intense snaker/PRB online too.


Breh if the online still worked, your inthe00s account would end up deleted.  >:(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/07/16 at 6:22 pm


This is why I say Mario Kart DS was the best handheld Mario Kart game of the series hands down. The jump from Double Dash to DS was huge and a lot of its new features at the time have revolutionized the way the Mario Kart series is today. I could have beaten all of your casual friends/classmates in school as well. I was an intense snaker/PRB online too.


This right here is why I quite MKDS. I swear it was like everyone could do Performance boosts and snaking except for me in that game.  >:(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/07/16 at 6:25 pm


This right here is why I quite MKDS. I swear it was like everyone could do Performance boosts and snaking except for me in that game.  >:(


I hated it too tbh. Summer of 2006 was just extremely boring, so I spent a lot of time on that game.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/07/16 at 6:28 pm


This right here is why I quite MKDS. I swear it was like everyone could do Performance boosts and snaking except for me in that game.  >:(


Well, there was a lot more that MKDS did than just the snaking stuff. I will admit the truth the snaking online for MKDS was very broken, and I can't blame Nintendo for that because it was the FIRST online MK game in the series so it was new to everybody. Compared to recent MK titles like MK8, the MKDS wi-fi (even though it's gone now) hasn't aged well at all, but it was great for its time. MKDS single player has aged very well though IMO. The mission mode was something that you haven't seen in any other MK ever since. MKDS was the last to have the boo item. MKDS introduced retro tracks along with the main tracks which made you have 32 courses to choose from. For the first time ever there's now vs. mode and battle mode on single player and according to a lot of people including myself MKDS had the last great battle mode in the series. MKWii is when battle mode started going downhill because it became teams only which ruined it, and now on MK8 I heard that there's no battle stages at all, and I'm like hell no. I wouldn't mind considering MK Double Dash and MKDS as the peak of the series. MK64 was the peak of the classic series, although, I still consider Double Dash as the last classic overall.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/07/16 at 6:35 pm


This right here is why I quite MKDS. I swear it was like everyone could do Performance boosts and snaking except for me in that game.  >:(


I will say, the one thing I hated about MKDS were the hackers  >:( 

I remember the first time I accounted one back in 2006, and it was my 2nd wi-fi match EVER on MKDS, I'm not kidding. It was just 1 on 1, and I remember the race was Figure 8 Circuit. It was me with dry bones in the dry boomer while the other had peach in the egg1 kart. I was way ahead drifting for a while and during the 2nd lap, all of the sudden out of no where this guy is lagging and zooming really fast ahead of me and I'm like "what that's impossible". I used to call 300cc "chugga zooming" because of the wi-fi lag combined with the racer zooming ahead of me looking like that. And the guy totally killed me in all of the rest of the races, he lapped me and the race was already over when I was only in the 1st or 2nd lap. For a while I thought 300cc was "chugga zooming", later on I look on Youtube in 2007 and find out that it was a hack. So as a 10 year old I used to think the hackers were doing techniques I didn't unlock yet.  :o ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/07/16 at 6:40 pm


Well, there was a lot more that MKDS did than just the snaking stuff. I will admit the truth the snaking online for MKDS was very broken, and I can't blame Nintendo for that because it was the FIRST online MK game in the series so it was new to everybody. Compared to recent MK titles like MK8, the MKDS wi-fi (even though it's gone now) hasn't aged well at all, but it was great for its time. MKDS single player has aged very well though IMO. The mission mode was something that you haven't seen in any other MK ever since. MKDS was the last to have the boo item. MKDS introduced retro tracks along with the main tracks which made you have 32 courses to choose from. For the first time ever there's now vs. mode and battle mode on single player and according to a lot of people including myself MKDS had the last great battle mode in the series. MKWii is when battle mode started going downhill because it became teams only which ruined it, and now on MK8 I heard that there's no battle stages at all, and I'm like hell no. I wouldn't mind considering MK Double Dash and MKDS as the peak of the series. MK64 was the peak of the classic series, although, I still consider Double Dash as the last classic overall.


I was never the biggest MKDS fan, but I will give it credit that it was a nice attempt at making classic style Mario Kart for the DS with updated features such as Mission and Online modes while also keeping the older modes intact. I prefer DS over Wii due to how upsetting Wii is after going back and playing it. And I'm with you on battle mode. I don't know why Nintendo decided to change it when there was nothing wrong with it in the first place. If we're talking Peaks of Mario Kart for me it'll always be 64 and Double Dash. They both had such crazy amounts of fun.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/07/16 at 6:43 pm


I will say, the one thing I hated about MKDS were the hackers  >:( 

I remember the first time I accounted one back in 2006, and it was my 2nd wi-fi match EVER on MKDS, I'm not kidding. It was just 1 on 1, and I remember the race was Figure 8 Circuit. It was me with dry bones in the dry boomer while the other had peach in the egg1 kart. I was way ahead drifting for a while and during the 2nd lap, all of the sudden out of no where this guy is lagging and zooming really fast ahead of me and I'm like "what that's impossible". I used to call 300cc "chugga zooming" because of the wi-fi lag combined with the racer zooming ahead of me looking like that. And the guy totally killed me in all of the rest of the races, he lapped me and the race was already over when I was only in the 1st or 2nd lap. For a while I thought 300cc was "chugga zooming", later on I look on Youtube in 2007 and find out that it was a hack. So as a 10 year old I used to think the hackers were doing techniques I didn't unlock yet.  :o ;D


Hated the hacking as well. I remember racing a hacker who for some reason was immune to my items. Throw a shell and it would go through the racer. But I suppose all the hacking was to be expected. Around the time of Mario Kart DS' release Nintendo was still fairly new to the online gaming scene. People would hack left and right and not get banned/caught by Nintendo. I'm not sure if MK7 has the same issue with hackers since I haven't played it in a while. I stopped playing it once I got all the gold car parts.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/07/16 at 6:50 pm


Hated the hacking as well. I remember racing a hacker who for some reason was immune to my items. Throw a shell and it would go through the racer. But I suppose all the hacking was to be expected. Around the time of Mario Kart DS' release Nintendo was still fairly new to the online gaming scene. People would hack left and right and not get banned/caught by Nintendo. I'm not sure if MK7 has the same issue with hackers since I haven't played it in a while. I stopped playing it once I got all the gold car parts.


Well, it was the first Nintendo Wi-Fi game. Especially when it was released a year before the Wii was around. So it's not like anybody would expect it to be great.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 09/08/16 at 5:17 pm


The Xbox 360 was like the system of the late 2000s. Although, the PS3 and the Wii were as great as the 360.

and the PS3 was the system of the early 2010s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/08/16 at 5:33 pm


and the PS3 was the system of the early 2010s.


I played Xbox 360 as my main from 2009-2013. I'd say PS3 and Xbox 360 were pretty similar in terms of how much active players were on both, I played at my friend's house on PS3 though.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 09/08/16 at 6:53 pm


I played Xbox 360 as my main from 2009-2013. I'd say PS3 and Xbox 360 were pretty similar in terms of how much active players were on both, I played at my friend's house on PS3 though.


Yeah, it was more a regional divide. Xbox 360 was more popular in North America, UK, Australia etc. while the PS3 was more popular in mainland Europe and Japan.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 09/09/16 at 7:51 am


Yeah, it was more a regional divide. Xbox 360 was more popular in North America, UK, Australia etc. while the PS3 was more popular in mainland Europe and Japan.


Over here, I would say that the XBOX 360 was popular throughout the late 2000's and early 2010's. The Wii was only popular during the late 2000's, and the PS3 was only popular during the early 2010's. So the XBOX 360 stayed consistently popular throughout all of 7th generation. In the late 2000's I remember people talking about Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 2, Street Fighter IV, and the red ring of death lol, and in the early 2010's it was all about Call of Duty Black Ops 1 & 2, Battlefield 3, and the famous Kinect that had a lot of hit games for it and I mean it was crazy. The Kinect was like the early 2010's version of the Wii motion control remotes.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 09/09/16 at 12:17 pm


Over here, I would say that the XBOX 360 was popular throughout the late 2000's and early 2010's. The Wii was only popular during the late 2000's, and the PS3 was only popular during the early 2010's. So the XBOX 360 stayed consistently popular throughout all of 7th generation. In the late 2000's I remember people talking about Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 2, Street Fighter IV, and the red ring of death lol, and in the early 2010's it was all about Call of Duty Black Ops 1 & 2, Battlefield 3, and the famous Kinect that had a lot of hit games for it and I mean it was crazy. The Kinect was like the early 2010's version of the Wii motion control remotes.


My uncle sold my parents an Xbox 360 that had the red ring of death for $100, and didn't tell us it had that. My brother was a huge fan of MW2, I never really got into them. I played through the campaigns of both games, and played a small amount of multiplayer, but that's it.

For the late 2000s (2009 really, had original Xbox for majority of late 2000s) for me, it was all about Halo 3 and LEGO games. During the early 2010s for me, it was about Halo: Reach, Skyrim, and Assassin's Creed (I loved and played a lot of other games, but these were the popular ones, like who else played Civilization Revolution in 2009?).

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Setemstraight on 09/13/16 at 12:18 am


That doesn't really mean much. Jimmy Eat World were the only big Emo hitters in 2002 (I could even argue that the JEW-styled Emo sound was already somewhat popular in 1997 when Color and Shape by the Foo Fighters came out). Other Emo bands like At The Drive In started getting the same amount of recognition that The Used and Dashboard got in 2002 (both bands who's early records weren't at all like the mid-late 00's incarnation of emo and truly didn't get big until 2003) back in 2000. Emo in 2002 was still all about sweater vests and thick rimmed glasses.


It means a lot. That's what brought emo into the mainstream in the 00s

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 09/13/16 at 12:41 am


It means a lot. That's what brought emo into the mainstream in the 00s


Except it doesn't. When bands barely or fail to chart and get little MTV airtime, it doesn't mean anything. With Dashboard I could understand your reasoning but The Used were nothing more than an opening Warped Tour act with no charting singles or albums in 2002. 2003 was the year when both those bands became big hit-makers. It's also when the faux-emo that defined the 00's started to appear (but wouldn't get mainstream until 2004) with albums such as Fall Out Boy's Take This To Your Grave. June of 2004 is the true starting point of mainstream faux-emo.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Setemstraight on 10/06/16 at 11:16 pm


Except it doesn't. When bands barely or fail to chart and get little MTV airtime, it doesn't mean anything. With Dashboard I could understand your reasoning but The Used were nothing more than an opening Warped Tour act with no charting singles or albums in 2002. 2003 was the year when both those bands became big hit-makers. It's also when the faux-emo that defined the 00's started to appear (but wouldn't get mainstream until 2004) with albums such as Fall Out Boy's Take This To Your Grave. June of 2004 is the true starting point of mainstream faux-emo.

No it does. Not everybody is a sheep to the radio and bringing up early 2000s MTV is laughable because what little music they were playing*and I mean as they were already more of a reality show network busy this time) was teen pop and hip hop and with little nu metal and pop punk. Most people look to the underground for artists and bands as a lot of theses bands were in early 00s. People were discovering them through live shows, rock magazines and the Internet at this time. When these bands got big a few years later a lot of people turned their back on them as they considered them sellouts. You're going by the fact you're a slave to the radio and let them determine who you liked and didn't like.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 10/06/16 at 11:27 pm


No it does. Not everybody is a sheep to the radio and bringing up early 2000s MTV is laughable because what little music they were playing*and I mean as they were already more of a reality show network busy this time) was teen pop and hip hop and with little nu metal and pop punk. Most people look to the underground for artists and bands as a lot of theses bands were in early 00s. People were discovering them through live shows, rock magazines and the Internet at this time. When these bands got big a few years later a lot of people turned their back on them as they considered them sellouts. You're going by the fact you're a slave to the radio and let them determine who you liked and didn't like.


Oh, that's right! I'm a slave to the radio and MTV. I forgot how I didn't go to independent shows put on by small bands and I exclusively listened to whatever the radio was pumping out. ::) Gee whiz, you've sure got me figured out! How could I have been so foolish! I forgot that "underground" is synonymous with "mainstream" and when discussing mainstream success, I should talk about bands that were "discovered through underground outlets and were years later labeled sellouts and had their backs turned on when they had actual mainstream success".

Based off that little turd of a paragraph you wrote, you obviously don't know sh!t about the music industry. Shut your trap, please. Thanks. ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 10/06/16 at 11:41 pm

Don't start tearing each other apart over music guys! This is a family forum! ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/06/16 at 11:55 pm


Don't start tearing each other apart over music guys! This is a family forum! ;)

Preach Zelek! :)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 10/07/16 at 12:13 am


As much as I like the early 00s, it is very annoying people don't care about the other parts of the 00s.

For gods sake somebody here create a mid 2000s Urban Dictionary page! Or create some mid 2000s memes or Buzfeed lists and post them on Facebook or something. Anything!

We need to spread mid 00s awareness and show people that there were OTHER parts of the 00s decade! I'm sick and tired of 2004-2005 pop culture getting swallowed into the "early 2000s" by foolish Facebook commenters (for example, I've heard lots of people say Danny Phantom and American Dragon jake long are "early 2000s shows").

Focus mostly on 2004-2006 pop culture but I guess some 2003 things could fit too.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/07/16 at 2:01 am

I never seen such a sarcasm bomb, like the one JordanK1982 posted!  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 6:02 am


For gods sake somebody here create a mid 2000s Urban Dictionary page! Or create some mid 2000s memes or Buzfeed lists and post them on Facebook or something. Anything!


I think Buzzfeed made some lists from the mid 2000s, but they didn't define the culture of that era compared to the early 2000s.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/mid-00s-teen-girl-obsessions?utm_term=.fd3bE7XQl#.iwkwgPVED

We need to spread mid 00s awareness and show people that there were OTHER parts of the 00s decade! I'm sick and tired of 2004-2005 pop culture getting swallowed into the "early 2000s" by foolish Facebook commenters (for example, I've heard lots of people say Danny Phantom and American Dragon jake long are "early 2000s shows").

This is the reason why we need to do that. I honestly wish people thought the mid 2000s were still unique compared to the early 2000s. Sure, it had most of the shows that aired during the early 2000s, but it made some interesting events like the final U-Pick Live episodes, or the creation of Foster's, and Ben 10, or the spread of broadband internet.


Focus mostly on 2004-2006 pop culture but I guess some 2003 things could fit too.


Definitely that.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 10/07/16 at 4:53 pm

2004-2005 was definitely the start of Mid 2000s culture, in my opinion. I can remember the vibe from the time and it was definitely different from 2003, which I consider to be the final year of predominant 90s/Early 2000's influences.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 10/07/16 at 4:54 pm


2004-2005 was definitely the start of Mid 2000s culture, in my opinion. I can remember the vibe from the time and it was definitely different from 2003, which I consider to be the final year of predominant 90s/Early 2000's influences.

2003 is definitely not 90s lol. It's barely early 2000s as well.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 4:59 pm


2003 is definitely not 90s lol. It's barely early 2000s as well.


To me, it's basically half early 2000s and half mid 2000s. Same with 2004.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 10/07/16 at 5:00 pm


2003 is definitely not 90s lol. It's barely early 2000s as well.


I'm not suggesting that it had a lot of 90s influences, however 2003 was the final year that 90s influences were still present, in my opinion. I would personally consider 2003 to be in-between both Early 2000s and Mid 2000s culture. It was definitely the final year that Early 2000s culture was still prominent. That is just from my perspective, anyway. I don't know what the vibe was like in the US at the time.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 5:07 pm


I'm not suggesting that it had a lot of 90s influences, however 2003 was the final year that 90s influences were still present, in my opinion. I would personally consider 2003 to be in-between both Early 2000s and Mid 2000s culture. It was definitely the final year that Early 2000s culture was still prominent. That is just from my perspective, anyway. I don't know what the vibe was like in the US at the time.


I always thought that 2003 and early 2004 were like the early 2000s, even though I was mostly in preschool at the time. To me, if I were an infant or at preschool at the time, then I would've called it as the early 2000s. Anything between June 2004 to June 2007 was like the core 2000s to me. July 2007 to December 2009 was like the late 2000s, as it was around the time I discovered YouTube at its golden age, and discovered other classic social media sites.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 10/07/16 at 5:17 pm

2003 was early 2000s in terms of culture up until fall fo 2003. Early-Mid 2003 felt similar to 2002 to me. It's not the the same as the 1990s. but the 1990s (well mainly the late 1990s) were still relevant in 2003 (and maybe early '04).

Although I'm not sure if this is a trend or not, but it seems that a decade's culture becomes irrelevent once we hit the core culture of the next decade. As of 2016 the early-mid '00s are somewhat irrelevent for example (The late '00s as well, but on 2007 so far). Or that's what it seems like to me at least.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 5:35 pm


Although I'm not sure if this is a trend or not, but it seems that a decade's culture becomes irrelevent once we hit the core culture of the next decade. As of 2016 the early-mid '00s are somewhat irrelevent for example (The late '00s as well, but on 2007 so far). Or that's what it seems like to me at least.


I think that has to deal with how the decade's culture evolves from the previous one. It's not like the 2020s would be that different once we get to January 1, 2020. It would feel similar to the late 2010s, considering it wouldn't be that old when we get there.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 10/07/16 at 6:49 pm


I think that has to deal with how the decade's culture evolves from the previous one. It's not like the 2020s would be that different once we get to January 1, 2020. It would feel similar to the late 2010s, considering it wouldn't be that old when we get there.


True. I can see the late 2010s being relevant by the early 2020s. But by 2025 I'm not sure if half the stuff we see today would be relevant anymore. But hey I can't predict the future.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 6:57 pm


True. I can see the late 2010s being relevant by the early 2020s. But by 2025 I'm not sure if half the stuff we see today would be relevant anymore. But hey I can't predict the future.


Same with me. I'm just hoping that the late 2010s would do something better than this era. With a new president around January 2017, it would make the very late 2000s and early 2010s seem a bit irrelevant, since that's when Obama had his first term.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 10/07/16 at 7:23 pm


Same with me. I'm just hoping that the late 2010s would do something better than this era. With a new president around January 2017, it would make the very late 2000s and early 2010s seem a bit irrelevant, since that's when Obama had his first term.


I can see that happening. With the way the new president changes things it could make the late 2000s/early 2010s seem a bit distant when we reach the early-mid 2020s (New president arrives in Jan 2017 and leaves in either 2021 or 2025). Oh wow I just realized something. The 2020s may be a strange decade for culture. I say because by the time we reach the peak 2020s culture the 2017 president would be gone. We'd have a new president who'd shape things in his/her image when we reach the late 2020s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 7:28 pm


I can see that happening. With the way the new president changes things it could make the late 2000s/early 2010s seem a bit distant when we reach the early-mid 2020s (New president arrives in Jan 2017 and leaves in either 2021 or 2025). Oh wow I just realized something. The 2020s may be a strange decade for culture. I say because by the time we reach the peak 2020s culture the 2017 president would be gone. We'd have a new president who'd shape things in his/her image when we reach the late 2020s.


It'll might be the aftermath of what Trump or Clinton would do for the next 4 or 8 years.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 10/07/16 at 8:36 pm


2004-2005 was definitely the start of Mid 2000s culture, in my opinion. I can remember the vibe from the time and it was definitely different from 2003, which I consider to be the final year of predominant 90s/Early 2000's influences.


I guess it depend on the person. Mid 2000s culture actually lingered by late 2003 for me.
2003 is definitely not 90s lol. It's barely early 2000s as well.


I can agree with 2003 being barely 90s, but Early 2000s? Nah, man. As its been said, early 2003 is definitely still early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/07/16 at 8:49 pm


I guess it depend on the person. Mid 2000s culture actually lingered by late 2003 for me.


For some odd reason, the mid 2000s actually started around late 2004 to me. It might have to deal with my personal life and sh*t.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 10/08/16 at 8:38 am


For some odd reason, the mid 2000s actually started around late 2004 to me. It might have to deal with my personal life and sh*t.


Late 2004? That is odd. majority of 2004 was still Early 2000s for you.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/08/16 at 8:45 am


Late 2004? That is odd. majority of 2004 was still Early 2000s for you.


Well, the summer of 2004 was when the mid 2000s started to come through me.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 10/09/16 at 8:34 am


For some odd reason, the mid 2000s actually started around late 2004 to me. It might have to deal with my personal life and sh*t.


Mid 2000's culture (while not in full effect yet) started in late 2003 for me, but the early 2000's was still around in late 2003/early 2004 for me. I know it sounds complicated, but I consider the 2003-04 school year to be the transition from early 2000's to mid 2000's culture, in other words, fall 2003/spring 2004 was like a hybrid of early 2000's culture and mid 2000's culture. It marked the beginning of mid 2000's culture but the tail end of early 2000's culture at the same time. 2003 as a whole year is still completely early 2000's to me, but 2004 as a whole year is completely mid 2000's to me. By summer 2004 mid 2000's culture was in full effect without a question. Core 2000's on the other hand, was in full effect by late 2003 without a question.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mqg96 on 10/09/16 at 8:35 am


I guess it depend on the person. Mid 2000s culture actually lingered by late 2003 for me.
I can agree with 2003 being barely 90s, but Early 2000s? Nah, man. As its been said, early 2003 is definitely still early 2000s.


Late 90's influences were extinct by late 2003, but I can agree with early/mid 2003 being the last gasp for late 90's influences. I remember Jordan and I making a long chart several months ago with all the late 90's influences and core 2000's culture that existed throughout 2003 as a whole.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/09/16 at 9:09 am


Mid 2000's culture (while not in full effect yet) started in late 2003 for me, but the early 2000's was still around in late 2003/early 2004 for me. I know it sounds complicated, but I consider the 2003-04 school year to be the transition from early 2000's to mid 2000's culture, in other words, fall 2003/spring 2004 was like a hybrid of early 2000's culture and mid 2000's culture. It marked the beginning of mid 2000's culture but the tail end of early 2000's culture at the same time. 2003 as a whole year is still completely early 2000's to me, but 2004 as a whole year is completely mid 2000's to me. By summer 2004 mid 2000's culture was in full effect without a question. Core 2000's on the other hand, was in full effect by late 2003 without a question.


In a way, the mid 2000s started around 2004 to me. It still felt like the early 2000s around 2003 in my personal life. But since this is coming from somebody born in 1999, I can't really tell a lot about the early 2000s personally. If it was coming from late 2004-2006, then that would've been my peak of the mid 2000s. Culturally, I do agree that late 2003/early 2004 was the start of the mid 2000s. However, I was still in pre-K by the time that happened. It seemed really different when I entered Kindergarten in late 2004, since it was the first time I was actually in a elementary school. Plus, my memories seem more consistent by that time.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/09/16 at 8:39 pm


I agree with this! Basically this how I see the culture from the late 80's through today using school years:


Neon/NES Era (1987-1993)
1987-1988 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1988-1989 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1989-1990 - Neon-Full House-MC Hammer-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's) - Ultimate Neon School Year

1990-1991 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-NES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1991-1992 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1992-1993 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)



Grunge/PC Boom Era (1993-1997)
1993-1994 - Core 90's-Seinfeld-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1994-1995 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Soundgarden-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1995-1996 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Tupac-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's) - Ultimate 1990's School Year

1996-1997 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Spice Girls-N64 Era (Cultural Mid 90's)



Millennial/AOL Era (1997-2004)
1997-1998 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1998-1999 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1999-2000 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

2000-2001 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-NSYNC-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's) - Ultimate Millennial School Year

2001-2002 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-NSYNC-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2002-2003 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2003-2004 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)



Emo/Myspace Era (2004-2009)
2004-2005 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2005-2006 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2006-2007 - Modern 00's-iPod-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's) - Ultimate 2000's School Year

2007-2008 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2008-2009 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)



Electropop/Facebook Era (2009-2013)
2009-2010 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2010-2011 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2011-2012 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's) - Ultimate Electropop School Year

2012-2013 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's)



Hipster/Twitter Era (2013-Present)
2013-2014 - Core 10's-iPhone-Lorde-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2014-2015 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2015-2016 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)


'87 to '89…The Mötley Crüe era?

Bon Jovi was a much bigger deal back then.

I'd say it went more like this:

1987-1988/1988-1989: Pastels - ALF - Bon Jovi - NES era (cultural late 80s)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/09/16 at 9:10 pm


'87 to '89…The Mötley Crüe era?

Bon Jovi was a much bigger deal back then.

I'd say it went more like this:

1987-1988/1988-1989: Pastels - ALF - Bon Jovi - NES era (cultural late 80s)


The NES and Alf were still popular during the early 90s, so I would've extended to 1990 and 1991 if I were you.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/09/16 at 9:17 pm


The NES and Alf were still popular during the early 90s, so I would've extended to 1990 and 1991 if I were you.


ALF fell out of popularity in the fall of '89 or so, maybe earlier than that. The only people I remember wearing ALF shirts in the spring of 1990 were children.

I would have definitely included the NES in the 1989 to 1990 and '90 to '91 periods, but my emphasis was on the late '80s in my last post.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/09/16 at 9:26 pm


ALF fell out of popularity in the fall of '89 or so, maybe earlier than that. The only people I remember wearing ALF shirts in the spring of 1990 were children.

I would have definitely included the NES in the 1989 to 1990 and '90 to '91 periods.


But children are still people. So it would still be popular towards children, since they watched him. I mean, it's not like like everyone think that kids don't count, since they at least care for what they like. That's why they have Saturday morning cartoons, video games, cereals with mascots, and kid-friendly Internet sites. I know that's not the topic you mentioned, but it's still worth it.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/09/16 at 9:47 pm


But children are still people. So it would still be popular towards children, since they watched him. I mean, it's not like like everyone think that kids don't count, since they at least care for what they like. That's why they have Saturday morning cartoons, video games, cereals with mascots, and kid-friendly Internet sites. I know that's not the topic you mentioned, but it's still worth it.


You're missing my point. From '87 to early '89, people of all ages watched ALF.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/09/16 at 10:43 pm


You're missing my point. From '87 to early '89, people of all ages watched ALF.


But it's still popular towards a significant audience. Not as popular as it was in the late 80s, but it's still the same Alf for children.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/09/16 at 11:15 pm


But it's still popular towards a significant audience. Not as popular as it was in the late 80s, but it's still the same Alf for children.


In my opinion, the 3rd and 4th seasons were the worst seasons of the show. I found ALF a bit too obnoxious for my tastes at that point.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 10/09/16 at 11:48 pm


In a way, the mid 2000s started around 2004 to me. It still felt like the early 2000s around 2003 in my personal life. But since this is coming from somebody born in 1999, I can't really tell a lot about the early 2000s personally. If it was coming from late 2004-2006, then that would've been my peak of the mid 2000s. Culturally, I do agree that late 2003/early 2004 was the start of the mid 2000s. However, I was still in pre-K by the time that happened. It seemed really different when I entered Kindergarten in late 2004, since it was the first time I was actually in a elementary school. Plus, my memories seem more consistent by that time.


I know it sounds a bit cliche, but for me personally, I would consider Early 2004 to be the start of Mid 2000s culture. I remember Late 2003 as being some sort of strange blend of Early 2000s and early Core 2000's culture. For example, I remember the PS2 at the time was still around $400 and I received it as a Christmas present that year. However, I also received a Gameboy Advance SP for Christmas 2003 and I consider the console to be a core element of Mid 2000s culture. It's hard to explain, but the "vibe" felt different at the time, compared to earlier in the year.

Like you, I can't really remember a great deal of  Early 2000s culture either. 2003 is the only Early 2000's year which I have vivid memories of, as I only have vague memories of 2001 and constant memories of 2002. At a very stretch, I can remember what the culture was like during 2002 as well, however my memories of it aren't as vivid.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 12:37 am

Aliens have inhabited the mid-00s starship. And now we dance.  :o

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 8:45 am


Like you, I can't really remember a great deal of  Early 2000s culture either. 2003 is the only Early 2000's year which I have vivid memories of, as I only have vague memories of 2001 and constant memories of 2002. At a very stretch, I can remember what the culture was like during 2002 as well, however my memories of it aren't as vivid.


Same with myself. Although I could remember 2003 more than 2002, it seemed pretty vibrant for what I did. I didn't do that much often, aside from going to preschool and watching Sesame Street and Nick Jr shows. With 2004, it seemed more like the transition from my early childhood to core childhood. I had more interests into shows on Nickelodeon, PBS Kids (a network in America), and HBO Family (another network in America). Although, it was more consistent around late 2004/early 2005 to me.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 10/10/16 at 2:33 pm


You're missing my point. From '87 to early '89, people of all ages watched ALF.


I watched ALF.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 2:42 pm

This thread makes me miss when ocarinafan96 was a regular here.  :\'(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/10/16 at 3:55 pm


I agree with this! Basically this how I see the culture from the late 80's through today using school years:


Neon/NES Era (1987-1993)
1987-1988 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1988-1989 - Neon-Full House-Motley Crue-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's)

1989-1990 - Neon-Full House-MC Hammer-NES Era (Cultural Late 80's) - Ultimate Neon School Year

1990-1991 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-NES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1991-1992 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Vanilla Ice-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)

1992-1993 - Neon-Fresh Prince-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Early 90's)



Grunge/PC Boom Era (1993-1997)
1993-1994 - Core 90's-Seinfeld-Nirvana-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1994-1995 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Soundgarden-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's)

1995-1996 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Tupac-SNES Era (Cultural Mid 90's) - Ultimate 1990's School Year

1996-1997 - Core 90's-FRIENDS-Spice Girls-N64 Era (Cultural Mid 90's)



Millennial/AOL Era (1997-2004)
1997-1998 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1998-1999 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

1999-2000 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-Backstreet Boys-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's)

2000-2001 - Millennial-Dawson's Creek-NSYNC-N64 Era (Cultural Late 90's) - Ultimate Millennial School Year

2001-2002 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-NSYNC-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2002-2003 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)

2003-2004 - Millennial-Lizzie McGuire-Outkast-PS2 Era (Cultural Early 00's)



Emo/Myspace Era (2004-2009)
2004-2005 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2005-2006 - Classic Core 00's-iPod-50 Cent-PS2 Era (Cultural Mid 00's)

2006-2007 - Modern 00's-iPod-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's) - Ultimate 2000's School Year

2007-2008 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2008-2009 - Modern 00's-Blackberry-Beyonce-Wii Era (Cultural Late 00's)



Electropop/Facebook Era (2009-2013)
2009-2010 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2010-2011 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Lady Gaga-PS3 Era (Cultural Late 00's)

2011-2012 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's) - Ultimate Electropop School Year

2012-2013 - Electropop-Jersey Shore-Drake-PS3 Era (Cultural Early 10's)



Hipster/Twitter Era (2013-Present)
2013-2014 - Core 10's-iPhone-Lorde-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2014-2015 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)

2015-2016 - Core 10's-iPhone-Taylor Swift-PS4 Era (Cultural Mid 10's)


Here's how I see them:

Last Part of The 1980s

1987-1989 (Cultural Late 80s) - Pastels/Swatches/Adidas sneakers - ALF/ Growing Pains/ Who's the Boss - Sushi/Dominos Pizza - Pogo Ball/G1 Transformers -
Bon Jovi/Whitney Houston/Madonna - NES era


90s

1990-1992 (Cultural Early 90s)/Greatest Period of All Time, IMO - Neon/Muted Colors/Muscle Pants/ Z. Cavaricci/Reebok Pumps/Converse sneakers/K Swiss/Fila/Biker Shorts/Bolo Ties/Leather Bomber Jackets/Leather African Medallions  - Roseanne/The Wonder Years/Full House - - Frozen Yogurt/Frozen Dinners/Cinnamon Buns - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles action figures/Skip-It/RC cars - MC Hammer/Paula Abdul/Bobby Brown/Guns 'N Roses - NES (for the most part)/Gameboy era

1993-1995 (Cultural Mid 90s) - Cross Colors/Darker Colors/Flannel/Earth Tones/Baggy Jeans/LA Lights sneakers/Timberland Boots/Fitted caps/Rave wear/ Looney Tunes shirts/Polo Sport/Clothes with Marijuana leaves on them/Big Johnson shirts/No Fear  - Fresh Prince of Bel Air/Seinfeld/Melrose Place - Troll dolls/Rollerblades/Barney dolls/Ren and Stimpy merchandise/Pogs - Starbucks Coffee/Snackwells/Clear Drinks - Nirvana(Grohlvana, if you will)/Tupac/Boyz II Men - SNES/Game Gear era

1996-1998 (Cultural Late 90s) -  Complex and Sophisticated Colors/Goth look/Nike sneakers - Friends/ER/Party of Five - Power Rangers action figures/Beanie Babies - Low Fat Foods - Celine Dion/Brandy/Atlantis Morissette - SNES/N64 era

00s

1999-2001 (Very Beginning of the 00s) - Urbanwear/Choker necklaces/Old Navy/Super Baggy Jeans/Sketchers sneakers - Dawson's Creek/Ally McBeal/South Park - Pokémon trading cards - Red Bull/Low Carbs (Atkin's Diet) - Britney Spears/Eminem/Destiny's Child - N64/GameBoy Color era

2002-2004 (Second part of the cultural early 00s) - Velour Tracksuits/Skater fashion/"Jesus is My Homeboy" t-shirts/Che Guevara t-shirt/Heelys/Phat Farm sneakers - Lizzie McGuire/Trading Spaces/Cheaters - Bratz dolls - Comfort Foods -  JLO/Nelly/Usher - Playstation 2 era

2005-2007 (Cultural Mid 00s) - Emo look/"Vote for Pedro" shirts/Livestrong Bands/Crocs/Puma sneakers - Pimp My Ride/The Wire/Family Guy - Beyoncé/Kelly Clarkson/Fergie - Robosapien  toys - Coffee/Papa Johns - Playstation 2/iPod/Myspace era

2008-2010 (Cultural Late 00s) -  Abercrombie & Fitch/Hipster look/New Balance shoes - Deal or No Deal/Friday Night Lights/To Catch a Predator - Hannah Montana merchandise/Bayformer toys/Munny World toys by Kidrobot - Whole Grain Foods - Rihanna/Black Eyed Peas/Pink -  Wii/Xbox 360/Nintendo DS/Facebook/Blackberry/Rickrolling era

10s so far

2011-2013 (Cultural Early 10s) - Ed Hardy/Hipster look/Bowler hats/Oxfords/Under Armour Sneakers/Beats by Dr. Dre - Breaking Bad/Glee/Hoarders - Angry Birds merchandise - Food Truck foods/Organic Foods/Panera Bread -Drake/LMFAO/Katy Perry - PS3/Twitter/iPad era

2014-2016 (Cultural Mid 10s) - Running Activewear/ Swag look (Bape/Dope/Obey/Supreme)/ Colorful Sneakers/ Tribal Leggings/ All Over Print Crew Neck Sweatshirt - Game of Thrones/Orange is the New Black/The Voice -  Frozen merchandise - Chipotle Mexican Grill - Taylor Swift/Jason Derulo/Justin Timberlake - PS4/iPhone/Vine/Tumblr/Instagram era

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 5:21 pm


Here's how I see them:

Last Part of The 1980s

1987-1989 (Cultural Late 80s) - Pastels/Adidas sneakers - ALF/ Growing Pains/ Who's the Boss - Sushi/Dominos Pizza - Pogo Ball/G1 Transformers -
Bon Jovi/Whitney Houston/Madonna - NES era


90s

1990-1992 (Cultural Early 90s)/Greatest Period of All Time, IMO - Neon/Reebok Pumps/Converse sneakers/K Swiss/Fila/Biker Shorts/Leather African Medallions  - Roseanne/The Wonder Years/Full House - - Frozen Yogurt/Frozen Dinners/Cinnamon Buns - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles action figures/Skip-It/RC cars - MC Hammer/Paula Abdul/Bobby Brown/Guns 'N Roses - NES (for the most part)/Gameboy era

1993-1995 (Cultural Mid 90s) - Cross Colors/Darker Colors/Flannel/Earth Tones/Baggy Jeans/LA Lights sneakers/Timberland Boots - Fresh Prince of Bel Air/Seinfeld/Melrose Place - Troll dolls/Rollerblades/Barney dolls/Ren and Stimpy merchandise/Pogs - Starbucks Coffee/Snackwells/Clear Drinks - Nirvana(Grohlvana, if you will)/Tupac/Boyz II Men - SNES/Game Gear era

1996-1998 (Cultural Late 90s) -  Complex and Sophisticated Colors/Goth look/Nike sneakers - Friends/ER/Party of Five - Power Rangers action figures/Beanie Babies - Low Fat Foods - Celine Dion/Brandy/Atlantis Morissette - SNES/N64 era

00s

1999-2001 (Very Beginning) - Urbanwear/Choker necklaces/Old Navy/Super Baggy Jeans/Sketchers sneakers - Dawson's Creek/Ally McBeal/South Park -  Pokémon trading cards - Red Bull/Low Carbs (Atkin's Diet) - Britney Spears/Eminem/Destiny's Child - N64/GameBoy Color era

2002-2004 (Second part of the cultural early 00s) - Velour Tracksuits/Skater fashion/"Jesus is My Homeboy" t-shirts/Che Guevara t-shirt/Heelys/Phat Farm sneakers - Lizzie McGuire/Trading Spaces/Cheaters - Bratz dolls - Comfort Foods -  JLO/Nelly/Usher - Playstation 2 era

2005-2007 (Cultural Mid 00s) - Emo look/"Vote for Pedro" shirts/Livestrong Bands/Crocs/Puma sneakers - Pimp My Ride/The Wire/Family Guy - Beyoncé/Kelly Clarkson/Fergie - Robosapien  toys - Coffee/Papa Johns - Playstation 2/iPod/Myspace era

2008-2010 (Cultural Late 00s) -  Abercrombie & Fitch/Hipster look/New Balance shoes - Deal or No Deal/Friday Night Lights/To Catch a Predator - Hannah Montana merchandise/Bayformer toys/Munny World toys by Kidrobot - Whole Grain Foods - Rihanna/Black Eyed Peas/Pink -  Wii/Xbox 360/Nintendo DS/Facebook/Blackberry/Rickrolling era

10s so far

2011-2013 (Cultural Early 10s) - Ed Hardy/Hipster look/Bowler hats/Oxfords/Under Armour Sneakers/Beats by Dr. Dre - Breaking Bad/Glee/Hoarders - Angry Birds merchandise - Food Truck foods/Organic Foods/Panera Bread -Drake/LMFAO/Katy Perry - PS3/Twitter/iPad era

2014-2016 (Cultural Mid 10s) - Running Activewear/ Swag look (Bape/Dope/Obey/Supreme)/ Colorful Sneakers/ Tribal Leggings/ All Over Print Crew Neck Sweatshirt - Game of Thrones/Orange is the New Black/The Voice -  Frozen merchandise - Chipotle Mexican Grill - Taylor Swift/Jason Derulo/Justin Timberlake - PS4/iPhone/Vine/Instagram era


For someone like me, this seems very accurate for what I believe. Although, if it had school or seasonal years, it would be like this.

Big 4 Metal/Neon Era (1986-1989)
*Depending on who won the World Series that year

1986-1987 - NES - 80's slashers - Slayer - Mets* (Culturally late 80s)

1987-1988 - NES - Full House - 80's slashers - Anthrax -  Twins* (Culturally late 80s) - Ultimate Neon School Year

1988-1989 - NES - Full House - 80's slashers - Metallica - Dodgers* (Culturally late 80s)

ABC's TGIF/New Jack Swing/NES Era (1989-1993)

1989-1990 - NES - Game Boy - Full House - Sega Genesis - 80's slashers - TGIF - A's* (Culturally late 80s) -

1990-1991 - NES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Full House - Simpsons - Michael Jordan - Reds* (Culturally early 90s)

1991-1992 - SNES - NES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - VHS slashers - Simpsons - Michael Jordan - Twins* (Culturally early 90s) -  Ultimate TGIF School Year

1992-1993 - SNES - NES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Full House - Simpsons - VHS slashers - Michael Jordan - Blue Jays* (Culturally early 90s)

Grunge/All That/early Internet Era (1993-1996)

1993-1994 - SNES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Simpsons - Full House - Golden age Nick - Kurt Cobain - Blue Jays* (Culturally mid 90s)

1994-1995 - SNES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - O.J. Simpson - Michael Jordan (Culturally mid 90s)

1995-1996 - SNES - Game Boy - Sega Saturn - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - Fugees -  Braves* (Culturally mid 90s) - Ultimate Grunge School Year

Daria/AOL/Y2K/dial-up Internet Era (1996-2001)

1996-1997 - N64 - PS1 - Sega Saturn - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - Michael Jordan - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally late 90s)

1997-1998 - N64 - PS1 - Sega Saturn - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - Powerhouse CN - Oz - Michael Jordan - Daria - Marlins* (Culturally late 90s)

1998-1999 - N64 - PS1 - Pokemania - Simpsons - Silver age Nick - Powerhouse CN - Sopranos - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally late 90s)

1999-2000 - N64 - PS1 - Pokemania - Silver age Nick - Sopranos - Powerhouse CN - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally late 90s) - Ultimate Daria School Year

2000-2001 - N64 - PS2 - Pokemania - Silver age Nick - Shrek -  Powerhouse CN - Sopranos - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally early 2000s)

Nu-metal/VHS-DVD transitional Era (2001-2004)

2001-2002 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox - GTA III - Silver age Nick - Powerhouse CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Diamondbacks* (Culturally early 2000s)

2002-2003 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox -  GTA Vice City - Silver age Nick - Powerhouse CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Sopranos - Angels* (Culturally early 2000s) - Ultimate nu-metal School Year

2003-2004 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox - Silver age Nick - Shrek 2 - Sopranos - 2000's Disney Channel - Marlins* (Culturally early-mid 2000s)

Myspace/Emo/Evanescence Era (2004-2009)

2004-2005 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox - GTA San Andreas - Bronze age Nick - City era CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Red Sox* (Culturally mid 2000s)

2005-2006 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox 360 - GTA: Liberty City Stories - Bronze age Nick - City era CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Sopranos -  White Sox* (Culturally mid 2000s)

2006-2007 - Wii - PS2 - PS3 - Xbox 360 -  GTA: Vice City Stories - Bronze age Nick - Yes era CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Sopranos - Cardinals* (Culturally mid-late 2000s) - Ultimate Emo Year

2007-2008 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 -  GTA IV - Bronze age Nick - Fall era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Red Sox* (Culturally late 2000s)

Electropop/Lady Gaga Era (2008-2012)

2008-2009 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Lady Gaga - Bronze age Nick - Noods era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Phillies* (Culturally late 2000s)

2009-2010 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Lady Gaga - Modern age Nick - Noods era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Yankees* (Culturally late 2000s)

2010-2011 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Lady Gaga - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Giants* (Culturally early 2010s) - Ultimate Electropop Year

2011-2012 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Taylor Swift - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Google+ YouTube - Cardinals* (Culturally early 2010s)

Trap Rap/Social Media Era (2012-Present)

2012-2013 - Wii U - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Katy Perry - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Tumblr - Google+ YouTube - Giants* (Culturally early 2010s)

2013-2014 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - GTA V - Taylor Swift - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - SJW Tumblr - Google+ YouTube - Red Sox* (Culturally mid 2010s)

2014-2015 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - Taylor Swift - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Google+ YouTube - SJW Tumblr - Giants* (Culturally mid 2010s) - Ultimate Trap Year

2015-2016 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - Drake - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Modern YouTube - SJW Tumblr - Royals* (Culturally mid 2010s)

2016-2017 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - Drake - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Modern YouTube - SJW Tumblr (Culturally mid 2010s)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/10/16 at 5:30 pm


For someone like me, this seems very accurate for what I believe. Although, if it had school or seasonal years, it would be like this.

Big 4 Metal/Neon Era (1986-1989)

1986-1987 - NES - Full House - 80's slashers - Slayer - Mets* (Culturally late 80s)

1987-1988 - NES - Full House - 80's slashers - Anthrax -  Twins* (Culturally late 80s) - Ultimate Neon School Year

1988-1989 - NES - Full House - 80's slashers - Metallica - Dodgers* (Culturally late 80s)

ABC's TGIF/New Jack Swing/NES Era (1989-1993)

1989-1990 - NES - Game Boy - Full House - Sega Genesis - 80's slashers - TGIF - A's* (Culturally late 80s) -

1990-1991 - NES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Full House - Simpsons - Michael Jordan - Reds* (Culturally early 90s)

1991-1992 - SNES - NES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - VHS slashers - Simpsons - Michael Jordan - Twins* (Culturally early 90s) -  Ultimate TGIF School Year

1992-1993 - SNES - NES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Full House - Simpsons - VHS slashers - Michael Jordan - Blue Jays* (Culturally early 90s)

Grunge/All That/early Internet Era (1993-1996)

1993-1994 - SNES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Simpsons - Full House - Golden age Nick - Kurt Cobain - Blue Jays* (Culturally mid 90s)

1994-1995 - SNES - Game Boy - Sega Genesis - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - O.J. Simpson - Michael Jordan (Culturally mid 90s)

1995-1996 - SNES - Game Boy - Sega Saturn - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - Fugees -  Braves* (Culturally mid 90s) - Ultimate Grunge School Year

Daria/AOL/Y2K/dial-up Internet Era (1996-2001)

1996-1997 - N64 - PS1 - Sega Saturn - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - Michael Jordan - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally late 90s)

1997-1998 - N64 - PS1 - Sega Saturn - Simpsons - Golden age Nick - Powerhouse CN - Oz - Michael Jordan - Daria - Marlins* (Culturally late 90s)

1998-1999 - N64 - PS1 - Pokemania - Simpsons - Silver age Nick - Powerhouse CN - Sopranos - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally late 90s)

1999-2000 - N64 - PS1 - Pokemania - Silver age Nick - Sopranos - Powerhouse CN - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally late 90s) - Ultimate Daria School Year

2000-2001 - N64 - PS2 - Pokemania - Silver age Nick - Shrek -  Powerhouse CN - Sopranos - Daria - Yankees* (Culturally early 2000s)

Nu-metal/VHS-DVD transitional Era (2001-2004)

2001-2002 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox - GTA III - Silver age Nick - Powerhouse CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Diamondbacks* (Culturally early 2000s)

2002-2003 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox -  GTA Vice City - Silver age Nick - Powerhouse CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Sopranos - Angels* (Culturally early 2000s) - Ultimate nu-metal School Year

2003-2004 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox - Silver age Nick - Shrek 2 - Sopranos - 2000's Disney Channel - Marlins* (Culturally early-mid 2000s)

Myspace/Emo/Evanescence Era (2004-2009)

2004-2005 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox - GTA San Andreas - Bronze age Nick - City era CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Red Sox* (Culturally mid 2000s)

2005-2006 - Gamecube - PS2 - Xbox 360 - GTA: Liberty City Stories - Bronze age Nick - City era CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Sopranos -  White Sox* (Culturally mid 2000s)

2006-2007 - Wii - PS2 - PS3 - Xbox 360 -  GTA: Vice City Stories - Bronze age Nick - Yes era CN - 2000's Disney Channel - Sopranos - Cardinals* (Culturally mid-late 2000s) - Ultimate Emo Year

2007-2008 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 -  GTA IV - Bronze age Nick - Fall era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Red Sox* (Culturally late 2000s)

Electropop/Lady Gaga Era (2008-2012)

2008-2009 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Lady Gaga - Bronze age Nick - Noods era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Phillies* (Culturally late 2000s)

2009-2010 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Lady Gaga - Modern age Nick - Noods era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Yankees* (Culturally late 2000s)

2010-2011 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Lady Gaga - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - HM era Disney Channel - Classic YouTube - Giants* (Culturally early 2010s) - Ultimate Electropop Year

2011-2012 - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Taylor Swift - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Google+ YouTube - Cardinals* (Culturally early 2010s)

Trap Rap/Social Media Era (2012-Present)

2012-2013 - Wii U - Wii - PS3 - Xbox 360 - Katy Perry - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Tumblr - Google+ YouTube - Giants* (Culturally early 2010s)

2013-2014 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - GTA V - Taylor Swift - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - SJW Tumblr - Google+ YouTube - Red Sox* (Culturally mid 2010s)

2014-2015 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - Taylor Swift - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Google+ YouTube - SJW Tumblr - Giants* (Culturally mid 2010s) - Ultimate Trap Year

2015-2016 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - Drake - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Modern YouTube - SJW Tumblr - Royals* (Culturally mid 2010s)

2016-2017 - Wii U - PS4 - Xbox One - Drake - Modern age Nick - Check it era CN - Modern Disney Channel - Modern YouTube - SJW Tumblr (Culturally mid 2010s)


Full House premiered in September of '87. Neon was more of an early '90s thing. We started wearing it in late '80s. I would not say it defined that era.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 5:32 pm


Full House premiered in September of '87. Neon was more of an early '90s thing. We started wearing it in late '80s. I would not say it defined that era.


I changed the 1986-1987 school year by removing Full House. Aside from that, I consider Neon as a late 80s/early 90s thing.  :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/10/16 at 5:37 pm


I watched ALF.


ALF was a big deal from '87 to the fall of '88.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/10/16 at 5:49 pm


I changed the 1986-1987 school year by removing Full House. Aside from that, I consider Neon as a late 80s/early 90s thing.  :P


Neon was an incoming early '90s fad in the late '80s. I'm almost certain that no one wore it in the '87 to '88 school year. It's very early 90s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 5:58 pm


Neon was an incoming early '90s fad in the late '80s. I'm almost certain that no one wore it in the '87 to '88 school year. It's very early 90s.


But if Neon started in the late 80s, then at least some people would wear it by then.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/10/16 at 6:05 pm


But if Neon started in the late 80s, then at least some people would wear it by then.


1989 was the first full year of neon revival trend.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 6:14 pm


1989 was the first full year of neon revival trend.


But it's still a late 80s year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheEarly90sFan on 10/10/16 at 6:48 pm


But it's still a late 80s year.


That's one year versus all three years of the early 90s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 10/10/16 at 6:49 pm

Jesus Christ, you guys...

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 6:51 pm

Jesus ain't here. His second coming will come!! He is our savior and lord. He will forever release all evil away from our earthly prison!  :D  :D  :D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 10/10/16 at 6:53 pm

Maybe Jesus can stop these useless, over-analytical charts that don't really prove anything. :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 6:57 pm


Maybe Jesus can stop these useless, over-analytical charts that don't really prove anything. :P


Are you saying that 2004 was a insider government job??

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 10/10/16 at 6:58 pm


Are you saying that 2004 was a insider government job??


Most likely.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 7:00 pm


Maybe Jesus can stop these useless, over-analytical charts that don't really prove anything. :P


It proves that 2004 was the New Testament.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 7:02 pm


It proves that 2004 was the New Testament.


Traitor!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 7:05 pm


Traitor!


Jesus wanted to tell everybody that the early 2000s were the last days of his life, before he got crucified.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 7:06 pm


Jesus wanted to tell everybody that the early 2000s were the last days of his life, before he got crucified.


Until Judas betrayed their friendship. That darn Judas!  >:(  >:(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 10/10/16 at 7:11 pm

It's all coming together!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 7:14 pm


It's all coming together!


http://www.iquit-smoking.com/images/puzzle-piece.jpg

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 7:14 pm


Until Judas betrayed their friendship. That darn Judas!  >:(  >:(


Judas was responsible for the 2010s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 10/10/16 at 7:55 pm


Judas was responsible for the 2010s.


And Lady Gaga.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/10/16 at 7:56 pm


And Lady Gaga.


http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/creepypasta/images/3/37/Well_yeah_ok.gif/revision/latest?cb=20131229211240

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 10/11/16 at 5:43 am


Everybody knows the early 00s were terrible >:(


Jordan,  you traitor.  :o :( :\'( :-\\

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 10/11/16 at 2:33 pm


Maybe Jesus can stop these useless, over-analytical charts that don't really prove anything. :P


I know what you mean.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 10/11/16 at 5:34 pm


Jordan,  you traitor.  :o :( :\'( :-\\


I never said this! >:(


I know what you mean.


It just keeps going on and on. ::)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/11/16 at 5:42 pm

2004 was the year when God preached the Red Sox to win the World Series.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/13/16 at 11:59 am


2004 was the year when God preached the Red Sox to win the World Series.

Don't remind me.... >:( >:( >:( ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/13/16 at 1:27 pm


Don't remind me.... >:( >:( >:( ;D


At least the Cardinals won the World Series two years after the Red Sox won.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: XYkid on 10/25/16 at 4:45 pm

Lots of people seem to lump the whole first half of the decade as the "early 2000s". I can understand why though, there were still a lot of cultural trends from the late 90s that were still popular in 2004/5, especially in places that are further away from New York or LA, or other cosmopolitan, trend setting areas. I lived in Texas at the time, I knew plenty of people who still enjoyed 90s culture deep into the mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 10/25/16 at 4:48 pm


Lots of people seem to lump the whole first half of the decade as the "early 2000s". I can understand why though, there were still a lot of cultural trends from the late 90s that were still popular in 2004/5, especially in places that are further away from New York or LA, or other cosmopolitan, trend setting areas. I lived in Texas at the time, I knew plenty of people who still enjoyed 90s culture deep into the mid 2000s.

The late 90s died after 2001. 2004 and even 2003 feel different from 2000 - 2002. The mid 2000s have a very distinct feel.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: XYkid on 10/25/16 at 4:52 pm


The late 90s died after 2001. 2004 and even 2003 feel different from 2000 - 2002. The mid 2000s have a very distinct feel.
Politically yes, the 90s ended with 9/11. Pop culturally speaking though, I feel like everything up to 2004 could be part of the late 90s.
A lot of times my friends will say things like "this is an old song from the 90s" when it's actually from 2004, so I'm just like close enough! haha

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/25/16 at 4:56 pm


Lots of people seem to lump the whole first half of the decade as the "early 2000s". I can understand why though, there were still a lot of cultural trends from the late 90s that were still popular in 2004/5, especially in places that are further away from New York or LA, or other cosmopolitan, trend setting areas. I lived in Texas at the time, I knew plenty of people who still enjoyed 90s culture deep into the mid 2000s.


Honestly, the late 90s/early 2000s were somehow like 2004-early 2006. You would still find a few people using dial-up Internet, AOL was still popular at the time, Youtube wasn't massively popular yet, most of the cellphones produced were flip-phones, and DVDs were fairly new. Just a few examples to see how it's like that in a cultural perspective.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 10/25/16 at 5:48 pm


Honestly, the late 90s/early 2000s were somehow like 2004-early 2006. You would still find a few people using dial-up Internet, AOL was still popular at the time, Youtube wasn't massively popular yet, most of the cellphones produced were flip-phones, and DVDs were fairly new. Just a few examples to see how it's like that in a cultural perspective.

Nobody used AOL in the mid 2000s and rarely anyone used Dial Up still in the mid 00s. People used flip phones but they were new and exclusive in the mid 00s, not from the late 90s. The eary 2000s didn't even have flip phones popularized yet and many people didn't even have cellphones in the early 00s. And DVDs were not new at all in the mid 2000s, they were considered new in the late 90s and became commonplace by the time the early 2000s ended. As I said, the mid 00s was a very definitive period. I wasn't at all like the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/25/16 at 5:58 pm


Nobody used AOL in the mid 2000s and rarely anyone used Dial Up still in the mid 00s.


Some used AOL with their broadband services. My aunt used it on her computer that ran Windows XP.

People used flip phones but they were new and exclusive in the mid 00s, not from the late 90s. The eary 2000s didn't even have flip phones popularized yet and many people didn't even have cellphones in the early 00s.

People still used Nokia's cell phones during the 90s and early 2000s. It's so iconic that even their ringtone is easily recognizable by everyone who experienced the 90s.

j7kLNJWTDYA


And DVDs were not new at all in the mid 2000s, they were considered new in the late 90s and became commonplace by the time the early 2000s ended. As I said, the mid 00s was a very definitive period. I wasn't at all like the early 2000s.


As much as I have to say that it's true, especially with how DVDs were very popular during the mid 2000s, it's not that believable. People, including kids, could still recognize VCRs around the mid 2000s. Hell, even I could recognize it, since my parents still had a VCR until late 2008/early 2009.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 10/26/16 at 5:04 pm


Some used AOL with their broadband services. My aunt used it on her computer that ran Windows XP.

 

People still used Nokia's cell phones during the 90s and early 2000s. It's so iconic that even their ringtone is easily recognizable by everyone who experienced the 90s.

j7kLNJWTDYA

As much as I have to say that it's true, especially with how DVDs were very popular during the mid 2000s, it's not that believable. People, including kids, could still recognize VCRs around the mid 2000s. Hell, even I could recognize it, since my parents still had a VCR until late 2008/early 2009.


I used Nokia.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 11/06/16 at 4:26 pm


Also, might I also add is that Drake & Josh premiered in 2004 and That's So Raven despite it already being out by 2003, had reached its max popularity by 2004 as well. Nicktoons like Hey Arnold, Rugrats, Rocket Power, etc. had all came to an end by 2004 too.

It's funny, despite That's So Raven being more popular and having more episodes in the mid 00s than the early 00s, I still hear people calling it "early 2000s show" all the time! I'm guessing the people who say this are the same people who lump 04-05 into the early 00s.

I think the reason 04 and 05 are included in the early 2000s is because, since the early 00s are sort of big on the Internet, 16 year olds want to jump on the nostalgia bandwagon. Thus, they extended the definition of early 00s to include the two years (2004-2005) of that definition that they could possibly remember.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: SpyroKev on 11/06/16 at 6:44 pm


It's funny, despite That's So Raven being more popular and having more episodes in the mid 00s than the early 00s, I still hear people calling it "early 2000s show" all the time! I'm guessing the people who say this are the same people who lump 04-05 into the early 00s.


Its because That's So Raven actually sound Early 2000s. By 05, the name of the show sounds really old to even me.

I think the reason 04 and 05 are included in the early 2000s is because, since the early 00s are sort of big on the Internet, 16 year olds want to jump on the nostalgia bandwagon. Thus, they extended the definition of early 00s to include the two years (2004-2005) of that definition that they could possibly remember.


Its a common phenomenon. I don't know. If I were them, I would probably follow the trend, also. Its a bit sad. I won't try to claim I wouldn't like today if I was born at the same time as them. Glad I wasn't though. I like my era.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 11/06/16 at 7:05 pm


It's funny, despite That's So Raven being more popular and having more episodes in the mid 00s than the early 00s, I still hear people calling it "early 2000s show" all the time! I'm guessing the people who say this are the same people who lump 04-05 into the early 00s.

I think the reason 04 and 05 are included in the early 2000s is because, since the early 00s are sort of big on the Internet, 16 year olds want to jump on the nostalgia bandwagon. Thus, they extended the definition of early 00s to include the two years (2004-2005) of that definition that they could possibly remember.


Even a lot of people my age call 2004/2005 early 2000s, though. It's just how it is. First half of the 2000s is the early 2000s and it's not necessarily wrong.


Nobody used AOL in the mid 2000s and rarely anyone used Dial Up still in the mid 00s. People used flip phones but they were new and exclusive in the mid 00s, not from the late 90s. The eary 2000s didn't even have flip phones popularized yet and many people didn't even have cellphones in the early 00s. And DVDs were not new at all in the mid 2000s, they were considered new in the late 90s and became commonplace by the time the early 2000s ended. As I said, the mid 00s was a very definitive period. I wasn't at all like the early 2000s.


My experiences as well. I'm not sure about AOL, but flip-phones were 2002-2008ish. DVD was huge in 2000, dominant by the end of 2003.

The Nokia brick phones were 1999-2006ish.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 11/06/16 at 8:10 pm


It's funny, despite That's So Raven being more popular and having more episodes in the mid 00s than the early 00s, I still hear people calling it "early 2000s show" all the time! I'm guessing the people who say this are the same people who lump 04-05 into the early 00s.

I think the reason 04 and 05 are included in the early 2000s is because, since the early 00s are sort of big on the Internet, 16 year olds want to jump on the nostalgia bandwagon. Thus, they extended the definition of early 00s to include the two years (2004-2005) of that definition that they could possibly remember.


I think it's because they don't want to be targeted for liking mid 2000s stuff, so they call 2004 and 2005 (sometimes 2006, as well) as the early 2000s. Frankly, it sounds different to me because it barely had any early 2000s influences at the time. Unless you were talking about kids TV at the time, then that's a different story. I mean, you could go look up kids TV shows from the early 2000s, and some shows like Foster's, Billy and Mandy, and even Camp Lazlo shows up there, despite premiering in late 2003-2005.

Even as a person who does think 2004-2005 is mid 2000s, it's sometimes unbelievable for that. I remember people still using VCRs, up to 2008. But most of them stopped using them around 2006ish. After that, there were only a few people who used it, but they either use it for collecting purposes, or they find the format to be better than DVDs.


Its a common phenomenon. I don't know. If I were them, I would probably follow the trend, also. Its a bit sad. I won't try to claim I wouldn't like today if I was born at the same time as them. Glad I wasn't though. I like my era.


I'm as old as the people who call 2004 and 2005 as the early 2000s, and even I don't see them as early 2000s years.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 11/06/16 at 8:29 pm


I think it's because they don't want to be targeted for liking mid 2000s stuff, so they call 2004 and 2005 (sometimes 2006, as well) as the early 2000s.

True. If you say something is "early 2000s", then Facebook/Buzzfeed people will automatically think it's good, whereas if you said "mid 2000s", they'll automatically think it's lame.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 11/06/16 at 8:31 pm


True. If you say something is "early 2000s", then Facebook/Buzzfeed people will automatically think it's good, whereas if you said "mid 2000s", they'll automatically think it's lame.


Some of them do like mid 2000s stuff, but it's rare. Especially on YouTube. Which is why they disguise 2004 and 2005 as the early 2000s, even though it's not.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 11/06/16 at 8:36 pm

Well, I'll scratch my previous statement.

On YouTube/Buzzfeed/Facebook, "early 2000s" usually provokes a reaction of "woo-hoo!", they're widely beloved. Mid 2000s provokes a reaction of "meh", usually people are totally indifferent to the mid 00s or thought they were mediocre. And late 2000s provokes a reaction of "blech", people think everything began to go downhill at that time, due to the rise of social media and the economic recession.

It's no wonder then, that people try to disguise 2004 and 2005 as "early 2000s" in YT comments (and surprisingly they usually succeed). It makes those years subconsciously seem "awesome", rather than "meh". And we all know awesome > meh, right? ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 11/06/16 at 8:48 pm


On YouTube/Buzzfeed/Facebook, "early 2000s" usually provokes a reaction of "woo-hoo!", they're widely beloved. Mid 2000s provokes a reaction of "meh", usually people are totally indifferent to the mid 00s or thought they were mediocre. And late 2000s provokes a reaction of "blech", people think everything began to go downhill at that time, due to the rise of social media and the economic recession.


I could get that as well. Even I wouldn't post that much late 2000s stuff, since it's not even that old to me. Maybe if it was from an old YouTube video, but not from other sorts of media nonetheless.


It's no wonder then, that people try to disguise 2004 and 2005 as "early 2000s" in YT comments (and surprisingly they usually succeed). It makes those years subconsciously seem "awesome", rather than "meh". And we all know awesome > meh, right? ;D


Yeah. But it depends, if people remember the mid 2000s that well.  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheRealBrianLeetch2 on 11/28/16 at 2:41 pm


In some cases yes, in some cases no. By the 2004-2005 school year, emo had kicked off and rock was beginning to cater towards that audience. Although there are some songs from 2001-early 2004 that have that "early emo" type of vibe. "The Middle" and "Perfect" anyone?

This is what was happening in mid-late 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0U0AlLVqpk
Yeah, pretty emo..


I hated that era of rock. I was born in 92 and loved a lot of the late 90s through 2004 rock and metal. I feel like 03-04 was the last year you had a ton of normal rock dominating the airwaves (though emo was growing) with The Foo Fighters, Yellowcard, All American Rejects and The Killers' highly successful Hot Fuss album. Then by 05-06 emo was the norm and non-emo rock was fewer and far between (exceptions: The Foo Fighters had the Pretender in 07, The Fratellis had their big Hit Chelsea Dagger, Jet had Are you Gonna Be My Girl, All American Rejects had their mega hit Move Along and a few bands had hits) but overall it was mostly emo. In high school by 2008 during my sophomore year, the stereotype became that if you liked rock music you were emo, since most mainstream rock was now emo.

Even Mainstream Metal had mostly been taken over by death metal and the so called core genres. The Metal community and media had begun to cater towards this audience. The only good Mainstream metal was Mastodon, Megadeth's End Game and Metallica's Death Magnetic.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/02/17 at 10:02 pm

Pardon the bump, but I must admit, the way people lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s kinda p*sses me off.

As Infinity mentioned, the early 2000s are hogging all the nostalgia from the rest of the 00s on Facebook, Tumblr, Buzzfeed, and whatnot, preventing the mid and late 00s from really taking off and forming their own identity. But if that weren't enough, seems that people just half-assedly take things from 2004-2005, sometimes a pinch of things from 2006, and lump them into the "early 2000s" so you've got a nice 5/6-year chunk of nostalgia, then ignore EVERYTHING that happened after that!

So basically, the early AND mid 00s are hogging all the nostalgia from the late 00s. It's just people don't realize the mid 00s are already very much in the nostalgia spotlight (I've seen lots of nostalgia for Danny Phantom, Drake and Josh, Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and whatnot), but they've been genetically melded with the early 00s to form one beast instead of two. ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:12 pm

The early 00's go up to 2009, actually.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/02/17 at 10:23 pm


The early 00's go up to 2009, actually.

Definitely.

Remember Justin Bieber's song "Baby"? Or the iPhone? Or Obama? Sooooo errly 2000s, omg.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:25 pm


Definitely.

Remember Justin Bieber's song "Baby"? Or the iPhone? Or Obama? Sooooo errly 2000s, omg.


Obama is my favorite early 00's president.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/02/17 at 10:26 pm

I prefer John Edwards

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:29 pm

Not a bad pick but Donald Trump is gonna be the best early 00's president we've ever had right next to the Governator.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/02/17 at 10:30 pm

Yay! 2000 to 2003 nostalgia means the peak Britney era!

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/britney-checks-base-with-2001-snake-web__oPt.jpg

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/02/17 at 10:32 pm


Pardon the bump, but I must admit, the way people lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s kinda p*sses me off.

As Infinity mentioned, the early 2000s are hogging all the nostalgia from the rest of the 00s on Facebook, Tumblr, Buzzfeed, and whatnot, preventing the mid and late 00s from really taking off and forming their own identity. But if that weren't enough, seems that people just half-assedly take things from 2004-2005, sometimes a pinch of things from 2006, and lump them into the "early 2000s" so you've got a nice 5/6-year chunk of nostalgia, then ignore EVERYTHING that happened after that!

So basically, the early AND mid 00s are hogging all the nostalgia from the late 00s. It's just people don't realize the mid 00s are already very much in the nostalgia spotlight (I've seen lots of nostalgia for Danny Phantom, Drake and Josh, Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and whatnot), but they've been genetically melded with the early 00s to form one beast instead of two. ;)


The problem here is that 2004-2006 nostalgia exists. We have to stop that. Then the early 2000s can remain pure.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:32 pm


Yay! 2000 to 2003 nostalgia means the peak Britney era!

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/britney-checks-base-with-2001-snake-web__oPt.jpg


I don't care about her music but I sure as hell didn't mind seeing her prancing around in nothing but a bikini on my TV back then. Peak hotness more like. ;)


The problem here is that 2004-2006 nostalgia exists. We have to stop that. Then the early 2000s can remain pure.


The early 00's ends in 1986 so how can you say that 2004-2006 are not included in that timespan?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/02/17 at 10:36 pm


I don't care about her music but I sure as hell didn't mind seeing her prancing around in nothing but a bikini on my TV back then. Peak hotness more like. ;)

The early 00's ends in 1986 so how can you say that 2004-2006 are not included in that timespan?


I think there were some times she turned me straight.  :P

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/02/17 at 10:37 pm


I think there were some times she turned me straight.  :P


Yeah the Toxic video LOL I've said it a million times ;D

Her power can't be underestimated.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/02/17 at 10:38 pm

If we're going to go culturally, at least cut it off at 2003. 2004 is.....just no.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:40 pm


I think there were some times she turned me straight.  :P


She got so hot in 2000 and from there up to '03... Oh man, what a babe!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/02/17 at 10:40 pm


Yeah the Toxic video LOL I've said it a million times ;D

Her power can't be underestimated.


One more Britney mention for this week then I'll stop.  ;D

Her career peak was definitely 1999 to around mid-2002.

She was always successful until her 'Britney Jean' album, at least. But she was definitely past her peak after her third album era.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/02/17 at 10:41 pm

Rap and R&B dominated the 00's pretty much.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:43 pm

The best time period is the 80's up to the early-mid 90's when you had tons of great rock to choose from. 8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/02/17 at 10:45 pm


Pardon the bump, but I must admit, the way people lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s kinda p*sses me off.

As Infinity mentioned, the early 2000s are hogging all the nostalgia from the rest of the 00s on Facebook, Tumblr, Buzzfeed, and whatnot, preventing the mid and late 00s from really taking off and forming their own identity. But if that weren't enough, seems that people just half-assedly take things from 2004-2005, sometimes a pinch of things from 2006, and lump them into the "early 2000s" so you've got a nice 5/6-year chunk of nostalgia, then ignore EVERYTHING that happened after that!

So basically, the early AND mid 00s are hogging all the nostalgia from the late 00s. It's just people don't realize the mid 00s are already very much in the nostalgia spotlight (I've seen lots of nostalgia for Danny Phantom, Drake and Josh, Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and whatnot), but they've been genetically melded with the early 00s to form one beast instead of two. ;)

I agree, it annoys me too. They did the same thing with the 90s not too long ago as well. At least people slowed down saying everything is 90s (although many still do) but they're still not getting it right with the 2000s and it's annoying me. There are also many people acting like the 2000s never existed and are referring to the century when talking about it. Again, drives me insane!  >:(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/02/17 at 10:46 pm


The best time period is the 80's up to the early-mid 90's when you had tons of great rock to choose from. 8)


The 80s that ended in 2003 and the 90s that ended in 2009? 2006 had great rock.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/02/17 at 10:47 pm


The early 00's go up to 2009, actually.



Definitely.

Remember Justin Bieber's song "Baby"? Or the iPhone? Or Obama? Sooooo errly 2000s, omg.
If we're going by the Millennium, then yeah. Decade wise, not even close.  ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/02/17 at 10:48 pm


The best time period is the 80's up to the early-mid 90's when you had tons of great rock to choose from. 8)


Yes! When it comes to my taste in movies, music, and energy, 1982/83 to 1995 is King in my eyes.


Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 10:55 pm


The 80s that ended in 2003 and the 90s that ended in 2009? 2006 had great rock.


The 80's ended in 1902 and the 90's ended in 1947. 8) 2006 had great rock because it was still the early 00's.


Yes! When it comes to my taste in movies, music, and energy, 1982/83 to 1995 is King in my eyes.





Oh totally! 1982-1995 is the best time period! I miss the 20th century cheesiness.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/02/17 at 10:58 pm


Oh totally! 1982-1995 is the best time period! I miss the 20th century cheesiness.

What about 96? That was basically the same as 95. Or even 97.

As #Infinity and ArcticFox have detailed, 1998 was when we really started getting into teen pop stuff like Britney and the Backstreet Boys, as well as the general look of that time become all shiny and "milllennium-ized". The first iMac is a prime example of this.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 11:06 pm


What about 96? That was basically the same as 95. Or even 97.


I wouldn't really say so. They were similar years, sure, but to me 1995 felt rawer and truer to what I think when I think of the 90's. 1996, I always think of all that light jangly post-grunge that started taking over and the internet's gaining traction. I'd even argue that 1995 is also a lot more quintessential to the 90's overall identity than 1996, which was kind of a bland year. Summer 1982 to 1995 is all one late 20th century era to me.


As #Infinity and ArcticFox have detailed, 1998 was when we really started getting into teen pop stuff like Britney and the Backstreet Boys, as well as the general look of that time become all shiny and "milllennium-ized". The first iMac is a prime example of this.


That's more my opinion about 1998, at least decade wise. I don't know what Arctic Fox thinks but I know Jacqueline would pinpoint late 1996-1997 as the beginning of the early digital age. In terms of bigger eras, I can agree with that. 

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/02/17 at 11:24 pm


What about 96? That was basically the same as 95. Or even 97.

As #Infinity and ArcticFox have detailed, 1998 was when we really started getting into teen pop stuff like Britney and the Backstreet Boys, as well as the general look of that time become all shiny and "milllennium-ized". The first iMac is a prime example of this.
I would say 1997 was the earliest year we had milllennium-ized things. I mean, pop culture was clearly changing. NSYNC even had an album from that year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/02/17 at 11:28 pm


I would say 1997 was the earliest year we had milllennium-ized things. I mean, pop culture was clearly changing. NSYNC even had an album from that year.


1997 had Aaron Carter too. 1996 had Spice Girls and NSYNC.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/02/17 at 11:30 pm


The 80's ended in 1902 and the 90's ended in 1947. 8) 2006 had great rock because it was still the early 00's.


NO the 80s ended in 1783!  >:(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: aja675 on 01/02/17 at 11:34 pm


I think Buzzfeed made some lists from the mid 2000s, but they didn't define the culture of that era compared to the early 2000s.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/mid-00s-teen-girl-obsessions?utm_term=.fd3bE7XQl#.iwkwgPVED


"I remember being a toddler/ young child and seeing loads of teenagers dressed like this and thinking 'woah, they're so cool! I wanna dress like them when I'm older.' Lo and behold, at 14 1/2, I neither dress like them, or am cool." This came from someone in the comments.
That would be like me 16-18 years ago looking at preppy teen fashion of the day.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 11:35 pm


NO the 80s ended in 1783!  >:(


Oh that's what you think but if you actually study the decades you'll see that 1783 was still deep in the great Justin Trudeau/Margret Thatcher-Rolling Stones scandal of 1957-1779.  It wasn't until June 5th, 1902 that Thatcher finally declared her resignation and handed over office to Michael Jackson who declared a new era of boogie. 1902 is also the year that Having Fun with Ted Cruz on Stage was released and revolutionized music forever.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/02/17 at 11:39 pm

1910: Music started
1920: Breakcore, Ragtime, Baroque Pop
1930: First world music (music didn't develop)
1940: Neofolk power-wave
1950: Hair Metal
1960: The Blues
1970: Justin Bieber, Rihanna
1980: Jazz Started
1990: Golden age of Jazz
2000: Dubstep, Bossa Nova, Gregorian Chants
2010: The Beatles ruined music

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/02/17 at 11:44 pm

Depeche Mode is the best Neofolk Power-Wave band.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/02/17 at 11:47 pm

To add in to this, America AKA The U.S. become its own country in March 1550.  :D ;D


1997 had Aaron Carter too. 1996 had Spice Girls and NSYNC.
True on that!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/02/17 at 11:51 pm


1997 had Aaron Carter too. 1996 had Spice Girls and NSYNC.

True but only in Germany.

For some reason, they waited until 1998 to break it in America.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: #Infinity on 01/03/17 at 12:39 am

1990 should become the new year one because it represents everything that all history preceding it was leading up to all along. After the true 90s crucified themselves in 1999, we've all been waiting for the spirit of '90 to make their return.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/03/17 at 12:42 am


1990 should become the new year one because it represents everything that all history preceding it was leading up to all along. After the true 90s crucified themselves in 1999, we've all been waiting for the spirit of '90 to make their return.


Is this sarcasm?  ;D

Although the 90's is pretty modern.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/03/17 at 1:03 am


Is this sarcasm?  ;D

Although the 90's is pretty modern.

I disagree. At this point, 3.5/5ths of the 90s are retro! (20+ year rule)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/03/17 at 1:15 am


I disagree. At this point, 3.5/5ths of the 90s are retro! (20+ year rule)


I forget that it's 2017!

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/03/17 at 3:04 am


I agree, it annoys me too. They did the same thing with the 90s not too long ago as well. At least people slowed down saying everything is 90s (although many still do) but they're still not getting it right with the 2000s and it's annoying me. There are also many people acting like the 2000s never existed and are referring to the century when talking about it. Again, drives me insane!  >:(

Perhaps we should post a PSA and spread it across the Internet about "early/mid/late-decade" awareness.

xxx0-xxx2/3 = Early
xxx3/4-xxx6 = Mid
xxx7-xxx9 = Late

However, it seems like most people on Facebook, Tumblr. Buzzfeed, and YouTube are too retarded to follow a simple, arithmetical system.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/03/17 at 9:38 am


1990 should become the new year one because it represents everything that all history preceding it was leading up to all along. After the true 90s crucified themselves in 1999, we've all been waiting for the spirit of '90 to make their return.


But wasn't it 1978 that died for 1990's sins? ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 01/03/17 at 10:18 am


Perhaps we should post a PSA and spread it across the Internet about "early/mid/late-decade" awareness.

xxx0-xxx2/3 = Early
xxx3/4-xxx6 = Mid
xxx7-xxx9 = Late

However, it seems like most people on Facebook, Tumblr. Buzzfeed, and YouTube are too retarded to follow a simple, arithmetical system.


LOL THIS ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/03/17 at 10:32 am


1990 should become the new year one because it represents everything that all history preceding it was leading up to all along. After the true 90s crucified themselves in 1999, we've all been waiting for the spirit of '90 to make their return.


1990 is god's year. When the first TMNT movie was released and Vanilla Ice's To The Extreme hit HMV shelves everywhere, I knew we had entered a golden age of society that would only last until spring 1993. The first year that didn't have the 70's vibe 1980-1989 had. 1978 died for this.


Is this sarcasm?  ;D

Although the 90's is pretty modern.


The 80's are fairly modern, too. At least nearly just as modern as 1990-1995 is.


Perhaps we should post a PSA and spread it across the Internet about "early/mid/late-decade" awareness.

xxx0-xxx2/3 = Early
xxx3/4-xxx6 = Mid
xxx7-xxx9 = Late

However, it seems like most people on Facebook, Tumblr. Buzzfeed, and YouTube are too retarded to follow a simple, arithmetical system.


Backwards ass thinking because xxx4 is the 5th year of the decade. Oh yeah, halfway deep and we're still early.


But wasn't it 1978 that died for 1990's sins? ;D


You better not get more karma because you've got a lucky number. ;)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 10:57 am


Pardon the bump, but I must admit, the way people lump 2004-2005 into the early 00s kinda p*sses me off.

As Infinity mentioned, the early 2000s are hogging all the nostalgia from the rest of the 00s on Facebook, Tumblr, Buzzfeed, and whatnot, preventing the mid and late 00s from really taking off and forming their own identity. But if that weren't enough, seems that people just half-assedly take things from 2004-2005, sometimes a pinch of things from 2006, and lump them into the "early 2000s" so you've got a nice 5/6-year chunk of nostalgia, then ignore EVERYTHING that happened after that!

So basically, the early AND mid 00s are hogging all the nostalgia from the late 00s. It's just people don't realize the mid 00s are already very much in the nostalgia spotlight (I've seen lots of nostalgia for Danny Phantom, Drake and Josh, Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and whatnot), but they've been genetically melded with the early 00s to form one beast instead of two. ;)


Well, some people see the mid 2000s as similar to the early 2000s. We're just in 2017, and I think we might have to wait for late 2000s nostalgia to kick in.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: yelimsexa on 01/03/17 at 11:43 am

People were doing similar things for the early phases of '80s and '90s nostalgia. 20 years ago, you'll find that the early and to a lesser degree the mid-80s were the most talked about part of the decade on usenet boards like alt.culture.us.1980s or other primitive fan sites, where new wave was cool but later decade stuff like hair metal, golden age hip hop, and freestyle music wasn't, and many said that the "real 80s" ended with the Challenger explosion, not the fall of the Berlin Wall or even when Reagan left office, and The Wedding Singer reflects this. The same about a decade ago where the '90s meant grunge, flannel, and Twin Peaks, but not The Backstreet Boys, Pokemon, or the original PlayStation and Nintendo 64. Remember that a decade lasts ten years, and naturally, the first half of a decade will receive the nostalgia first, while the second half of them tend to hold out longer ('70s nostalgia simply meant disco and punk during its waning phases in the early-mid '00s, while '80s nostalgia could mean classic Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, New Kids on the Block or the Headbangers Ball's early years since more people are young enough to still appreciate the tail end of that decade well, and of course the later portion of the '90s is now much more targeted now than it was ten years ago).

But IMO the time that's approximately 12-18 years ago is when an era is considered "nostalgic in the underground" before things bring it more mainstream (like Pokemon did last year for the late '90s era of video gaming). That means we're still a few years for the LATE '00s to start gaining underground nostalgia, before that, they're just in "syndicated reruns" territory.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 01/03/17 at 11:53 am

My favorite thing from the early 2000s is Youtube. 8)


Anyways it's 2017. I'm damn sure that mid 2000s nostalgia exists now. I mean all mid 2000s years are  literally over a decade old at this point. 2004 was 13 years ago and 2005 was 12 years ago. I like the early 2000s, but I don't like how it's taking all the attention away from the mid-late 2000s. Especially since I find those eras (especially the late 2000s) to be culturally interesting and worthy to stand out on its own (in my own little opinion anyways). I'm sure those who're still in their teens as of 2017 would find nostalgia for the mid-late 2000s. As of 2017 everyone who is under 18 was born in 2000 and later. 2000-2017 born are all 0-17 as of 2017.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/03/17 at 12:42 pm


My favorite thing from the early 2000s is Youtube. 8)


Anyways it's 2017. I'm damn sure that mid 2000s nostalgia exists now. I mean all mid 2000s years are  literally over a decade old at this point. 2004 was 13 years ago and 2005 was 12 years ago. I like the early 2000s, but I don't like how it's taking all the attention away from the mid-late 2000s. Especially since I find those eras (especially the late 2000s) to be culturally interesting and worthy to stand out on its own (in my own little opinion anyways). I'm sure those who're still in their teens as of 2017 would find nostalgia for the mid-late 2000s. As of 2017 everyone who is under 18 was born in 2000 and later. 2000-2017 born are all 0-17 as of 2017.


Kids born in 2000 are turning 17 this year... Gee, thanks for making me feel old Toon. ::)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 1:27 pm


Kids born in 2000 are turning 17 this year... Gee, thanks for making me feel old Toon. ::)


I already feel old for the fact that kids born in 2004 are gonna turn 13 this year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/03/17 at 1:30 pm


Kids born in 2000 are turning 17 this year... Gee, thanks for making me feel old Toon. ::)

I know right? Or that kids born in 1999 will become legal adults this year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 1:32 pm


I know right? Or that kids born in 1999 will become legal adults this year.


I still feel like 1999 babies are young teens, especially when I was born in that year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/03/17 at 2:15 pm

People born 2012 will be entering their core childhood :o

I remember I met a kid born 2010. She didn't know what Frozen was.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 01/03/17 at 2:24 pm


I already feel old for the fact that kids born in 2004 are gonna turn 13 this year.



Kids born in 2000 are turning 17 this year... Gee, thanks for making me feel old Toon. ::)


I'm starting to feel a bit old myself.................ugh


Here's to break it down.

2009-2011/12 born: Are gonna all be between ages 5-8 within their core childhoods with childhood influences/cultural exposure of the late 2010s (Funny note is that their first president that they'll remember entirely is Donald Trump)

2003-2008 born: Are now all between ages 9-14 their late-ish childhood and early teens (can you believe that 2003 born are now highschoolers?)!

2000-2002 born:Are now all between ages 15-17. Grew up in the late era of the 2000s and are pretty much the core of today's youth/teen culture as of 2017.

Or a short way of saying it all.
2000-2003 born: ages 14-17 High Schoolers
2004-2006 born:ages 11-13 Middle Schoolers
2007-2009 born: ages 8-10 2nd half of Elementary
2010-2013 born: ages 4-7 1st half of Elementary


EVERYONE! I don't mean to alarm you all, but I think we can now be considered old fogies. :(



Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/03/17 at 2:52 pm


I'm starting to feel a bit old myself.................ugh


Here's to break it down.

2009-2011/12 born: Are gonna all be between ages 5-8 within their core childhoods with childhood influences/cultural exposure of the late 2010s (Funny note is that their first president that they'll remember entirely is Donald Trump)

2003-2008 born: Are now all between ages 9-14 their late-ish childhood and early teens (can you believe that 2003 born are now highschoolers?)!

2000-2002 born:Are now all between ages 15-17. Grew up in the late era of the 2000s and are pretty much the core of today's youth/teen culture as of 2017.

Or a short way of saying it all.
2000-2003 born: ages 14-17 High Schoolers
2004-2006 born:ages 11-13 Middle Schoolers
2007-2009 born: ages 8-10 2nd half of Elementary
2010-2013 born: ages 4-7 1st half of Elementary


EVERYONE! I don't mean to alarm you all, but I think we can now be considered old fogies. :(

This makes me feel so old.  :\'(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 2:55 pm


People born 2012 will be entering their core childhood :o

I remember I met a kid born 2010. She didn't know what Frozen was.


That seems impossible. What kid born in the early 2010s wouldn't know what Frozen is? That's like being born in the late 90s, and you don't know what Spongebob is. Hell, I have a friend who never had cable before and he has Spongebob DVDs for crying out loud.


I'm starting to feel a bit old myself.................ugh


Here's to break it down.

2009-2011/12 born: Are gonna all be between ages 5-8 within their core childhoods with childhood influences/cultural exposure of the late 2010s (Funny note is that their first president that they'll remember entirely is Donald Trump)

2003-2008 born: Are now all between ages 9-14 their late-ish childhood and early teens (can you believe that 2003 born are now highschoolers?)!

2000-2002 born:Are now all between ages 15-17. Grew up in the late era of the 2000s and are pretty much the core of today's youth/teen culture as of 2017.

Or a short way of saying it all.
2000-2003 born: ages 14-17 High Schoolers
2004-2006 born:ages 11-13 Middle Schoolers
2007-2009 born: ages 8-10 2nd half of Elementary

2010-2013 born: ages 4-7 1st half of Elementary


EVERYONE! I don't mean to alarm you all, but I think we can now be considered old fogies. :(






I feel like they're gonna be teenagers in the next few years, while I'm in my 20s. It's like they grow up so fast.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/03/17 at 3:19 pm


That seems impossible. What kid born in the early 2010s wouldn't know what Frozen is? That's like being born in the late 90s, and you don't know what Spongebob is. Hell, I have a friend who never had cable before and he has Spongebob DVDs for crying out loud.

Well someone born in 2010 for example wouldn't even be 4 when the movie is released. And someone born in 2012 wouldn't even remember the movie being released as they wouldn't even be two years old. Frozen is more targeted to kids over the age of 5.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/03/17 at 4:46 pm


I'm starting to feel a bit old myself.................ugh


Here's to break it down.

2009-2011/12 born: Are gonna all be between ages 5-8 within their core childhoods with childhood influences/cultural exposure of the late 2010s (Funny note is that their first president that they'll remember entirely is Donald Trump)

2003-2008 born: Are now all between ages 9-14 their late-ish childhood and early teens (can you believe that 2003 born are now highschoolers?)!

2000-2002 born:Are now all between ages 15-17. Grew up in the late era of the 2000s and are pretty much the core of today's youth/teen culture as of 2017.

Or a short way of saying it all.
2000-2003 born: ages 14-17 High Schoolers
2004-2006 born:ages 11-13 Middle Schoolers
2007-2009 born: ages 8-10 2nd half of Elementary
2010-2013 born: ages 4-7 1st half of Elementary


EVERYONE! I don't mean to alarm you all, but I think we can now be considered old fogies. :(


In 2020 you turn 30 and in 2022 I turn 40. Sh!t, I turn 35 this year... We're old. :-\\

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/03/17 at 4:51 pm

I can't wait to turn 24. 23 is the ugliest looking age I've been since I was 11, I just say I'm 20 or "almost 24". The next ugly number isn't until 31, thankfully.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/03/17 at 4:52 pm

K7l5ZeVVoCA

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 01/03/17 at 4:54 pm


My favorite thing from the early 2000s is Youtube. 8)


Anyways it's 2017. I'm damn sure that mid 2000s nostalgia exists now. I mean all mid 2000s years are  literally over a decade old at this point. 2004 was 13 years ago and 2005 was 12 years ago. I like the early 2000s, but I don't like how it's taking all the attention away from the mid-late 2000s. Especially since I find those eras (especially the late 2000s) to be culturally interesting and worthy to stand out on its own (in my own little opinion anyways). I'm sure those who're still in their teens as of 2017 would find nostalgia for the mid-late 2000s. As of 2017 everyone who is under 18 was born in 2000 and later. 2000-2017 born are all 0-17 as of 2017.

Technically, the early 2000s aren't taking the attention away from the mid 2000s. Mid 2000s nostalgia already exists (for instance, there's the Danny Phantom and Zoey 101 reunion videos that got millions of views), but for some reason, people almost always tend to lump 2004 and 2005 into the "early" 2000s.

I'm guessing it's because "early 2000s" is a loaded term that invokes nostalgia and good feelings, while "mid 2000s" seems lamer by comparison, which is why they're lumped together: because it makes 2004 and 2005 subconsciously seem better by comparison.

It's like how some folks on the "alt right" are splitting off and calling themselves the "new right", because they want to be seen more as classical liberals/libertarians, and distance themselves from a loaded term that invokes thoughts of Neo-Nazis. :P

Or how Millennials born before 1987 call themselves "Generation Y", because "Millennials" invokes negative thoughts while "Gen Y", apparently... doesn't? Well, I'm not sure about that, the "Y" sounds like "Why", and you can call them "Generation WHY" which is also insulting.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/03/17 at 4:54 pm


K7l5ZeVVoCA


So 1999! Or is it 2000?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/03/17 at 4:57 pm


So 1999! Or is it 2000?


That was the first single from the album so, yes, it's 1999. All The Small Things and Adam's Song are 2000.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 80sfan on 01/03/17 at 4:59 pm

All the small things is a classic! The 00's have a proud classic there.  8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/03/17 at 5:00 pm


All the small things is a classic! The 00's have a proud classic there.  8)


Total classic! Pop Punk's golden age (1994-2002) was so much fun. 8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/03/17 at 5:07 pm


I can't wait to turn 24. 23 is the ugliest looking age I've been since I was 11, I just say I'm 20 or "almost 24". The next ugly number isn't until 31, thankfully.

I can't wait to turn 22 this year.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/03/17 at 5:10 pm



Or how Millennials born before 1987 call themselves "Generation Y", because "Millennials" invokes negative thoughts while "Gen Y", apparently... doesn't? Well, I'm not sure about that, the "Y" sounds like "Why", and you can call them "Generation WHY" which is also insulting.

I've heard Gen Y be referred to as "Generation ME" as well.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/03/17 at 5:14 pm


I've heard Gen Y be referred to as "Generation ME" as well.


That's the Boomers! They're Generation Me, and we're Generation Me Me Me ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 5:45 pm


Well someone born in 2010 for example wouldn't even be 4 when the movie is released. And someone born in 2012 wouldn't even remember the movie being released as they wouldn't even be two years old. Frozen is more targeted to kids over the age of 5.


Just because they weren't over the age of 4 when the movie was released, that doesn't mean they would know what Frozen is. I see dozens of kids, especially toddlers, who are obsessed with Elsa and Olaf from Frozen to this day. Not to mention that Frozen was still kept in theaters until early 2014, so 2010 babies would still see it in theaters if they were 4 years old.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/03/17 at 7:42 pm


I'm starting to feel a bit old myself.................ugh


Here's to break it down.

2009-2011/12 born: Are gonna all be between ages 5-8 within their core childhoods with childhood influences/cultural exposure of the late 2010s (Funny note is that their first president that they'll remember entirely is Donald Trump)

2003-2008 born: Are now all between ages 9-14 their late-ish childhood and early teens (can you believe that 2003 born are now highschoolers?)!

2000-2002 born:Are now all between ages 15-17. Grew up in the late era of the 2000s and are pretty much the core of today's youth/teen culture as of 2017.

Or a short way of saying it all.
2000-2003 born: ages 14-17 High Schoolers
2004-2006 born:ages 11-13 Middle Schoolers
2007-2009 born: ages 8-10 2nd half of Elementary
2010-2013 born: ages 4-7 1st half of Elementary


EVERYONE! I don't mean to alarm you all, but I think we can now be considered old fogies. :(
I know!! It's crazy. Most of those you listed are adolescents when we still see them as little kids!

In just a few years, a 2000 baby will be 20, and a 1995 baby will be 25! Can you believe that?????


Technically, the early 2000s aren't taking the attention away from the mid 2000s. Mid 2000s nostalgia already exists (for instance, there's the Danny Phantom and Zoey 101 reunion videos that got millions of views), but for some reason, people almost always tend to lump 2004 and 2005 into the "early" 2000s.

I'm guessing it's because "early 2000s" is a loaded term that invokes nostalgia and good feelings, while "mid 2000s" seems lamer by comparison, which is why they're lumped together: because it makes 2004 and 2005 subconsciously seem better by comparison.

Or how Millennials born before 1987 call themselves "Generation Y", because "Millennials" invokes negative thoughts while "Gen Y", apparently... doesn't? Well, I'm not sure about that, the "Y" sounds like "Why", and you can call them "Generation WHY" which is also insulting.
That's maybe because they are seeing the era century wise and NOT decade wise.

Actually, I agree! The term Millennial is definitely negative, but Generation WHY is totally an silent insult. I don't understand why some in this generation don't believe that word is pessimistic. It really is. If you want to know though, there IS another name for the same cohort. It's called Echo Boomers due to increasing births from the late 70s to mid 90s. That term is completely neutral and it comes from that this generation are mainly the kids of the BBs.


I can't wait to turn 24. 23 is the ugliest looking age I've been since I was 11, I just say I'm 20 or "almost 24". The next ugly number isn't until 31, thankfully.
Can you believe you will be a quarter century next year?

Oh, and even though we're all getting old, we're all getting hotter every year as well!! ;) ;) :D :D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 7:51 pm


That's maybe because they are seeing the era century wise and NOT decade wise.


Nah. They don't call the late 2000s as the early 2000s. Usually they have it towards 2000-2006.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/03/17 at 8:07 pm


Nah. They don't call the late 2000s as the early 2000s. Usually they have it towards 2000-2006.
That's still century wise. No worries though. Sooner or later, the 2000s as a decade will be broken down into their respective periods.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/03/17 at 8:10 pm


That's still century wise. No worries though. Sooner or later, the 2000s as a decade will be broken down into their respective periods.


It's still decade wise to a lot of people. I know some of them actually thought the early 2000s was literally 2000-2006. Even I think it's pretty dumb, since it's not like the mid 2000s were entirely the same to 2000-2003.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 01/03/17 at 8:26 pm


Can you believe you will be a quarter century next year?

Oh, and even though we're all getting old, we're all getting hotter every year as well!! ;) ;) :D :D


I'm okay with turning 25 soon but no way in hell am I calling it a "quarter century" lmao ;D ;D

I can't wait to look older! Just last week I was trying to crack the ice on my driveway. I was having a hard time and making a lot of noise. So my neighbour comes over and he smashes it in one fell swoop :o When he hands my shovel back to me, he asks me what grade I'm in!! I try to tell him my job description but then he interrupts me mid-sentence with "No, no, no, what grade are you in? School?" Mess! Mess! Mess! >:(

Oh yeah, I got asked if I was a high schooler by a 28 year old at a dinner party too. Mess.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/03/17 at 8:41 pm


That's still century wise. No worries though. Sooner or later, the 2000s as a decade will be broken down into their respective periods.

That is not century wise though. Century wise would be the early 2000s up to like 2030 or something. They are talking about it decade-wise.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/03/17 at 9:52 pm


It's still decade wise to a lot of people. I know some of them actually thought the early 2000s was literally 2000-2006. Even I think it's pretty dumb, since it's not like the mid 2000s were entirely the same to 2000-2003.



That is not century wise though. Century wise would be the early 2000s up to like 2030 or something. They are talking about it decade-wise.
Well it can't be if they are talking about more than 3/4 years. It's clearly century wise. The 2000s doesn't just mean the decade.


I'm okay with turning 25 soon but no way in hell am I calling it a "quarter century" lmao ;D ;D

I can't wait to look older! Just last week I was trying to crack the ice on my driveway. I was having a hard time and making a lot of noise. So my neighbour comes over and he smashes it in one fell swoop :o When he hands my shovel back to me, he asks me what grade I'm in!! I try to tell him my job description but then he interrupts me mid-sentence with "No, no, no, what grade are you in? School?" Mess! Mess! Mess! >:(

Oh yeah, I got asked if I was a high schooler by a 28 year old at a dinner party too. Mess.
Oh yeah, all of us are going to be sexy as hell even though we already are in the future ;) :D ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 01/04/17 at 12:08 am


Well it can't be if they are talking about more than 3/4 years. It's clearly century wise. The 2000s doesn't just mean the decade.

No when referencing pop culture people use decades, not centuries. And they are still talking about the decade even if they include 2006. It may not make sense but that's the way it is. The YouTube comments saying "I miss the 90s" in a video from 2006 doesn't make sense either but people still say it. They are simply lumping the early 2000s and late 2000s together and calling it early 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 01/04/17 at 3:33 pm


In 2020 you turn 30 and in 2022 I turn 40. Sh!t, I turn 35 this year... We're old. :-\\


In March, I turn 43. :o

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/04/17 at 5:07 pm


In March, I turn 43. :o


It's scary, isn't it. :(

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 01/05/17 at 2:46 pm


It's scary, isn't it. :(


I'm still in my prime.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/05/17 at 10:17 pm


I'm still in my prime.


Me too. We're still tough guys and when women look at us they think "those guys got the whole package that I need!" 8)

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Howard on 01/06/17 at 7:40 am


Me too. We're still tough guys and when women look at us they think "those guys got the whole package that I need!" 8)


;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 03/23/17 at 3:21 pm

Pardon the bump, but has anyone else noticed that most "normies" tend to divide the decades in halves: with xxx0-xxx4/5 being the "early" part of the decade and xxx5/6-xxx9 being the "late" part of the decade. Unlike with us nerds, normies think there's no room for "mid 90s" or any of that pesky nonsense. ;D That's why I see people left and right calling shows like Danny Phantom or American Dragon "early 2000s shows".

For instance, there's this meme that's been popular on social media lately:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6MwbyfVMAA1161.jpg

Stupid halfists, us thirdists are much smarter than you'll ever be! ;D So much changes throughout a decade that's it's really more sensible to divide into early/mid/late, rather than just early/late. For instance, some people lump both 1995 and 1999 in as "late 90s", even though 1995 was still in the earthy "grunge 90s" and 1999 was in "da bling bling" 90s where everything was much glossier.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/23/17 at 3:30 pm


Pardon the bump, but has anyone else noticed that most "normies" tend to divide the decades in halves: with xxx0-xxx4/5 being the "early" part of the decade and xxx5/6-xxx9 being the "late" part of the decade. Unlike with us nerds, normies think there's no room for "mid 90s" or any of that pesky nonsense. ;D That's why I see people left and right calling shows like Danny Phantom or American Dragon "early 2000s shows".

For instance, there's this meme that's been popular on social media lately:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6MwbyfVMAA1161.jpg

Stupid halfists, us thirdists are much smarter than you'll ever be! ;D So much changes throughout a decade that's it's really more sensible to divide into early/mid/late, rather than just early/late. For instance, some people lump both 1995 and 1999 in as "late 90s", even though 1995 was still in the earthy "grunge 90s" and 1999 was in "da bling bling" 90s where everything was much glossier.
Where did you find that?

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 03/23/17 at 3:31 pm

It's popular on Twitter and Facebook.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 03/23/17 at 4:03 pm


Pardon the bump, but has anyone else noticed that most "normies" tend to divide the decades in halves: with xxx0-xxx4/5 being the "early" part of the decade and xxx5/6-xxx9 being the "late" part of the decade. Unlike with us nerds, normies think there's no room for "mid 90s" or any of that pesky nonsense. ;D That's why I see people left and right calling shows like Danny Phantom or American Dragon "early 2000s shows".

For instance, there's this meme that's been popular on social media lately:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6MwbyfVMAA1161.jpg

Stupid halfists, us thirdists are much smarter than you'll ever be! ;D So much changes throughout a decade that's it's really more sensible to divide into early/mid/late, rather than just early/late. For instance, some people lump both 1995 and 1999 in as "late 90s", even though 1995 was still in the earthy "grunge 90s" and 1999 was in "da bling bling" 90s where everything was much glossier.

That is one of the dumbest memes I have ever seen.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/23/17 at 9:41 pm


It's popular on Twitter and Facebook.
Do you have a link to the photo?

Oh, and send me your message.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 03/23/17 at 9:50 pm


Do you have a link to the photo?

Oh, and send me your message.

A friend posted it, I think he got it from Worldstarhiphop. I've seen other various people posting it too.

My message was actually basically the same as my post about "halfists" that you're looking at above you. ;D

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Zelek3 on 03/27/17 at 12:51 am


That is one of the dumbest memes I have ever seen.

I hate it too. Mostly because stupid Reddit/Facebook/Buzzfeed jerks use their halfway system to fence me and others of a similar age in and tell us, "Hurr durr no you didn't grow up with Rugrats and Rocket Power, you don't know what that is, you grew up with Hannah Montana and iPhones".

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 03/27/17 at 3:52 pm

For the most part, no.  I think the last of the early '00s died out towards the end of the 2003-04 school year.  The second half of 2004 was purely mid '00s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Slim95 on 03/27/17 at 4:17 pm


Pardon the bump, but has anyone else noticed that most "normies" tend to divide the decades in halves: with xxx0-xxx4/5 being the "early" part of the decade and xxx5/6-xxx9 being the "late" part of the decade. Unlike with us nerds, normies think there's no room for "mid 90s" or any of that pesky nonsense. ;D That's why I see people left and right calling shows like Danny Phantom or American Dragon "early 2000s shows".

For instance, there's this meme that's been popular on social media lately:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6MwbyfVMAA1161.jpg

Stupid halfists, us thirdists are much smarter than you'll ever be! ;D So much changes throughout a decade that's it's really more sensible to divide into early/mid/late, rather than just early/late. For instance, some people lump both 1995 and 1999 in as "late 90s", even though 1995 was still in the earthy "grunge 90s" and 1999 was in "da bling bling" 90s where everything was much glossier.

The general public still splits it between thirds. I hear people say mid 90s or mid 2000s when talking about stuff.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: 2001 on 03/27/17 at 4:33 pm


I hate it too. Mostly because stupid Reddit/Facebook/Buzzfeed jerks use their halfway system to fence me and others of a similar age in and tell us, "Hurr durr no you didn't grow up with Rugrats and Rocket Power, you don't know what that is, you grew up with Hannah Montana and iPhones".


Face it, your childhood sucks and that makes mine awesome.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Looney Toon on 03/27/17 at 5:24 pm


I hate it too. Mostly because stupid Reddit/Facebook/Buzzfeed jerks use their halfway system to fence me and others of a similar age in and tell us, "Hurr durr no you didn't grow up with Rugrats and Rocket Power, you don't know what that is, you grew up with Hannah Montana and iPhones".


First off people don't know what reruns are. Sure it isn't the original run, but that doesn't make it any less true that you grew up with it. If you saw the same damn episodes/shows that the older people saw then you both are aware of the same things. Also grew up with iphones? You're from '95, right? By the time iphones got huge you were in your mid teens which is appropriate to own one. And just because Hanna Montana existed in your late childhood doesn't mean you grew up with her. That's like saying a 90's kid grew up with Sonic just because Sonic was popular despite the 90's kid never even owning  a Sega Genesis. If you rarely cared for Hanna Montana or rarely watched the show then you didn't grow up on it. Also if something existed during the late 1990s & early 2000s a 1995 born would've most likely been aware of it in terms of kid culture. And things like Rocket Power and Rugrats were still on air by then.

#ToonIsTriggeredHideYourKids

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: Longaotian00 on 09/17/17 at 1:34 am

No. Both 2004 & 2005 are definite mid 2000s years in terms of culture. Although I would say that maybe even though the first few months of 2004 were mid 00's by then, it still did have a little bit of an early 2000s vibe about it if you know what I mean, however by the time mid 2004 had rolled around it was 100% mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: Do you consider 2004-2005 "early 2000s", culturally?

Written By: bchris02 on 09/17/17 at 10:11 pm

I would probably say that the 2002-03 school year was the last truly early '00s school year.  The '03-'04 school year had quite a bit of mid '00s aspects to it.  The '03-04 year was the first year I started hearing more about emo and "Get Low" by Lil Jon and the Eastside Boyz was huge that year.  Crunk rap was a staple of the mid '00s in my opinion.  MySpace was launched in August 2003 and started to become more popular by the summer of 2004.

Check for new replies or respond here...