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.

Check for new replies or respond here...