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: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: the2001 on 02/24/16 at 6:10 pm

2004-2006  (early 2007 stretch)

Did not last long at all

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/24/16 at 6:41 pm


2004-2006  (early 2007 stretch)

Did not last long at all


I would consider 2003-2007 to be the greater core '00s with 2003 having a slight lean towards the early '00s and 2007 leaning towards the late '00s.

What in particular are you lamenting not lasting long enough?  Many of the fads that began in the mid '00s remained relevant through the late '00s.  The one thing that didn't is crunk hip-hop (Lil' John, 'The Massacre'-era 50 cent) and ringtone rap like "Laffy Taffy" and for good reason because it was terrible.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 6:49 pm

Late 2003 to Mid 2008 (Iraq War to before 2008 campaign got started) is core 2000s to me. Those years are what come to mind when I think 2000s.

You're thinking mid 2000s, and I'm  personally glad that didn't last long, but it's not like 2007 was all that different.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/24/16 at 6:53 pm


Late 2003 to Mid 2008 (Iraq War to before 2008 campaign got started) is core 2000s to me. Those years are what come to mind when I think 2000s.

You're thinking mid 2000s, and I'm  personally glad that didn't last long, but it's not like 2007 was all that different.


2007 was slightly different but in a positive way.  It was the last year of ringtone rap and while songs like "Crank Dat Soulja Boy" were still terrible, it was a step above "Laffy Taffy" and all the other similar songs that dominated 2005 and 2006.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 7:01 pm


2007 was slightly different but in a positive way.  It was the last year of ringtone rap and while songs like "Crank Dat Soulja Boy" were still terrible, it was a step above "Laffy Taffy" and all the other similar songs that dominated 2005 and 2006.


I agree. Ringtone rap was on its last legs in 2007. I'm not sure about it being better than Laffy Taffy, but that's probably because I heard Crank That many more times than Laffy Taffy, and have been forever jaded  ;D

2007 is sort of like the "culmination" year of the 2000s. If a kid in the future asks me what the 2000s were like, I'd send them on a time machine to 2007, to pick one year. It seems that everything relevant to the 2000s existed in that year, in one form or another.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/24/16 at 7:49 pm


2004-2006  (early 2007 stretch)

Did not last long at all


Actually, I consider late 2003 (even though it still had early '00s vibes) to the summer of 2008 as the core '00s, while late 2008-mid 2009 was simply a transitional period from the '00s to '10s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/24/16 at 7:58 pm

Early 2003 to Summer 2007 comprises the core 2000s, in my opinion.  It begins, really, with the start of the Iraq War and commercial breakthrough of 50 Cent, and ends with the conclusion of The Sopranos and the Harry Potter books, as well as the full establishment of seventh generation video games and Web 2.0 sites like Facebook and YouTube.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/24/16 at 8:04 pm


Early 2003 to Summer 2007 comprises the core 2000s, in my opinion.  It begins, really, with the start of the Iraq War and commercial breakthrough of 50 Cent, and ends with the conclusion of The Sopranos and the Harry Potter books, as well as the full establishment of seventh generation video games and Web 2.0 sites like Facebook and YouTube.


If we're going to where all the late 90s/early-mid 2000s HBO shows died, that belongs to 2008. After The Wire ended, it was the beginning of the modern HBO era. Sure, there was Entourage and Curb Your Enthusiasm before 2011. But Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, and Game of Thrones started already before they all ended.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 8:30 pm


Early 2003 to Summer 2007 comprises the core 2000s, in my opinion.  It begins, really, with the start of the Iraq War and commercial breakthrough of 50 Cent, and ends with the conclusion of The Sopranos and the Harry Potter books, as well as the full establishment of seventh generation video games and Web 2.0 sites like Facebook and YouTube.


7th Gen gaming wasn't established until late 2007 at the earliest actually. It took until the launch of Halo 3 at the end of September 2007 for the Xbox 360 to start outselling the PS2 on a consistent basis. Even then, defining 7th Gen series such as Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed etc. had yet to be released.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/24/16 at 8:37 pm


7th Gen gaming wasn't established until late 2007 at the earliest actually. It took until the launch of Halo 3 at the end of September 2007 for the Xbox 360 to start outselling the PS2 on a consistent basis. Even then, defining 7th Gen series such as Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed etc. had yet to be released.


Even though the consoles were released from late 2005 to late 2006, I can agree to that. Everybody you knew back in 2005 to mid 2007 were playing with either the PS2, Xbox, or the Gamecube. So that makes sense.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/24/16 at 8:43 pm


If we're going to where all the late 90s/early-mid 2000s HBO shows died, that belongs to 2008. After The Wire ended, it was the beginning of the modern HBO era. Sure, there was Entourage and Curb Your Enthusiasm before 2011. But Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, and Game of Thrones started already before they all ended.


Well, I'm only referring to The Sopranos because it was probably the biggest tv show of the entire decade, although The Wire is certainly close.  2008 is too late an ending point for the core 2000s in my opinion because YouTube, Facebook, seventh generation video games, and Obamamania were all in full swing by that point and a lot of the major factors that defined the 2000s in general were out of fashion.


7th Gen gaming wasn't established until late 2007 at the earliest actually. It took until the launch of Halo 3 at the end of September 2007 for the Xbox 360 to start outselling the PS2 on a consistent basis. Even then, defining 7th Gen series such as Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed etc. had yet to be released.


That's exactly what I meant though.  Summer 2007 was the last season of the 2000s that I consider part of the decade's core period, in major part because the start of the 2007-2008 school year saw an onslaught of iconic seventh generation video game releases.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/24/16 at 8:45 pm


Well, I'm only referring to The Sopranos because it was probably the biggest tv show of the entire decade, although The Wire is certainly close.  2008 is too late an ending point for the core 2000s in my opinion because YouTube, Facebook, seventh generation video games, and Obamamania were all in full swing by that point and a lot of the major factors that defined the 2000s in general were out of fashion.


Well, okay then. The Sopranos was what made HBO very good during the early-mid 2000s up to mid 2007. But besides that, it wasn't that bad after The Sopranos ended.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 9:19 pm


Late 2003 to Mid 2008 (Iraq War to before 2008 campaign got started) is core 2000s to me. Those years are what come to mind when I think 2000s.

You're thinking mid 2000s, and I'm  personally glad that didn't last long, but it's not like 2007 was all that different.


Yep, late 2003-mid 2008 was the FULL core 2000's, but the peak of the core 2000's was 2004-2007.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 9:21 pm


7th Gen gaming wasn't established until late 2007 at the earliest actually. It took until the launch of Halo 3 at the end of September 2007 for the Xbox 360 to start outselling the PS2 on a consistent basis. Even then, defining 7th Gen series such as Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed etc. had yet to be released.


2006 as a full year was definitely the transition from 6th generation to 7th generation gaming. I'd still consider 2007 as the first full 7th generation year, this includes the Nintendo DS as well, not just the Wii, PS3, and  XBOX 360, and lastly I'd consider 2008 being the peak year of the 1st half 7th generation gaming.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 9:31 pm


Well, I'm only referring to The Sopranos because it was probably the biggest tv show of the entire decade, although The Wire is certainly close.  2008 is too late an ending point for the core 2000s in my opinion because YouTube, Facebook, seventh generation video games, and Obamamania were all in full swing by that point and a lot of the major factors that defined the 2000s in general were out of fashion.

That's exactly what I meant though.  Summer 2007 was the last season of the 2000s that I consider part of the decade's core period, in major part because the start of the 2007-2008 school year saw an onslaught of iconic seventh generation video game releases.


Hmm interesting. I guess it's because I've been hyped for 7th Gen ever since early 2006, I kind of consider late 6th gen (Including the DS vs PSP wars) and early 7th Gen both to be core 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 9:34 pm


2006 as a full year was definitely the transition from 6th generation to 7th generation gaming. I'd still consider 2007 as the first full 7th generation year, this includes the Nintendo DS as well, not just the Wii, PS3, and  XBOX 360, and lastly I'd consider 2008 being the peak year of the 1st half 7th generation gaming.


PS2 and Wii were the dominant consoles of 2007. Xbox 360 picked up in late 2007. I would say 2008 is the first full year of 7th Gen, although 7th Gen was indeed very relevant in 2007 (and 2006 for handhelds).

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 9:35 pm


Early 2003 to Summer 2007 comprises the core 2000s, in my opinion.  It begins, really, with the start of the Iraq War and commercial breakthrough of 50 Cent, and ends with the conclusion of The Sopranos and the Harry Potter books, as well as the full establishment of seventh generation video games and Web 2.0 sites like Facebook and YouTube.


What makes early & mid 2003 core 2000's in your opinion? Early 2003 felt exactly like all of 2002 to me, and 2002 was the quintessential year for early 2000's culture. I understand that core 2000's isn't the same as mid 2000's though. 2003 is usually considered as the only early 2000's year that's core, while 2007 is considered as the only late 2000's year that's core.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/24/16 at 9:46 pm


What makes early & mid 2003 core 2000's in your opinion? Early 2003 felt exactly like all of 2002 to me, and 2002 was the quintessential year for early 2000's culture. I understand that core 2000's isn't the same as mid 2000's though. 2003 is usually considered as the only early 2000's year that's core, while 2007 is considered as the only late 2000's year that's core.


50 Cent and the start of the Iraq War.  Both of those are pretty huge deals, imo, as 50 Cent was like the face of hip hop during the core 2000s and the Iraq War was the dominant political conflict of the decade aside from the Afghanistan War.

2003 is still early 2000s in my opinion, but it's also the twilight of that sub-era and feels a lot more removed from the Y2K era, imo, than late 2001 and 2002.  The major things that stick out about that year to me compared to the previous few years include:

* 50 Cent becoming the new hottest rapper.
* The beginning of the Iraq War and capture of Saddam Hussein.
* DVD's being more popular than VHS.
* The debut of MySpace.
* The release of Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire.
* The mainstream breakthrough of crunk during the last third of the year.
* Pop punk beginning to evolve into more of an emo style.
* The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer being over.
* Fashion just starting to evolve out of its Y2K look and more towards a 2000s style.
* Shows like Arrested Development, That's So Raven, and The O.C. making their premiere.
* Beyoncé releasing her first solo album and the Black Eyed Peas breaking into mainstream popularity.
* The White Stripes blowing up.
* The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie hitting theaters.
* Lindsay Lohan garnering more popularity through the Freaky Friday remake.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/16 at 9:51 pm

2003 is core 00s, maybe mid 2003 and late 2003.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 10:14 pm

Yeah I don't agree with Infintity about 2003 at all. 2003 was still pretty much early 00s. or it was half and half!
IMO, the core 00s lasted from LATE summer(August) 2004-mid 2008(June-July). From the 2004 olympics and Bush-Kerry election season until the day economic crash happened.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 10:41 pm


2003 is core 00s, maybe mid 2003 and late 2003.


Yeah, 2003 sounds about right actually. March 2003 when the Iraq War had started and the 50 Cent obsession starts off a new music era. It's still solidly early 2000s, but it fits in with the 2000s storyline, if you catch my drift  ;D

There are still some non-core 2000s things about it though, such as dial up still being the most common way to connect to the Internet, Web 1.0 era of the Internet, VHS sales still going strong (although DVD matched VHS in 2003, I'd say you can thank the holiday season for that rather than early 2003). These are not the images most people conjure up in their heads when they think "2000s".

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:02 pm


50 Cent and the start of the Iraq War.  Both of those are pretty huge deals, imo, as 50 Cent was like the face of hip hop during the core 2000s and the Iraq War was the dominant political conflict of the decade aside from the Afghanistan War.

2003 is still early 2000s in my opinion, but it's also the twilight of that sub-era and feels a lot more removed from the Y2K era, imo, than late 2001 and 2002.  The major things that stick out about that year to me compared to the previous few years include:

* 50 Cent becoming the new hottest rapper.
* The beginning of the Iraq War and capture of Saddam Hussein.
* DVD's being more popular than VHS.
* The debut of MySpace.
* The release of Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire.
* The mainstream breakthrough of crunk during the last third of the year.
* Pop punk beginning to evolve into more of an emo style.
* The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer being over.
* Fashion just starting to evolve out of its Y2K look and more towards a 2000s style.
* Shows like Arrested Development, That's So Raven, and The O.C. making their premiere.
* Beyoncé releasing her first solo album and the Black Eyed Peas breaking into mainstream popularity.
* The White Stripes blowing up.
* The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie hitting theaters.
* Lindsay Lohan garnering more popularity through the Freaky Friday remake.

Thanks to you, I might make a 2003 cultural debate! ;D ::) :)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/16 at 11:06 pm


Yeah, 2003 sounds about right actually. March 2003 when the Iraq War had started and the 50 Cent obsession starts off a new music era. It's still solidly early 2000s, but it fits in with the 2000s storyline, if you catch my drift  ;D

There are still some non-core 2000s things about it though, such as dial up still being the most common way to connect to the Internet, Web 1.0 era of the Internet, VHS sales still going strong (although DVD matched VHS in 2003, I'd say you can thank the holiday season for that rather than early 2003). These are not the images most people conjure up in their heads when they think "2000s".


Wow, you youngins are precise.  :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 11:09 pm


Wow, you youngins are precise.  :o


We were all alive in 2003, in grade school too, so no surprise.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:10 pm


Wow, you youngins are precise.  :o

Brotha, you aint that old! ;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
Besides, you were only a young teen in the early 00s. It's not like you're Jordan's age!(no offence Jordan) ::)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/16 at 11:11 pm


Brotha, you aint that old! ;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
Besides, you were only a young teen in the early 00s. It's not like you're Jordan's age!(no offence Jordan) ::)


;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:11 pm


We were all alive in 2003, in grade school too, so surprise.

Exactly! I still recall the year like it was last week!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/16 at 11:12 pm


We were all alive in 2003, in grade school too, so surprise.


You were my age in 1995/1996, in 2003.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 11:14 pm


Brotha, you aint that old! ;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
Besides, you were only a young teen in the early 00s. It's not like you're Jordan's age!(no offence Jordan) ::)


LMAO  ;D


Wow, you youngins are precise.  :o


The Iraq war was traumatizing  :(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 11:15 pm


You were my age in 1995, in 2003.


My birthday is in February, so I was 7 for pretty much all of 2003, in 1st and 2nd grade. I remember that year very well, even though it's a long time ago now.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/16 at 11:17 pm


My birthday is in February, so I was 7 for pretty much all of 2003, in 1st and 2nd grade. I remember that year very well, even though it's a long time ago to me.


I was 7 for 90% of 1996. So 1996.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:18 pm


My birthday is in February, so I was 7 for pretty much all of 2003, in 1st and 2nd grade. I remember that year very well, even though it's a long time ago to me.

Now...2000 and 2001 fee like a LONG time ago to me! :o But 2003 not yet anytime soon! ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 11:19 pm


My birthday is in February, so I was 7 for pretty much all of 2003, in 1st and 2nd grade. I remember that year very well, even though it's a long time ago now.


I was finally 10 in 2003, and ready to start my Pokémon adventure  8)

Edit: 7 in 2000. The ultimate Pokémania year along with '99, I lived, breathed and slept it!  :D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:21 pm


I was 7 for 90% of 1996. So 1996.

So you were my 2002-03 age(7) in 1995-96 when I was born! :o  But you were still a young teenager in the early 00s. Core millennials don't feel as old to me as early millennials do, not by a long shot! ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:22 pm


I was finally 10 in 2003, and ready to start my Pokémon adventure  8)

You mean graduate from Pokemon! ;D  Cause that's when I stopped being a die hard fan of Pokemon and Yu gi oh! ::)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 11:22 pm


Now...2000 and 2001 fee like a LONG time ago to me! :o But 2003 not yet anytime soon! ;D


1999-2001: millions of years ago (vague memories)

2002-2004: long time ago (clear memories)

2005-2007: not that long ago, but still awhile ago (very crystal clear memories)

2008-present: feels like yesterday

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/16 at 11:23 pm


So you were my 2002-03 age(7) in 1995-96 when I was born! :o  But you were still a young teenager in the early 00s. Core millennials don't feel as old to me as early millennials do, not by a long shot! ;)


You're only 7 years younger than me.  :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 11:26 pm


You mean graduate from Pokemon! ;D  Cause that's when I stopped being a die hard fan of Pokemon and Yu gi oh! ::)


Haha, I was referencing how you get your first Pokémon at the age of 10 in the show.  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:27 pm


1999-2001: millions of years ago (vague memories)

2002-2004: long time ago (clear memories)

2005-2007: not that long ago, but still awhile ago (very crystal clear memories)

2008-present: feels like yesterday

1998-1999: Ancient history! :D :D :D :D
2000-2001: A long time ago!
2002-2004: A while(YEARS ago)!
2005-2008: Not that long(feels like last year)
2009-present: Recent!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/24/16 at 11:28 pm


Haha, I was referencing how you get your first Pokémon at the age of 10 in the show.  ;D

Aww yeah! XD ::)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/24/16 at 11:31 pm


Aww yeah! XD ::)


BTW, check this post out too in response to the 2003 debate, which I archived from another thread.


2003 still felt more 1998-2002 like than 2004-onward but it's vibe was different from both of those eras.

Let's see some 2003 things:
- Pop Punk albums like Foot in Mouth Disease, So Long Astoria, MFZB and Making the Grade (Y2K Era)
- Pop Punk albums like Take This to Your Grave, North and blink-182's self-titled (core 2000's)
- Green Day and My Chemical Romance head into the studio and start recording their 2000's defining albums (core 2000's)
- The filming of Mean Girls (core 2000's)
- 50 Cent and Lil Jon's breakthrough albums and the rise of Snap and Crunk rap (core 2000's)
- The fall of Nu Metal like Limp Bizkit (core 2000's)
- Nu Metal albums that sustained it's popularity like Meteora, Take a Look in the Mirror, Unstable and Faceless (Y2K era)
- Movies like School of Rock, American Wedding, Daredevil, Bruce Almighty, The Hulk and Return of the King (Y2K Era)
- Beginning of Myspace (core 2000's)
- In June 2003, DVD rentals overtake VHS (core 2000's)
- First year with no new N64 or Gameboy Color releases in NA (core 2000's)
- Second last year of PS1 new releases and last year of new Dreamcast releases (Y2K era)
- Notable Pop Punk labels such as Fat Wreck Chords abandon their fun and carefree image and go in a more serious bullsh!t political posturing direction (core 2000's)
- Windows 98 and ME being more popular than XP (Y2K era)
- Dial Up being bigger than Broadband (Y2K era)
- Powerhouse era year (Y2K era)
- TV Shows like Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Dexter's, Star Wars: The Clone Wars (original animated series), Spider-Man 2003, Johnny Bravo, Friends and Frasier (Y2K era)
- Last year that Ed, Edd and Eddy was traditionally animated (Y2K era)
- TV Shows like One Tree Hill, The O.C., Arrested Development (core 2000's)
- Fashion such as baggy dickies, 3/4 shorts, chain wallets, spiky hair and loose shirts and the general tomboy look still popular (Y2K era)
- Discman is much more popular than the iPod which is not even a blip on the radar. (Y2K era)
- Cassette tapes still popular, new releases being sold in this format and not yet being fazed out of stores. (Y2K era)


12 notable Y2K era things and 10 notable core 2000's things. Seems pretty even and very transitional while still leaning more on the Y2K side of things.



- Was part of the Web 1.0 era (Y2K era)
- Social Media wasn't as popular (Y2K era)
- In terms of kids and Cartoon Network it was still the Power House era (Y2K era)
- Nickelodeon was still in their silver age (Y2K era)
- Consoles such as the Nintendo 64 and Gameboy Color were still available in stores (Y2K era)
- Disney was still making 2D Traditional Animation (Y2K era)
- Toon Disney didn't have Jetix yet so all of their Disney Afternoon/One Saturday Morning shows was still on air (Y2K era)


When thinking about 2003 or before these are things that I see pop up from discussion. There was a lot about 2003 that made it similar to 2000-2002.



Mario Kart Double Dash and Crash Nitro Kart were released which were the quintessential 2000's kart racing games (core 2000's) sequels to Mario Kart 64 and Crash Team Racing which were Y2K.

That's So Raven (core 2000's)

Last season of 1st generation Pokemon TV series in the U.S. (Y2K)

Toonami still on weekdays (Y2K)

Michael Jordan leaves the NBA (core 2000's)

Damn I love this, credit to Jordan and Toon! I'm saving this for future conversations and debates. This ultimately shows right here that 2003 was the transitional year between early 2000's culture and core 2000's culture. 2003 may have been numerically mid 2000's for most of the year, but culturally it was still mostly early 2000's. This proves it all.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/16 at 11:32 pm


1998-1999: Ancient history! :D :D :D :D
2000-2001: A long time ago!
2002-2004: A while(YEARS ago)!
2005-2008: Not that long(feels like last year)
2009-present: Recent!


I feel the same. Except 2005/2006 do feel quite a while ago now instead of like last year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 12:57 am

Core 00's weren't short enough. 2000, 2001 and 2002 4 lyfe. Too bad the rest of the decade could not live up to those three mighty years... :(

2003 has elements of both the Y2K era and the real 2000's as my list above shows (thanks for quoting me mqg!). It was still somewhat Y2K but it's vibe was a whole lot different than 2000-2002 was thanks to the transitions that took place during the year and it's got some core 00's but it lacked the full establishment of real 2000's trends that 2004-2006 had.

In other words, 2003's a mutt.


Yeah I don't agree with Infintity about 2003 at all. 2003 was still pretty much early 00s. or it was half and half!
IMO, the core 00s lasted from LATE summer(August) 2004-mid 2008(June-July). From the 2004 olympics and Bush-Kerry election season until the day economic crash happened.


I don't see how August was the beginning of it. That whole year is real 00's but June 2004, especially, was pure real 2000's through and through.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/25/16 at 12:58 am


Yeah I don't agree with Infintity about 2003 at all. 2003 was still pretty much early 00s. or it was half and half!
IMO, the core 00s lasted from LATE summer(August) 2004-mid 2008(June-July). From the 2004 olympics and Bush-Kerry election season until the day economic crash happened.


Sigh, I think we've run into yet another core/mid prefix confusion.

Core 2000s:  Roughly February 2003 to August 2007
Mid-2000s:  Roughly January 2004 to October 2006

Does this at least clarify things a bit?  2003 is both early 2000s and core 2000s, just like 1993 is both early 90s and core 90s, or 1997 is both late 90s and core 90s.  I definitely don't think most mid or late 2000s culture had really fully established itself in 2003, but I also don't sense any significant ties to the 90s, either (maybe a bit of the Y2K era, but not the full-on 90s).  Just because Friends and Frasier weren't over yet doesn't mean the entire atmosphere of 2003 still felt pretty 90s, especially considering shows like The Sopranos, Survivor, and The Wire were a lot more relevant at the time.  Even in the world of animation, which I know you love talking about, Pokémania was long over, and shows like Kim Possible, Codename:  Kids Next Door, Teen Titans, and the second Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon were becoming standard, while shows like The Powerpuff Girls and Rugrats, while still airing new episodes, were nowhere near as good or popular as they were years before.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/25/16 at 6:59 am


I don't see how August was the beginning of it. That whole year is real 00's but June 2004, especially, was pure real 2000's through and through.


I think August or September 2003 is a good starting point for the core 2000's.

While June or July 2004 is a good starting point for mid 2000's culture.

I think we all understand that core =/= mid, but if early & mid 2003 is already core 2000's, you might as well include all of 2002 as part of the core 2000's as well. I think the way late 2003 is the beginning of the core 2000's is kinda like how early 2008 is the end of the core 2000's. 2004-2007 was the peak of the core 2000's without a question. 2003 was the start of core 2000's trends, but not the peak. 2008 was the end of core 2000's trends, but not the peak either.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 9:45 am


I think August or September 2003 is a good starting point for the core 2000's.

While June or July 2004 is a good starting point for mid 2000's culture.


I thought mathematically the mid 00's started in April 2003? ???


I think we all understand that core =/= mid, but if early & mid 2003 is already core 2000's, you might as well include all of 2002 as part of the core 2000's as well. I think the way late 2003 is the beginning of the core 2000's is kinda like how early 2008 is the end of the core 2000's. 2004-2007 was the peak of the core 2000's without a question. 2003 was the start of core 2000's trends, but not the peak. 2008 was the end of core 2000's trends, but not the peak either.


:o :o :o :o

Not at all! Even early-mid 2003 had a different vibe than all of 2002. We'll have to put 2000 and 2001 as core 00's next if we put 2002!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2000s Nostalgiaist on 02/25/16 at 10:17 am


Yeah, 2003 sounds about right actually. March 2003 when the Iraq War had started and the 50 Cent obsession starts off a new music era. It's still solidly early 2000s, but it fits in with the 2000s storyline, if you catch my drift  ;D

There are still some non-core 2000s things about it though, such as dial up still being the most common way to connect to the Internet, Web 1.0 era of the Internet, VHS sales still going strong (although DVD matched VHS in 2003, I'd say you can thank the holiday season for that rather than early 2003). These are not the images most people conjure up in their heads when they think "2000s".


I think there were some elements of web 2.0 in 2003, for instance I remember going on a website and watching the video for "CREAM" by Wu-Tang clan at school.

Also 50 Cent still makes trashy "new school" music in my opinion, but I can't believe that his music now is older than the Wu-Tang Clan music was that I was listening to in 2003! :o

Wu-Tang Clan's 36 Chambers came out in 1993 so was 10 years old in 2003, 50 Cent's Get Rich or Die Trying (i.e. that fancy "new school" sheesh, in my opinion) is now 13 years old!

The passage of time is something I am really struggling to cope with the concept of at the moment. I think it must be a result of being in my mid-late 20s, is it like this for everyone perhaps? I don't know.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 10:24 am


The passage of time is something I am really struggling to cope with the concept of at the moment. I think it must be a result of being in my mid-late 20s, is it like this for everyone perhaps? I don't know.


I'm having a hard time believing 1996 was 20 years ago. I started high school back then!!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/25/16 at 10:40 am


I think there were some elements of web 2.0 in 2003, for instance I remember going on a website and watching the video for "CREAM" by Wu-Tang clan at school.

Also 50 Cent still makes trashy "new school" music in my opinion, but I can't believe that his music now is older than the Wu-Tang Clan music was that I was listening to in 2003! :o

Wu-Tang Clan's 36 Chambers came out in 1993 so was 10 years old in 2003, 50 Cent's Get Rich or Die Trying (i.e. that fancy "new school" sheesh, in my opinion) is now 13 years old!

The passage of time is something I am really struggling to cope with the concept of at the moment. I think it must be a result of being in my mid-late 20s, is it like this for everyone perhaps? I don't know.


Yeah, Web 2.0 had a strong presence in 2003. It was the year I got broadband and started going on websites like Funnyjunk, Yahoo! Music radio, Miniclip, Habbo Hotel etc. Sites that are impossible on dialup. But I think for the most part, websites had a very simplistic view.

I remember the 50 Cent album being huge. But I don't remember radio rap/R&B consuming the radio waves until late 2003/2004. I was a big fan of Usher's Candy Shop and Akon's Trouble myself. That was 2004  :D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/25/16 at 10:46 am


7th Gen gaming wasn't established until late 2007 at the earliest actually. It took until the launch of Halo 3 at the end of September 2007 for the Xbox 360 to start outselling the PS2 on a consistent basis. Even then, defining 7th Gen series such as Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed etc. had yet to be released.


In terms of video games, the Wii was a huge force in the late '00s that kind of sputtered out in the early '10s.  Party games like Guitar Hero and Rockband for the Wii were huge in 2008 and 2009.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/25/16 at 10:51 am


I think there were some elements of web 2.0 in 2003, for instance I remember going on a website and watching the video for "CREAM" by Wu-Tang clan at school.


Web 2.0 is more than being able to watch videos online, which has been available in one form or another since the late '90s.  2003 was still by far Web 1.0.

Web 2.0 is the interactive, social Internet.  Sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc.  MySpace was one of the earliest Web 2.0 sites and it was still very early.  In 2003, the Internet was still primarily a content delivery system and wasn't very interactive outside of message boards and AIM, so yeah, it was Web 1.0.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/25/16 at 10:52 am


Yeah, Web 2.0 had a strong presence in 2003. It was the year I got broadband and started going on websites like Funnyjunk, Yahoo! Music radio, Miniclip, Habbo Hotel etc. Sites that are impossible on dialup. But I think for the most part, websites had a very simplistic view.


Again, Web 2.0 is the interactive, social internet and didn't emerge until the mid 00s.  Streaming without interactivity is still Web 1.0 and has been available since the late '90s, you just needed broadband to do it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/25/16 at 10:54 am

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uniZv_opmIs/TK_xHW-ifoI/AAAAAAAAAC4/y5OswxI4fSI/s1600/web1vsweb2%2B(1).png

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/25/16 at 11:21 am


In terms of video games, the Wii was a huge force in the late '00s that kind of sputtered out in the early '10s.  Party games like Guitar Hero and Rockband for the Wii were huge in 2008 and 2009.


Yes! Rock band was huge in the late 2000s, it also came out late 2007. I believe it bombed on the Wii though. The PS2 version was the most popular followed by the Xbox 360 version, from what I remember of sales charts from way back when.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/25/16 at 11:27 am


Again, Web 2.0 is the interactive, social internet and didn't emerge until the mid 00s.  Streaming without interactivity is still Web 1.0 and has been available since the late '90s, you just needed broadband to do it.


Yeah, I know that  :P all the websites I listed are Web 2.0. Web 2.0 websites existed since the late 90s actually, it just took until 2004 when most people were on broadband for it to take off.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/25/16 at 11:29 am

You can say 2003 is the young adult, age 23-26, 2000-2002 since 2003 had a dim atmosphere. 2000-2002 at that age is still young, but  noticing interests in other things. Like club obsessed. 

I would say the growth started over in 2004 since then Hip Hop was pretty carefree, Ludacris - Get Back, Fat Joe, Terra Squad - Lean Back, Snoop Dogg - Drop It Like Its Hot and Young Buck - Shorty Wanna Ride, to name a few.

Answering the core topic, its already noted that the 2000s are the most changeful era. Wouldn't that mean the late 2000s were way shorter?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/25/16 at 12:20 pm

Well you know what I changed my mind the core 00s last from Autumn 2003-summer 2008 are the core 00s!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/25/16 at 12:22 pm


I don't see how August was the beginning of it. That whole year is real 00's but June 2004, especially, was pure real 2000's through and through.


The second half of 2004 didn't feel like the first half to me. 2003-04 season was transitioning from early-mid 00s culture. By Late summer of 2004, a total 00s world imo!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/25/16 at 12:38 pm


I think August or September 2003 is a good starting point for the core 2000's.

While June or July 2004 is a good starting point for mid 2000's culture.

I think we all understand that core =/= mid, but if early & mid 2003 is already core 2000's, you might as well include all of 2002 as part of the core 2000's as well. I think the way late 2003 is the beginning of the core 2000's is kinda like how early 2008 is the end of the core 2000's. 2004-2007 was the peak of the core 2000's without a question. 2003 was the start of core 2000's trends, but not the peak. 2008 was the end of core 2000's trends, but not the peak either.


Same. To me the core 00's culture didn't start until late (or Fall) of 2003. Summer of 2003 and before still felt early to me. Early-mid 2003 didn't feel that much different than 2002 to me.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/25/16 at 12:46 pm


Yes! Rock band was huge in the late 2000s, it also came out late 2007. I believe it bombed on the Wii though. The PS2 version was the most popular followed by the Xbox 360 version, from what I remember of sales charts from way back when.


I think your thinking about Guitar Hero. I believed that was popular on the PS2 aka 6th Gen while Rock Band was popular one X360 aka 7th Gen

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/25/16 at 12:48 pm


I thought mathematically the mid 00's started in April 2003? ???


All come on now Jordan you know I was talking about the cultural mid 2000's  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/25/16 at 12:49 pm


Well you know what I changed my mind the core 00s last from Autumn 2003-summer 2008 are the core 00s!


I'm with you on this one bro!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 12:50 pm


All come on now Jordan you know I was talking about the cultural mid 2000's  ;D


:P :P :P

I think mid 00's culture is pretty synonymous with what the core 00's is, though. 


You can say 2003 is the young adult, age 23-26, 2000-2002 since 2003 had a dim atmosphere. 2000-2002 at that age is still young, but  noticing interests in other things. Like club obsessed. 

I would say the growth started over in 2004 since then Hip Hop was pretty carefree, Ludacris - Get Back, Fat Joe, Terra Squad - Lean Back, Snoop Dogg - Drop It Like Its Hot and Young Buck - Shorty Wanna Ride, to name a few.

Answering the core topic, its already noted that the 2000s are the most changeful era. Wouldn't that mean the late 2000s were way shorter?


I agree with this. 2003 had a lot of trends from 2000-2002 so it can be seen as a more mature, focused version of that era. At the same time, one could say that 2003 was all about leaving 2000-2002 and getting us to 2004 which wouldn't be wrong. Personally, I think the core 00's trends in 2003 weren't established enough for it to be totally core 00's like it was in 2004.

Buuuuttt, the Core did come out in 2003 so maybe 2003 is the beginning of the core 2000's as this would be the era of the 2000's when The Core existed making it core 2000's as opposed to the three years before it which did not have The Core existing (which means they're not core 2000's as the core was not around in those years).

http://www.iceposter.com/thumbs/MOV_57f0f933_b.jpg


The second half of 2004 didn't feel like the first half to me. 2003-04 season was transitioning from early-mid 00s culture. By Late summer of 2004, a total 00s world imo!


All of 2004 felt the same to me, personally.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/25/16 at 1:12 pm

I agree with this. 2003 had a lot of trends from 2000-2002 so it can be seen as a more mature, focused version of that era.

Personally, I think the core 00's trends in 2003 weren't established enough for it to be totally core 00's like they it was in 2004.


Yeah haha We already described 2003. I had to write it differently so I don't sound repetitive.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/25/16 at 1:49 pm


I think your thinking about Guitar Hero. I believed that was popular on the PS2 aka 6th Gen while Rock Band was popular one X360 aka 7th Gen


They were both popular on the PS2 I believe, but I will scavenge the sales charts to make sure.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/25/16 at 4:30 pm


:P :P :P

I think mid 00's culture is pretty synonymous with what the core 00's is, though. 

I agree with this. 2003 had a lot of trends from 2000-2002 so it can be seen as a more mature, focused version of that era. At the same time, one could say that 2003 was all about leaving 2000-2002 and getting us to 2004 which wouldn't be wrong. Personally, I think the core 00's trends in 2003 weren't established enough for it to be totally core 00's like it was in 2004.


2003 was a bit more mature.  The beginnings of crunk hip-hop crossing into Top 40 were that year and the boy bands were gone.  It was mostly a transition year between the early '00s and mid '00s but by the end of '03 I think its safe to say we were in the core '00s.


Buuuuttt, the Core did come out in 2003 so maybe 2003 is the beginning of the core 2000's as this would be the era of the 2000's when The Core existed making it core 2000's as opposed to the three years before it which did not have The Core existing (which means they're not core 2000's as the core was not around in those years).

http://www.iceposter.com/thumbs/MOV_57f0f933_b.jpg



What a terrible, terrible movie.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 4:43 pm


2003 was a bit more mature.  The beginnings of crunk hip-hop crossing into Top 40 were that year and the boy bands were gone.  It was mostly a transition year between the early '00s and mid '00s but by the end of '03 I think its safe to say we were in the core '00s.


2003 still had some of that in-your-face Xtreme! vibe but I agree it was definitely more focused and mature. You already had 50 Cent and Lil Jon/Crunk (the Kurt Cobains of the 2000's) breakout right as 2003 began, things like XP started taking over thanks to SP1a, if you look at bands 2003 follow-up albums (one that were actually recorded solely in 2003) compared to 2000-2002; you'll notice the sound is more "mature" and they usually start wearing their hair over their faces, you had Fall Out Boy's debut (which helped kick start the mid 00's style) and blink-182's self-titled album (which kicked started that style even further), etc., etc.


What a terrible, terrible movie.


Terrible, terrible just like the real 2000's.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/25/16 at 9:25 pm

This whole mid vs. core thing is getting confusing. To me, early/mid/late are strictly numbers-based. So if you divide the decade by 3, you get:

Early: January 2000 through April 2003
Mid: May 2003 through August 2006
Late: September 2006 through December 2009

'Core' is culture-based and varies from decade to decade.

I'd say the transition from the Y2K era (not to be confused with early 2000s) to the core 2000s began immediately after 9/11. 2002 and 2003 were both transitional years imo, with 2002 leaning more towards the Y2K era and 2003 more towards the core 2000s. It's hard to say exactly when it ended, but core 2000s culture (defined by excess, crunk/ringtone rap, post grunge, and flip phones) was noticeably waning by 2007 and pretty much passe by 2008.

Overall, I wouldn't say the core 2000s was any shorter than other decades. I guess it just depends on how you define it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 9:35 pm

Strongly, strongly disagree with that. In my opinion, 2002 was pretty much just like 2000 and 2001 and had little to no core 00's elements at all (how can one even call 2000-2002 the real 2000's? Makes no sense to me!) whereas 2003 is the real transition when the real 2000's trends started to form and establish themselves.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/25/16 at 9:48 pm


This whole mid vs. core thing is getting confusing. To me, early/mid/late are strictly numbers-based. So if you divide the decade by 3, you get:

Early: January 2000 through April 2003
Mid: May 2003 through August 2006
Late: September 2006 through December 2009

'Core' is culture-based and varies from decade to decade.

I'd say the transition from the Y2K era (not to be confused with early 2000s) to the core 2000s began immediately after 9/11. 2002 and 2003 were both transitional years imo, with 2002 leaning more towards the Y2K era and 2003 more towards the core 2000s. It's hard to say exactly when it ended, but core 2000s culture (defined by excess, crunk/ringtone rap, post grunge, and flip phones) was noticeably waning by 2007 and pretty much passe by 2008.

Overall, I wouldn't say the core 2000s was any shorter than other decades. I guess it just depends on how you define it.


af2010 I respect your opinion on this! You make some good points about 2002 leaning towards Y2K and 2003 leaning towards core 2000's.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/25/16 at 10:39 pm


Strongly, strongly disagree with that. In my opinion, 2002 was pretty much just like 2000 and 2001 and had little to no core 00's elements at all (how can one even call 2000-2002 the real 2000's? Makes no sense to me!) whereas 2003 is the real transition when the real 2000's trends started to form and establish themselves.


You can't underestimate the impact of 9/11. There was a cloud over the country in 2002-2003 that wasn't there before. Domestic and foreign policy completely changed overnight and we're still feeling the effects of it. If you want to get into pop culture, I'll concede that pop punk didn't change that much in 2002. But teen pop was clearly on its way out. Frosted tips were on their way out. Pokemania was on its way out. All that said, I still group 2002 with the Y2K era... but I know you're pretty adamant that 2002 was a carbon copy of 1998 so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/25/16 at 10:50 pm


You can't underestimate the impact of 9/11. There was a cloud over the country in 2002-2003 that wasn't there before. Domestic and foreign policy completely changed overnight and we're still feeling the effects of it. If you want to get into pop culture, I'll concede that pop punk didn't change that much in 2002. But teen pop was clearly on its way out. Frosted tips were on their way out. Pokemania was on its way out. I know you're pretty adamant that 2002 was a carbon copy of 1998 so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


You could say things started to change, politically, once Bush got into office. Even before then, the warning signs of a terrorist attack were already pretty clear but the government just decided to ignore it. I remember fear of terrorism way before 9/11 even happened, too. One thing's for sure is that I can't say my way of life changed at all after 9/11. Cultural wise, things didn't get dark and political until 2003 when the Iraq war took place and the Bush backlash began. Teen Pop was on it's way out early on in 2001 thanks to the abundance of 1999-2000 but it still had a presence in 2001 and 2002, frosted tips were most definitely not on their way out in 2002 (2003, on the other hand, yes) and I'm not even going to mention anything about Pokemania because I've heard so many different opinions about it without really having any first hand experience with it myself. But yeah, it's fair that we agree to disagree.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/25/16 at 11:45 pm


You could say things started to change, politically, once Bush got into office. Even before then, the warning signs of a terrorist attack were already pretty clear but the government just decided to ignore it. I remember fear of terrorism way before 9/11 even happened, too. One thing's for sure is that I can't say my way of life changed at all after 9/11.


Fear of terrorism vs. an actual terrorist attack are pretty different, no? People worry about Iran and North Korea having nukes, but sh*t won't get real until one is actually dropped...

And most people's everyday lives didn't really change after 9/11, but the mood of the country certainly did.

Cultural wise, things didn't get dark and political until 2003 when the Iraq war took place and the Bush backlash began.

There was some backlash against the Iraq War but the majority of Americans supported it early on. Speaking out against it wasn't acceptable in the mainstream at the time (see the Dixie Chicks). And Bush still won in 2004. Point being, it was a gradual shift from uber-patriotism to full on backlash (and that transition was one of the defining aspects of the 00s imo).

Teen Pop was on it's way out early on in 2001 thanks to the abundance of 1999-2000 but it still had a presence in 2001 and 2002

It definitely peaked in 99/00. It was still viable in 2001. By 2002 it was downright passe.

frosted tips were most definitely not on their way out in 2002 (2003, on the other hand, yes)

Maybe not "on their way out", but it seemed like they were losing popularity in 2002, especially as the year progressed.

and I'm not even going to mention anything about Pokemania because I've heard so many different opinions about it without really having any first hand experience with it myself. But yeah, it's fair that we agree to disagree.

I was never a huge pokemon fan but I definitely heard less and less about it beginning around 2002.

We don't entirely disagree. Like I said, I still put 2002 in the Y2K era, I just think 9/11 set the stage for the core 00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/25/16 at 11:47 pm


You can't underestimate the impact of 9/11. There was a cloud over the country in 2002-2003 that wasn't there before. Domestic and foreign policy completely changed overnight and we're still feeling the effects of it. If you want to get into pop culture, I'll concede that pop punk didn't change that much in 2002. But teen pop was clearly on its way out. Frosted tips were on their way out. Pokemania was on its way out. All that said, I still group 2002 with the Y2K era... but I know you're pretty adamant that 2002 was a carbon copy of 1998 so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


The Y2K era ended in 2001.  January 2001 through September 2001 was the transition away from it and then after 9/11 it was over.  Teen pop, boy bands, Pokemania, Bill Clinton, and the dot-com boom all defined the Y2K era.  All of that phased out in 2001.  2002 and the first half of 2003 was prime early '00s culture.  By the end of 2003, we were in the core '00s.

Musically, 2002 was definitely a transition time.  We had moved away from teen pop and punk rock was really evolving at that time, but hip-hop was still in the era that begun in late 1997.  It didn't really change until 2003.  R&B was pretty big that year as well.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 12:02 am


Fear of terrorism vs. an actual terrorist attack are pretty different, no? People worry about Iran and North Korea having nukes, but sh*t won't get real until one is actually dropped...

And most people's everyday lives didn't really change after 9/11, but the mood of the country certainly did.


We were attacked in 1993, though, it was on a lesser scale. It was still a warning sign, coupled with Osama's wacky hi-jinks in the late 90's.

Everyone has different experiences. I'm not denying that the mood got dimmer whatsoever but from my experience, I don't remember any real "clouds" or pessimism during this time like I did around the time of the Iraq War when people started to get bummed out about Bush's decision. One could also argue that the Dotcom crash in 2000 also dimmed this countries mood as well (I have heard this argument countless times) but I don't agree with that, either.


There was some backlash against the Iraq War but the majority of Americans supported it early on. Speaking out against it wasn't acceptable in the mainstream at the time (see the Dixie Chicks). And Bush still won in 2004. Point being, it was a gradual shift from uber-patriotism to full on backlash (and that transition was one of the defining aspects of the 00s imo).


Despite Bush winning, I remember 2003 and 2004 having notable Iraq War and Bush backlash. Fair point about the Dickies Chicks but as 2003 progressed on, so did the backlash. The single for American Idiot was released Summer 2004 and was praised right away for "stickin' it to da man!" Even the album itself was released (to critical acclaim) a few months before the election. Everything started getting political in 2003 and it just kept getting bigger in 2004.


It definitely peaked in 99/00. It was still viable in 2001. By 2002 it was downright passe.


There was still quite a bit of Teen Pop songs on the charts in 2002.


Maybe not "on their way out", but it seemed like they were losing popularity in 2002, especially as the year progressed.


I cannot recall frosted tips losing popularity whatsoever in 2002. It felt like I was on the surface of the sun with all that hair bleach. 2003 is another story as that's when all the styles started changing.


I was never a huge pokemon fan but I definitely heard less and less about it beginning around 2002.


I heard quite a bit about it throughout 2002 because my cousins watch the show and played with the cards. I still have little to know experience with it whatsoever so I'll just leave that one alone. I've read that Pokemon's absolute peak/main era of popularity lasted from 1998-2003 but I admit, I don't know much about it to really use it as a point.


We don't entirely disagree. Like I said, I still put 2002 in the Y2K era, I just think 9/11 set the stage for the core 00s.


9/11 is just another piece of the puzzle, in my opinion (and pieces of this puzzle existed before 9/11, too). It's the idiotic decision of the Iraq War and the disappointment in Bush that really helped to kick off and establish the vibe of the real 2000's. The culture wasn't as political and protest oriented before then. There was less need for a real hero like the Dell Dude and more of a focus on pretentious crap like "We need a spokesperson to get us through these sad, dark times. :\'(" Without the Iraq War, we wouldn't have any "Rock Against Bush" or "American Idiot." Those things define the 2000's through and through.


The Y2K era ended in 2001.  January 2001 through September 2001 was the transition away from it and then after 9/11 it was over.  Teen pop, boy bands, Pokemania, Bill Clinton, and the dot-com boom all defined the Y2K era.  All of that phased out in 2001.  2002 and the first half of 2003 was prime early '00s culture.  By the end of 2003, we were in the core '00s.

Musically, 2002 was definitely a transition time.  We had moved away from teen pop and punk rock was really evolving at that time, but hip-hop was still in the era that begun in late 1997.  It didn't really change until 2003.  R&B was pretty big that year as well.


Didn't the Dotcom Boom crash in 2000? I've read that Pokemania ended in 2000 as well.

I don't think 2002 was transitional for music. You're 100% right about Hip Hop as it was still in that late 1997 era but Pop Punk was very stagnant throughout 2002 and didn't go though any changes whatsoever. Teen Pop wasn't as big as before but you could still find it on the charts and the albums/singles still had mainstream presence. RnB still had that soulful-type sound and was pretty popular, too.




Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/26/16 at 12:57 am


The Y2K era ended in 2001.  January 2001 through September 2001 was the transition away from it and then after 9/11 it was over.  Teen pop, boy bands, Pokemania, Bill Clinton, and the dot-com boom all defined the Y2K era.  All of that phased out in 2001.  2002 and the first half of 2003 was prime early '00s culture.  By the end of 2003, we were in the core '00s.

Musically, 2002 was definitely a transition time.  We had moved away from teen pop and punk rock was really evolving at that time, but hip-hop was still in the era that begun in late 1997.  It didn't really change until 2003.  R&B was pretty big that year as well.


Like I said, I think 2002 was a transitional year. It definitely wasn't 'peak' Y2K culture, but it wasn't core 00s. If I had to group it with either, I would put it with the Y2K era.


We were attacked in 1993, though, it was on a lesser scale. It was still a warning sign, coupled with Osama's wacky hi-jinks in the late 90's.

Everyone has different experiences. I'm not denying that the mood got dimmer whatsoever but from my experience, I don't remember any real "clouds" or pessimism during this time like I did around the time of the Iraq War when people started to get bummed out about Bush's decision. One could also argue that the Dotcom crash in 2000 also dimmed this countries mood as well (I have heard this argument countless times) but I don't agree with that, either.

Despite Bush winning, I remember 2003 and 2004 having notable Iraq War and Bush backlash. Fair point about the Dickies Chicks but as 2003 progressed on, so did the backlash. The single for American Idiot was released Summer 2004 and was praised right away for "stickin' it to da man!" Even the album itself was released (to critical acclaim) a few months before the election. Everything started getting political in 2003 and it just kept getting bigger in 2004.

There was still quite a bit of Teen Pop songs on the charts in 2002.

I cannot recall frosted tips losing popularity whatsoever in 2002. It felt like I was on the surface of the sun with all that hair bleach. 2003 is another story as that's when all the styles started changing.


I heard quite a bit about it throughout 2002 because my cousins watch the show and played with the cards. I still have little to know experience with it whatsoever so I'll just leave that one alone. I've read that Pokemon's absolute peak/main era of popularity lasted from 1998-2003 but I admit, I don't know much about it to really use it as a point.

9/11 is just another piece of the puzzle, in my opinion (and pieces of this puzzle existed before 9/11, too). It's the idiotic decision of the Iraq War and the disappointment in Bush that really helped to kick off and establish the vibe of the real 2000's. The culture wasn't as political and protest oriented before then. There was less need for a real hero like the Dell Dude and more of a focus on pretentious crap like "We need a spokesperson to get us through these sad, dark times. :\'(" Without the Iraq War, we wouldn't have any "Rock Against Bush" or "American Idiot." Those things define the 2000's through and through.

Didn't the Dotcom Boom crash in 2000? I've read that Pokemania ended in 2000 as well.

I don't think 2002 was transitional for music. You're 100% right about Hip Hop as it was still in that late 1997 era but Pop Punk was very stagnant throughout 2002 and didn't go though any changes whatsoever. Teen Pop wasn't as big as before but you could still find it on the charts and the albums/singles still had mainstream presence. RnB still had that soulful-type sound and was pretty popular, too.


You make some good points, but I'm not gonna go over everything because we could be here all night. I will say this: Despite the growing backlash, Bush still won the election (by a larger margin than 2000) nearly halfway into the decade... that's how much 9/11 f-d people's heads up. Again, we don't really disagree on much. I've already said that 2002 was still part of the Y2K era. I just don't think it was a carbon copy of 98-01 due to the impact of 9/11 and the gradual waning of Y2K culture.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 1:08 am


Like I said, I think 2002 was a transitional year. It definitely wasn't 'peak' Y2K culture, but it wasn't core 00s. If I had to group it with either, I would put it with the Y2K era.

You make some good points, but I'm not gonna go over everything because we could be here all night. I will say this: Despite the growing backlash, Bush still won the election (by a fairly large margin) nearly halfway through the decade. Again, we don't really disagree on much. I've already said that 2002 was still part of the Y2K era. I just don't think it was a carbon copy of 98-01 due to the impact of 9/11 and the gradual waning of Y2K culture.


Haha, yeah, this could get really tiring if we kept it going! ;D You make some fair points, too. We all have different experiences and perceive things differently which is why we view eras certain ways. I still believe 2002 is 100% core Y2K and I don't really believe the culture was waning (nor can I ever consider 2002 a year of the real 2000's like I can for 2003) but I can understand your viewpoint and why you see it slightly differently than I do. :)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 1:11 am

To me 2001 and 2002 felt the same. Didn't notice much of a difference.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 1:13 am


To me 2001 and 2002 felt the same. Didn't notice much of a difference.


What about 2000? 2000-2002 all felt the same to me.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 1:14 am


What about 2000? 2000-2002 all felt the same to me.


Well yeah all of 2000-2002 felt the same to me. I didn't notice any changes until sometime in 2003.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/26/16 at 1:17 am

It is hard to say which years are Pokemnia and which are not, because the popularity of it is multilayered.

You have the card game that had its heyday in 1999 and first half of 2000.

You had the video games which had their heyday in late 1998 to mid-2001, but arguably late 2001 as well with the release of Smash bros melee. The games that released September 2003 were also massively popular but generally not considered a fan favourite, and imo was the Pokemon craze's death kneel.

You had the TV show which was most  popular from Late 1998 to early 2001, but was still the number one kids show from mid 2001 to mid 2003.

Then you have the summer movies. There was none in 1998, the one in 1999 was the most popular, the one in 2000 was still very popular, the one in 2001 was less popular but had a theatrical release, the one in 2002 was straight to VHS and not very good.

Then you have the miscellaneous, things such as toys, calendars, clothes and other fashion items. Now personally I had a Pokemon lunchbox, a Pokemon backpack, Pokemon underwear, Pokemon undershirt, Pokemon shirts, a Pokemon hat, Pokemon calendar for multiple years, and had a Charmander plushie and Chikorita action figure that I wore and played throughout 1999-2003, I can't really say when they were popular, but they were never socially unacceptable among my age group (I was 6 - 11 in 1999-2004), and I saw many other kids donning these items throughout the years as well.

I would say 1999/2000/2001 are all Pokemania years in full, but this is debatable. Inarguably, everything centres around the year 1999, particularly the 1999-2000 school year. That is the peak of it all.

That is my Pokemon essay for the day. Seriously though, this could be its own thread  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 1:20 am


Well yeah all of 2000-2002 felt the same to me. I didn't notice any changes until sometime in 2003.


Yeah, that lines up with my experience as well. 2003 is when I really noticed all the transitions happening. 


It is hard to say which years are Pokemnia and which are not, because the popularity of it is multilayered.

You have the card game that had its heyday in 1999 and first half of 2000.

You had the video games which had their heyday in late 1998 to mid-2001, but arguably late 2001 as well with the release of Smash bros melee. The games that released September 2003 were also massively popular but generally not considered a fan favourite, and imo was the Pokemon craze's death kneel.

You had the TV show which was most  popular from Late 1998 to early 2001, but was still the number one kids show from mid 2001 to mid 2003.

Then you have the summer movies. There was none in 1998, the one in 1999 was the most popular, the one in 2000 was still very popular, the one in 2001 was less popular but had a theatrical release, the one in 2002 was straight to VHS and not very good.

Then you have the miscellaneous, things such as toys, calendars, clothes and other fashion items. Now personally I had a Pokemon lunchbox, a Pokemon backpack, Pokemon underwear, Pokemon undershirt, Pokemon shirts, a Pokemon hat, Pokemon calendar for multiple years, and had a Charmander plushie and Chikorita action figure that I wore and played throughout 1999-2003, I can't really say when they were popular, but they were never socially unacceptable among my age group (I was 6 - 11 in 1999-2004), and I saw many other kids donning these items throughout the years as well.

I would say 1999/2000/2001 are all Pokemania years in full, but this is debatable. Inarguably, everything centres around the year 1999, particularly the 1999-2000 school year. That is the peak of it all.

That is my Pokemon essay for the day. Seriously though, this could be its own thread  ;D


My lord, all these things I don't understand.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 1:27 am

Different experiences of different people in different locations at different times. This is mostly why I find it hard to talk about culture of certain years. Someone may say "this year was like this", but to me it may not be. So I end up finding it hard to believe certain things. Not saying the other person is wrong. Just that not everyone experienced things the same way.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 1:30 am


Different experiences of different people in different locations at different times. This is mostly why I find it hard to talk about culture of certain years. Someone may say "this year was like this", but to me it may not be. So I end up finding it hard to believe certain things. Not saying the other person is wrong. Just that not everyone experienced things the same way.


This is true. Everyone has their own way of looking at the world and how they balance and measure up things. When it comes to stuff like cultural eras, it's always going to be a subjective topic.

But... The important question is: When would you say Pokemania took place? I know you had a different opinion to SlowpokeMc2001 so it'd be good to hear another viewpoint.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/26/16 at 1:35 am

Pokémon was only somewhat popular when it first came out in 1998, but it exploded into a national phenomenon by spring 1999.  The trend was not quite as prevalent during most of 2000 but still very much in full swing, especially with the buildup to Gold & Silver.  The series started to fade in popularity as 2001 went on, however, and by autumn 2001, I hardly heard anybody talking about Pokémon to the same degree they did the previous two and a half years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 1:46 am


This is true. Everyone has their own way of looking at the world and how they balance and measure up things. When it comes to stuff like cultural eras, it's always going to be a subjective topic.

But... The important question is: When would you say Pokemania took place? I know you had a different opinion to SlowpokeMc2001 so it'd be good to hear another viewpoint.


Anyways Pokemania is something I'm a bit new to as well as I've never heard of it. If we're talking about popularity than that's hard. Pokemon is still really successful. Still making games that sell MILLIONS. Still going on with the TV show. Still making the comic books. Still making the toys/plushies. Still making movies. Still making Pokemon cards. People walking around with Pokemon backpacks. Still doing a lot of things that they did when they first started. And again it depends on location as well. I can't call Pokemon a fad due to it still be popular to this day. Pokemon got really big by 1999 of course. The TV show came to America by 1998, but most people didn't see it until it got on Kids WB until 1999. The games came out in late 1998 so of course there wasn't enough time for Pokemon to become a huge hit for the remainder of that year. But it got big by 1999. It's really hard for me to come up with the years for Pokmeon's peak era. It's a Y2K trend alright, but it's absolute peak didn't even last for most of the era. Mostly just 1999-2000. And it was really just 1999 when it was at a 100% peak in popularity. But in 2000-2002/3 Pokemon was still popular up until Misty left. And even then we still see the series making millions of dollars to this very day.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 2:16 am


To me 2001 and 2002 felt the same. Didn't notice much of a difference.


2001 was a very transitional year to me. It was the transition from late 90's culture to early 2000's culture in general. 2002 was just the quintessential early 2000's year, in fact, there was nothing transitional about 2002 at all, it was completely early 2000's, which continued throughout early 2003. It wasn't until very late summer 2003 when core 2000's culture took over and things started transitioning over. Overall, I still think 2002 is more related to 2003 than 2000.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 8:14 am


It is hard to say which years are Pokemnia and which are not, because the popularity of it is multilayered.

You have the card game that had its heyday in 1999 and first half of 2000.

You had the video games which had their heyday in late 1998 to mid-2001, but arguably late 2001 as well with the release of Smash bros melee. The games that released September 2003 were also massively popular but generally not considered a fan favourite, and imo was the Pokemon craze's death kneel.

You had the TV show which was most  popular from Late 1998 to early 2001, but was still the number one kids show from mid 2001 to mid 2003.

Then you have the summer movies. There was none in 1998, the one in 1999 was the most popular, the one in 2000 was still very popular, the one in 2001 was less popular but had a theatrical release, the one in 2002 was straight to VHS and not very good.

Then you have the miscellaneous, things such as toys, calendars, clothes and other fashion items. Now personally I had a Pokemon lunchbox, a Pokemon backpack, Pokemon underwear, Pokemon undershirt, Pokemon shirts, a Pokemon hat, Pokemon calendar for multiple years, and had a Charmander plushie and Chikorita action figure that I wore and played throughout 1999-2003, I can't really say when they were popular, but they were never socially unacceptable among my age group (I was 6 - 11 in 1999-2004), and I saw many other kids donning these items throughout the years as well.

I would say 1999/2000/2001 are all Pokemania years in full, but this is debatable. Inarguably, everything centres around the year 1999, particularly the 1999-2000 school year. That is the peak of it all.

That is my Pokemon essay for the day. Seriously though, this could be its own thread  ;D


Pokemonania peaked in 1999 and 2000 here in the U.S., those will always be the peak years for Pokemon, whether it was the games coming out for the Gameboy Color, Indigo League & Orange Islands, or movies like The First Movie or The Movie 2000. From what I heard, Pokemon's seasons when they were on Johto Island were no longer the peak of Pokemon, but it was still the golden age though. The TV show may have peaked in 1999 & 2000, but the show's golden age lasted from 1998-2003 though, and this applies to the U.S., so people can't just say Pokemon was completely dead from 2001-2003. Yu-Gi-Oh was actually more competitive against Pokemon than Digimon ever was. Digimon couldn't stand a chance against Pokemon. I'm not an expert on all of this because as a kid I just watched the Pokemon TV show for fun. I wasn't really into that many cards or games.

Since I'm getting tired of this Pokemon debate over and over again. For the TV show, I'll break it down into a chart like this. What I have in bold was the golden age of Pokemon, and what I have in gold was the peak of Pokemon. I might do a video game one later but I'm not sure.

1 Pokémon Series 1 (1998-2003)
1.1 Season 1: Indigo League (September 8, 1998 - November 27, 1999)
1.2 Season 2: Adventures on the Orange Islands (December 4, 1999 - October 7, 2000)
1.3 Season 3: The Johto Journeys (October 14, 2000 - May 19, 2001)

1.4 Season 4: Johto League Champions (August 18, 2001 - September 7, 2002)
1.5 Season 5: Master Quest (September 14, 2002 - October 25, 2003)


2 Pokémon Series 2: Advanced Generation (2003-2007)
2.1 Season 6: Advanced (November 1, 2003 - September 4, 2004)
2.2 Season 7: Advanced Challenge (September 11, 2004 - September 10, 2005)
2.3 Season 8: Advanced Battle (September 17, 2005 - July 8, 2006)
2.4 Season 9: Battle Frontier (September 8, 2006 - March 3, 2007)

3 Pokémon Series 3: Diamond & Pearl (2007-2011)
3.1 Season 10: Diamond and Pearl (April 20, 2007 - February 1, 2008)
3.2 Season 11: Diamond and Pearl: Battle Dimension (April 12, 2008 - May 2, 2009)
3.3 Season 12: Diamond and Pearl: Galactic Battles (May 9, 2009 - May 15, 2010)
3.4 Season 13: Diamond and Pearl: Sinnoh League Victors (June 5, 2010 - February 5, 2011)

4 Pokémon Series 4: Black & White/Best Wishes! (2011-2013)
4.1 Season 14: Black & White (February 12, 2011 - January 7, 2012)
4.2 Season 15: Black & White: Rival Destinies (February 18, 2012 - January 26, 2013)
4.3 Season 16 (Part 1): Black & White: Adventures in Unova (February 2, 2013 - July 20, 2013)
4.4 Season 16 (Part 2): Black & White: Adventures in Unova and Beyond (July 27, 2013 - December 7, 2013)

5 Pokémon Series 5: XY (2014-present)
5.1 Season 17: XY (January 18, 2014 - December 20, 2014)
5.2 Season 18: XY: Kalos Quest (February 7, 2015 - December 19, 2015)
5.3 Season 19: XYZ (December 26, 2015 - present)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/26/16 at 9:22 am


2001 was a very transitional year to me. It was the transition from late 90's culture to early 2000's culture in general. 2002 was just the quintessential early 2000's year, in fact, there was nothing transitional about 2002 at all, it was completely early 2000's, which continued throughout early 2003. It wasn't until very late summer 2003 when core 2000's culture took over and things started transitioning over. Overall, I still think 2002 is more related to 2003 than 2000.


I noticed this, to. 2000 is actually a bit different from 2001-2002, but still related to the specific years. 2000 was calmer like 2003. While 2001-2002 was more carefree, hyped.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/26/16 at 11:03 am


Anyways Pokemania is something I'm a bit new to as well as I've never heard of it. If we're talking about popularity than that's hard. Pokemon is still really successful. Still making games that sell MILLIONS. Still going on with the TV show. Still making the comic books. Still making the toys/plushies. Still making movies. Still making Pokemon cards. People walking around with Pokemon backpacks. Still doing a lot of things that they did when they first started. And again it depends on location as well. I can't call Pokemon a fad due to it still be popular to this day. Pokemon got really big by 1999 of course. The TV show came to America by 1998, but most people didn't see it until it got on Kids WB until 1999. The games came out in late 1998 so of course there wasn't enough time for Pokemon to become a huge hit for the remainder of that year. But it got big by 1999. It's really hard for me to come up with the years for Pokmeon's peak era. It's a Y2K trend alright, but it's absolute peak didn't even last for most of the era. Mostly just 1999-2000. And it was really just 1999 when it was at a 100% peak in popularity. But in 2000-2002/3 Pokemon was still popular up until Misty left. And even then we still see the series making millions of dollars to this very day.


What channel was it on before Kids WB? There might be a regional difference in popularity here, because Pokemon was always on a primetime TV slot here in Canada right from the beginning in 1998. I don't remember it taking until 1999 to become popular. I bought a Gameboy along with the game in 1998, as did a lot of other kids.  :D man that game was addicted as all hell, we couldn't put it down!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 11:07 am

All these Pokemania posts make my head spin! :D So many different opinions.


I noticed this, to. 2000 is actually a bit different from 2001-2002, but still related to the specific years. 2000 was calmer like 2003. While 2001-2002 was more carefree, hyped.


That's pretty interesting. Do you think 2000 had the same focused, mature feel as 2003 and would say it has more in common with 2001-2002 than 2003 does?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 11:11 am


All these Pokemania posts make my head spin! :D So many different opinions.


I have it completely right for the TV show, it isn't an opinion, but it's a fact.

Now as for the video games and cards I'll leave that up to everybody else.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/26/16 at 11:13 am


Pokémon was only somewhat popular when it first came out in 1998, but it exploded into a national phenomenon by spring 1999.  The trend was not quite as prevalent during most of 2000 but still very much in full swing, especially with the buildup to Gold & Silver.  The series started to fade in popularity as 2001 went on, however, and by autumn 2001, I hardly heard anybody talking about Pokémon to the same degree they did the previous two and a half years.


I can agree with this, although it was popular right from the start of 1999 over here. I like your description of it becoming less and less popular as 2001 dragged on, its decline wasn't really instantaneous. However I will say that Pokemania was still strong with the release of Pokemon Stadium 2 in the spring of 2001, that game was huge in my neighbourhood.

I even played that game through 2002/2003 LOL I almost flunked 5th grade because of that game  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/26/16 at 11:16 am


All these Pokemania posts make my head spin! :D So many different opinions.

That's pretty interesting. Do you think 2000 had the same focused, mature feel as 2003 and would say it has more in common with 2001-2002 than 2003 does?


My personal Pokemania goes from September 8, 1998 to February 26, 2016. I'm not sure when it ends actually  :D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 12:35 pm


I can agree with this, although it was popular right from the start of 1999 over here. I like your description of it becoming less and less popular as 2001 dragged on, its decline wasn't really instantaneous. However I will say that Pokemania was still strong with the release of Pokemon Stadium 2 in the spring of 2001, that game was huge in my neighbourhood.

I even played that game through 2002/2003 LOL I almost flunked 5th grade because of that game  ;D


I remember many people who didn't like Yu-Gi-Oh either during its prime. I'm 99% percent sure there were a lot of Pokemon vs. Yu-Gi-Oh debates going on like a war. Digimon had no chance. Pokemon dominated Digimon by a landslide.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 12:39 pm


What channel was it on before Kids WB? There might be a regional difference in popularity here, because Pokemon was always on a primetime TV slot here in Canada right from the beginning in 1998. I don't remember it taking until 1999 to become popular. I bought a Gameboy along with the game in 1998, as did a lot of other kids.  :D man that game was addicted as all hell, we couldn't put it down!


In the U.S. the first few episodes of season 1 were on syndication on local stations depending on your area, but later in season 1 the show premiered on Kids WB in all areas and the show skyrocketed in popularity. The show would continue premiere new episodes on Kids WB until season 8 in 2006, and since season 9 and onwards new episodes have been on Cartoon Network. However, reruns of Pokemon have been on Cartoon Network regularly since 2002, but from late 2002-mid 2006 it was only reruns that already premiered on Kids WB before.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 12:49 pm


What channel was it on before Kids WB? There might be a regional difference in popularity here, because Pokemon was always on a primetime TV slot here in Canada right from the beginning in 1998. I don't remember it taking until 1999 to become popular. I bought a Gameboy along with the game in 1998, as did a lot of other kids.  :D man that game was addicted as all hell, we couldn't put it down!


Before that it aired in syndicated. On what channels it was syndicated for I have no idea. No one ever seems to mention. Most people just mention the show in 1999. Then it started airing on channels lie Cartoon Network as well.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/26/16 at 3:13 pm


All these Pokemania posts make my head spin! :D So many different opinions.

That's pretty interesting. Do you think 2000 had the same focused, mature feel as 2003 and would say it has more in common with 2001-2002 than 2003 does?


Yeah, 2000 definitely has more in common with 2001-2002. 2000 wasn't as calm as 2003, but still calmer, more mature than 2001-2002.

As far as the Pokemania, its not serious to where you should take notes. Just know that Pokémon was the G.O.A.T during The Late-Early 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 3:15 pm


Yeah, 2000 definitely has more in common with 2001-2002. 2000 wasn't as calm as 2003, but still calmer, more mature than 2001-2002.


Oh, ok. That's a pretty interesting perspective! Any particular reason why you think this? I've always seen 2000 as a pretty in-your-face Xtreme! year on par with 2001 and 2002.


As far as the Pokemania, its not serious to where you should take notes. Just know that Pokémon was the G.O.A.T during The Late-Early 2000s.


Hahaha, that's a relief. Safe to say the GOAT's years for Pokemon are 1998-2003? I can live with that!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 3:31 pm


Oh, ok. That's a pretty interesting perspective! Any particular reason why you think this? I've always seen 2000 as a pretty in-your-face Xtreme! year on par with 2001 and 2002.


2000 was still pretty Xtreme! The Xtreme culture was pretty consistent all the up to 2002/3. When doing a bit of internet searching there were a lot of Xtreme things in 2000 alright. TV shows, commercials, Games, Food, clothing, Tony Hawk etc. I made a post in one of the other threads that talks about some of the big things of the Xtreme era. I've noticed that the popularity was consistent between 1998-2003. The full era can be said to be 1995-2004 (2nd half of the 1990s to the 1st half of the 2000s). But the main era is about 1:1 with the Y2K era of 1998-2003.

Hahaha, that's a relief. Safe to say the GOAT's years for Pokemon are 1998-2003? I can live with that!


Well yeah I've noticed Pokemon began to go off a bit in terms of popularity after Misty left in late 2003.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/26/16 at 3:36 pm


Oh, ok. That's a pretty interesting perspective! Any particular reason why you think this? I've always seen 2000 as a pretty in-your-face Xtreme! year on par with 2001 and 2002.

Hahaha, that's a relief. Safe to say the GOAT's years for Pokemon are 1998-2003? I can live with that!


Since I'm exposed to Hip Hop and R&B, the specific music genres of that year were more adult toned, calm. Aside from DMX who was pretty hyper. The tone genres of music released that year blended and made the feel calm majority of that year for me. I would get the extreme vibe every time I watch Dragon Ball Z though.

Yeah haha My bad for the error. Meant to say Late 90s-Early 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/26/16 at 5:47 pm

It's been said before, but the 00s seemed to me like one of the most rapid, changeful decades ever.

Take this for example. If someone on a forum said "Man, I remember playing Sonic Heroes while watching Teen Titans and rocking out to Blink-182, good times, good times", hundreds of other people would probably join in with him, talking about how much they miss 2003 and how it was so long ago.

But then, if that guy said "Man, I miss playing Minecraft while listening to Justin Bieber, those were good times", the responses would've been "What are you, 12 years old? That was basically yesterday" - despite 2009 only being FIVE years away from 2003

Why did the world become so shiny, hi-tech, and "modern" so fast? How can 2003 be a nostalgic, distant memory, but 2009 be modern garbage? Only five years had passed between then. Was it the rise of iPhones and HD-TV, perhaps?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/26/16 at 5:49 pm


It's been said before, but the 00s seemed to me like one of the most rapid, changeful decades ever.

Take this for example. If someone on a forum said "Man, I remember playing Sonic Heroes while watching Teen Titans and rocking out to Blink-182, good times, good times", hundreds of other people would probably join in with him.

But then, if that guy said "Man, I miss playing Minecraft while listening to Justin Bieber, those were good times", the responses would've been "What are you, 12 years old?" - despite 2009 only being FIVE years away from 2003

Why did the world become so shiny, hi-tech, and "modern" so fast? How can 2003 be a nostalgic, distant memory, but 2009 be newfag garbage? Only five years had passed between then. Was it the rise of iPhones and HD-TV, perhaps?


Minecraft and Justin Bieber (unless you lived in Canada) weren't even popular until the chronological early 2010s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/26/16 at 6:24 pm


It's been said before, but the 00s seemed to me like one of the most rapid, changeful decades ever.

Take this for example. If someone on a forum said "Man, I remember playing Sonic Heroes while watching Teen Titans and rocking out to Blink-182, good times, good times", hundreds of other people would probably join in with him, talking about how much they miss 2003 and how it was so long ago.

But then, if that guy said "Man, I miss playing Minecraft while listening to Justin Bieber, those were good times", the responses would've been "What are you, 12 years old? That was basically yesterday" - despite 2009 only being FIVE years away from 2003

Why did the world become so shiny, hi-tech, and "modern" so fast? How can 2003 be a nostalgic, distant memory, but 2009 be modern garbage? Only five years had passed between then. Was it the rise of iPhones and HD-TV, perhaps?


Well yeah. To me the 1990s-2000s are probably the times where we had rapid changes. The 1980s and 2010s are more consistent thankfully. 2008-2009 can be seen as when the 2010's culture was beginning which is why everyone in the 2010s says that the late '00s feels recent. 2003 didn't have any 2010s culture in it which is why it feels very old/outdated (and 2003 was 13 years ago). The rise of HD TVs and iphones may have took part in making 2009 feel recent. Remember that HD didn't get really popular until the late '00s. But it wasn't until the 2010s where pretty much everyone had an HD TV. Same case with the Iphones. The late '00s pretty much set things up for what the '10s will be like. In 2003 iphones and HD TVs weren't popular. People were still using 480i CRT TVs and Nokia phones. But soon enough 2009 will feel pretty old by the time we reach the late '10s. I may be wrong about this, but I can see the 2000s as a whole being outdated by the time we 2019-2020. New culture trends will form leaving the 2010's cultural trends behind. And also making the 2000's (specifically the late '00s) cultural trends even more outdated looking.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/26/16 at 7:57 pm

The core 2000s were not 2004-2006 to me. I see it as 2003-2008. But the main core year was 2005.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 8:13 pm


The core 2000s were not 2004-2006 to me. I see it as 2003-2008. But the main core year was 2005.


I can respect your opinion on this. I consider 2004-2007 as the peak of core 2000's, with 2003 being the transition from millennial era to core 2000's, and 2008 being the transition from core 2000's to electropop.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/26/16 at 8:23 pm


The core 2000s were not 2004-2006 to me. I see it as 2003-2008. But the main core year was 2005.


Yeah, it was simply the most 2000s year of the decade. It was everywhere back then, with pop culture barely sharing any resemblances to the 90s. But they were good times to me.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/26/16 at 11:29 pm


Since I'm exposed to Hip Hop and R&B, the specific music genres of that year were more adult toned, calm. Aside from DMX who was pretty hyper. The tone genres of music released that year blended and made the feel calm majority of that year for me. I would get the extreme vibe every time I watch Dragon Ball Z though.

Yeah haha My bad for the error. Meant to say Late 90s-Early 2000s.


Oh, I definitely see why! By the way, I've been meaning to ask since you're pretty Hip Hop/RnB-savvy, when would you say the styles started to change and get more mid-2000's like? I'm thinking 2003, personally, but I want to hear your opinion.

Don't worry, I got ya' man! ;)


2000 was still pretty Xtreme! The Xtreme culture was pretty consistent all the up to 2002/3. When doing a bit of internet searching there were a lot of Xtreme things in 2000 alright. TV shows, commercials, Games, Food, clothing, Tony Hawk etc. I made a post in one of the other threads that talks about some of the big things of the Xtreme era. I've noticed that the popularity was consistent between 1998-2003. The full era can be said to be 1995-2004 (2nd half of the 1990s to the 1st half of the 2000s). But the main era is about 1:1 with the Y2K era of 1998-2003. 
 

Yeah, definitely. From my experience 2000 was still very much an Xtreme! year. Especially, if you're into a lot of Rock music, with all the Nu Metal, Pop Punk and Post-Grunge dominating the airwaves. You're totally right about how 1995-2004 is the entire era and how it's peak was during the core Y2K era.


Well yeah I've noticed Pokemon began to go off a bit in terms of popularity after Misty left in late 2003.


Yeah, this is definitely what I've been hearing a lot. The GOAT did not want to eat that grass no more after Misty left the show.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/26/16 at 11:51 pm


Well yeah. To me the 1990s-2000s are probably the times where we had rapid changes. The 1980s and 2010s are more consistent thankfully. 2008-2009 can be seen as when the 2010's culture was beginning which is why everyone in the 2010s says that the late '00s feels recent. 2003 didn't have any 2010s culture in it which is why it feels very old/outdated (and 2003 was 13 years ago). The rise of HD TVs and iphones may have took part in making 2009 feel recent. Remember that HD didn't get really popular until the late '00s. But it wasn't until the 2010s where pretty much everyone had an HD TV. Same case with the Iphones. The late '00s pretty much set things up for what the '10s will be like. In 2003 iphones and HD TVs weren't popular. People were still using 480i CRT TVs and Nokia phones. But soon enough 2009 will feel pretty old by the time we reach the late '10s. I may be wrong about this, but I can see the 2000s as a whole being outdated by the time we 2019-2020. New culture trends will form leaving the 2010's cultural trends behind. And also making the 2000's (specifically the late '00s) cultural trends even more outdated looking.

Now,Kid culture wise it was INDEED Rapid! But the Overall changes did not get drastic until the later years... And compared to the 90s it was nowhere near as changeful!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 12:24 am

Actually, they weren't as some people have got confused with core being the middle. While the mid 00s started in 2004, the core actually began in 2001. If we look at the decade in general, there are some things that tie the era together.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/27/16 at 8:34 am


Oh, I definitely see why! By the way, I've been meaning to ask since you're pretty Hip Hop/RnB-savvy, when would you say the styles started to change and get more mid-2000's like? I'm thinking 2003, personally, but I want to hear your opinion.

Don't worry, I got ya' man! ;)


Yeah, definitely 2003 in general to be honest. The Hip Hop released then sound very different from 2000-2002 Hip Hop. Aside from Dilemma by Nelly. I would add the R&B, to. 2000-2002 Hip Hop is way more colorful. While 2003 Hip Hop is dim. If you noticed, 2000-2002 is that 9:00am morning in your face, wake up exclusively day time Hip Hop and 2003 that after school evening to 7:00pm Hip Hop Haha

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 9:47 am


Actually, they weren't as some people have got confused with core being the middle. While the mid 00s started in 2004, the core actually began in 2001. If we look at the decade in general, there are some things that tie the era together.


Well, there were still some 90s vibes during the early 2000s, but I guess it makes sense to you. I wouldn't really think the core 2000s started off until 2003 at the earliest, since that's when DVDs and broadband Internet started to rise up in sales.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 9:54 am


Well, there were still some 90s vibes during the early 2000s, but I guess it makes sense to you. I wouldn't really think the core 2000s started off until 2003 at the earliest, since that's when DVDs and broadband Internet started to rise up in sales.
I understand that, but we need to remember the core of a decade is longer than any portion. There were some things in 2001 that were there in 2008.


Yeah, definitely 2003 in general to be honest. The Hip Hop released then sound very different from 2000-2002 Hip Hop. Aside from Dilemma by Nelly. I would add the R&B, to. 2000-2002 Hip Hop is way more colorful. While 2003 Hip Hop is dim. If you noticed, 2000-2002 is that 9:00am morning in your face, wake up exclusively day time Hip Hop and 2003 that after school evening to 7:00pm Hip Hop Haha
I see 2003 as a mix. There are some songs that do have the morning atmosphere. The evening phase was definitely there later in the year though.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 9:57 am


I understand that, but we need to remember the core of a decade is longer than any portion. There were some things in 2001 that were there in 2008.


So when do you think the core 2000s last?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 10:23 am


So when do you think the core 2000s last?
2009. I still saw 00s elements throughout the 2008-09.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 10:27 am


2009. I still saw 00s elements throughout the 2008-09.


I meant how long the core 2000s were.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 10:28 am


I meant how long the core 2000s were.
7 or 8 years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/27/16 at 10:36 am


Oh, I definitely see why! By the way, I've been meaning to ask since you're pretty Hip Hop/RnB-savvy, when would you say the styles started to change and get more mid-2000's like? I'm thinking 2003, personally, but I want to hear your opinion.

Don't worry, I got ya' man! ;)
 

Yeah, definitely. From my experience 2000 was still very much an Xtreme! year. Especially, if you're into a lot of Rock music, with all the Nu Metal, Pop Punk and Post-Grunge dominating the airwaves. You're totally right about how 1995-2004 is the entire era and how it's peak was during the core Y2K era.

Yeah, this is definitely what I've been hearing a lot. The GOAT did not want to eat that grass no more after Misty left the show.


What's up, TheEarly00sGuy.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 10:41 am




What's up, TheEarly00sGuy.


;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 10:44 am




What's up, TheEarly00sGuy.



;D



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

TheEarly90sGuy, TheEarly00s Guy and TheEarly10sGuy  ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 10:44 am


7 or 8 years.


So, it's like 2001 to early 2009?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 10:54 am


So, it's like 2001 to early 2009?
yeah, but late 2001 to early '09. The 2000-01 year still had those Y2K elements.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:02 am


yeah, but late 2001 to early '09. The 2000-01 year still had those Y2K elements.


So, from the 2001-02 school year to the 2008-09 school year were the core '00s. Well, I guess it might make sense. I mean, that was when Bush Jr's presidency took place.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 11:07 am


So, from the 2001-02 school year to the 2008-09 school year were the core '00s. Well, I guess it might make sense. I mean, that was when Bush Jr's presidency took place.
That's right! Not just his presidency, but there are other things as well such as the 6th generation, certain fashion, technology etc.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:09 am


That's right! Not just his presidency, but there are other things as well such as the 6th generation, certain fashion, technology etc.


As in the 6th generation of video games? But wasn't the 7th generation also part of the core '00s, according to your information?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 11:14 am


As in the 6th generation of video games? But wasn't the 7th generation also part of the core '00s, according to your information?
yes. Both of them especially considering that they were together for a few years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:23 am


yes. Both of them especially considering that they were together for a few years.


On the top of that, was the Y2K era a transition for the core '00s? I mean, I thought 1998-early 2003 was a transition for the '00s. But since you put late 2001-early 2003 as the core '00s, I don't know if I should digress.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 11:25 am

I don't think the year 2002 is what comes to mind when people think "2000s", so it's difficult for me to say it is core. It is definitely closer to the core 2000s than 2000/2001 though, a lot of the technology was introduced.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:28 am


I don't think the year 2002 is what comes to mind when people think "2000s", so it's difficult for me to say it is core. It is definitely closer to the core 2000s than 2000/2001 though, a lot of the technology was introduced.


It comes to mind whenever I think about the early 2000s, but not the core 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 11:29 am


I don't think the year 2002 is what comes to mind when people think "2000s", so it's difficult for me to say it is core. It is definitely closer to the core 2000s than 2000/2001 though, a lot of the technology was introduced.


A lot more technology was actually introduced in 2000 and 2001 than in 2002 but didn't really take effect and rise into popularity until 2003-2004. Calling 2002 "core 00's" is sacrilege! >:(

;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:30 am


A lot more technology was actually introduced in 2000 and 2001 than in 2002 but didn't really take effect and rise into popularity until 2003-2004.


Hey Jordan, what do you think of Mcrash saying that late 2001 - early 2009 is the core 2000s?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 11:33 am


On the top of that, was the Y2K era a transition for the core '00s? I mean, I thought 1998-early 2003 was a transition for the '00s. But since you put late 2001-early 2003 as the core '00s, I don't know if I should digress.
Well late 01 to early 03 is the early 00s, but the core portion is almost the entire era.

Yes it was. The Y2K era was the bridge between the core 90s and the core 00s. It took 2 years for that transition.

Just a note, the core of a decade includes all parts of the time period, not just the middle.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 11:34 am


Hey Jordan, what do you think of Mcrash saying that late 2001 - early 2009 is the core 2000s?


I see his point but I disagree. I can understand why he'd say this because of politics (though, UU's presidency started in early 01 and the Iraq War hadn't even started until 2003) but fashion was still very Y2K and core 00's technology (XP, the iPod, etc.) didn't take off until 2003 or 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 11:38 am


I don't think the year 2002 is what comes to mind when people think "2000s", so it's difficult for me to say it is core. It is definitely closer to the core 2000s than 2000/2001 though, a lot of the technology was introduced.

It may not be core but it definitely comes to mind when I think of the 2000s. All of the early 2000s are the 2000s to me and a part of my childhood. The 90s were a different decade. Even the late 90s has some 00's in it with the Y2K and teen pop stuff.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 11:39 am


It may not be core but it definitely comes to mind when I think of the 2000s. All of the early 2000s are the 2000s to me and a part of my childhood. The 90s were a different decade.


2000 included?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:40 am


Well late 01 to early 03 is the early 00s, but the core portion is almost the entire era.

Yes it was. The Y2K era was the bridge between the core 90s and the core 00s. It took 2 years for that transition.

Just a note, the core of a decade includes all parts of the time period, not just the middle.


Well, I thought the core 2000s was simply 2003 to mid 2008, according to some people here. But now that you mention it, it does makes sense, since early-mid 2009 still felt like the 2000s. Especially when 9/11 simply started the core '00s to most people, especially the general population of the Internet.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 11:40 am


2000 included?

Yes, 2000-2009 are the 2000s. 2000 is a 2000s year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 11:40 am


I see his point but I disagree. I can understand why he'd say this because of politics (though, UU's presidency started in early 01 and the Iraq War hadn't even started until 2003) but fashion was still very Y2K and core 00's technology (XP, the iPod, etc.) didn't take off until 2003 or 2004.
It's more than just the politics. There were many things that tie the era together.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 11:42 am

2000 may have totally different culture than 2005. But that doesn't mean the year 2000 isn't a part of the 00's. The same goes for all other years in their respective decade.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 11:43 am


It may not be core but it definitely comes to mind when I think of the 2000s. All of the early 2000s are the 2000s to me and a part of my childhood. The 90s were a different decade.


Well, yeah, you're thinking of your childhood. But when people think up a stereotypical 2000s, they are not exactly talking about dial-up internet, VHS, CRT computers and phone booths are they  :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:43 am


It may not be core but it definitely comes to mind when I think of the 2000s. All of the early 2000s are the 2000s to me and a part of my childhood. The 90s were a different decade. Even the late 90s has some 00's in it with the Y2K and teen pop stuff.


1999 was the most '00s year of all the 90s. But with the teen pop bands, it's debatable. In my opinion, I don't really think late 90s boy bands are related with the early '00s, since they were starting to get unpopular around 2001/2002.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 11:45 am


Well, yeah, you're thinking of your childhood. But when people think up a stereotypical 2000s, they are not exactly talking about dial-up internet, VHS, CRT computers and phone booths are they  :P

All of those stuff are relevant to the 2000s, not just in my childhood because they were popular in the early 2000s. Plus, some of those things carried forward to the mid 00's as well.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 11:48 am


Yes, 2000-2009 are the 2000s. 2000 is a 2000s year.


We are talking about the core 2000s though, not just 2000s. The 2000s decade spans from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 of course. No one is doubting that.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 11:49 am


We are talking about the core 2000s though, not just 2000s. The 2000s decade spans from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 of course. No one is doubting that.


The 2000's started on January 1st, 2000?!?!?!?! :o

That's a crazy idea!!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:49 am


2000 may have totally different culture than 2005. But that doesn't mean the year 2000 isn't a part of the 00's. The same goes for all other years in their respective decade.


Well, Mcrash said that 2000 was like a transition from the core 90s to core '00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 11:51 am


All of those stuff are relevant to the 2000s, not just in my childhood because they were popular in the early 2000s. Plus, some of those things carried forward to the mid 00's as well.


Sorry dude, but no one is thinking "Aahhh, remember the 2000s when were dancing to Bye Bye Bye and the Mambo #5 and humming the dial-up sound?"  ;D They're not stereotypical 2000s years and neither is 2009.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 11:52 am


We are talking about the core 2000s though, not just 2000s. The 2000s decade spans from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 of course. No one is doubting that.

That's what I said in my original post. "2000 may not be core but I still think of it as a 2000s year". I never said it was core. But it's still an 00's year and there are elements that relate to the 2000s decade.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:54 am


Sorry dude, but no one is thinking "Aahhh, remember the 2000s when were dancing to Bye Bye Bye and the Mambo #5 and humming the dial-up sound?"  ;D They're not stereotypical 2000s years and neither is 2009.


They were more late 90s, but I think he was talking about VHS, CRT TVs, and phone booths still existing in the mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 11:54 am


Well, Mcrash said that 2000 was like a transition from the core 90s to core '00s.
Yeah along with late 1999 and most of 2001.


Well, I thought the core 2000s was simply 2003 to mid 2008, according to some people here. But now that you mention it, it does makes sense, since early-mid 2009 still felt like the 2000s. Especially when 9/11 simply started the core '00s to most people, especially the general population of the Internet.
It think it's because some people have gotten confused with the terms core and middle.


It may not be core but it definitely comes to mind when I think of the 2000s. All of the early 2000s are the 2000s to me and a part of my childhood. The 90s were a different decade. Even the late 90s has some 00's in it with the Y2K and teen pop stuff.
It's mainly just 1999. Even throughout the late 90s, there wasn't much teen pop. Yes, it was there in 1997 and '98; however, the other genres still ruled the charts.


1999 was the most '00s year of all the 90s. But with the teen pop bands, it's debatable. In my opinion, I don't really think late 90s boy bands are related with the early '00s, since they were starting to get unpopular around 2001/2002.
It's not just an opinion, but fact as well. I looked at the 2001 and 2002 charts and there really wasn't any boy bands there like in 1999 and 2000. The list has the other genres alot more.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 11:55 am


Sorry dude, but no one is thinking "Aahhh, remember the 2000s when were dancing to Bye Bye Bye and humming the dial-up sound?"  ;D They're not stereotypical 2000s years and neither is 2009.

If it happened in the 2000s then yes they would. Bye Bye Bye is 2000s because that craze was in the mellenium era, same as Oops and all other songs that came out in 2000. We were already in the next mellenium when this came out, and this culture was different from the mid 90s. I lump the Y2K era with the 2000s not the 90s, but of course it still isn't core 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 11:57 am


It's not just an opinion, but fact as well. I looked at the 2001 and 2002 charts and there really wasn't any boy bands there like in 1999 and 2000. The list has the other genres alot more.


Well damn. I never knew people actually moved on after 2000 with boy bands. That seems interesting to know about.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 11:57 am

Teen pop was still pretty big in early 2001. We played loads of teen pop and Latin pop at my 8th birthday party in February 2001 :D NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Ricky Martin, we had it all ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 12:00 pm


Teen pop was still pretty big in early 2001. We played loads of teen pop and Latin pop at my 8th birthday party in February 2001 :D NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Ricky Martin, we had it all ;D


Britney Spears was still popular during the core '00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 12:05 pm


Britney Spears was still popular during the core '00s.


Yes. I am talking about her hit songs Oops! I Did It Again, Lucky and Baby Hit Me One More Time. The album she released at the end of the year (I'm a Slave 4 U) was less teen pop.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 12:06 pm


Yes. I am talking about her hit songs Oops! I Did It Again, Lucky and Baby Hit Me One More Time. The album she released at the end of the year was less teen pop.


That album still has some elements of Teen Pop. In The Zone is when she completely broke away from that sound.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 12:08 pm


Teen pop was still pretty big in early 2001. We played loads of teen pop and Latin pop at my 8th birthday party in February 2001 :D NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Ricky Martin, we had it all ;D
Ricky Martin isn't teen pop. He was part of the Latin pop explosion.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 12:12 pm


Ricky Martin isn't teen pop. He was part of the Latin pop explosion.


Yes, that is why I said "and Latin pop"  :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 1:11 pm


Well, I thought the core 2000s was simply 2003 to mid 2008, according to some people here. But now that you mention it, it does makes sense, since early-mid 2009 still felt like the 2000s. Especially when 9/11 simply started the core '00s to most people, especially the general population of the Internet.


That's usually the case since a lot of popular things that can define the core era were getting popular from 2003-2008.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/27/16 at 1:13 pm


Sorry dude, but no one is thinking "Aahhh, remember the 2000s when were dancing to Bye Bye Bye and the Mambo #5 and humming the dial-up sound?"  ;D They're not stereotypical 2000s years and neither is 2009.


When the majority of the people talk about the 2000's decade, they talk about stuff that were relevant from 2003/2004-2009. No one talks about stuff that were relevant from 2000-2002/2003. Only 9/11, Bush becoming president, or the Iraq War are exceptions. When it come to politics or the world they'll talk about stuff from pretty much the whole 2000's, but when it comes to the pop culture and technology people focus on 2004-2009 only. I can feel Slim's pain though, I can't stand it when people, especially some hypocrites who criticize the 2000's always lumps the early 2000's (2000-2003) with the 90's, which I can't stand myself. However, when people have conversations about the stuff that mainly impacted the 2000's, keep in mind that people are referring the core 2000's and even late 2000's too. NOT the early 2000's or millennial era.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 1:19 pm

I'm still confused on what Y2K is supposed to mean now. Kind of making me wonder what's the point of even using the term "Y2K" if there is no real 100% agreed upon definition of what it's supposed to be.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 1:25 pm


Yes, that is why I said "and Latin pop"  :P
My bad. For some reason I didn't see it.


When the majority of the people talk about the 2000's decade, they talk about stuff that were relevant from 2003/2004-2009. No one talks about stuff that were relevant from 2000-2002/2003. Only 9/11, Bush becoming president, or the Iraq War are exceptions. When it come to politics or the world they'll talk about stuff from pretty much the whole 2000's, but when it comes to the pop culture and technology people focus on 2004-2009 only. I can feel Slim's pain though, I can't stand it when people, especially some hypocrites who criticize the 2000's always lumps the early 2000's (2000-2003) with the 90's, which I can't stand myself. However, when people have conversations about the stuff that mainly impacted the 2000's, keep in mind that people are referring the core 2000's and even late 2000's too. NOT the early 2000's or millennial era.



That's usually the case since a lot of popular things that can define the core era were getting popular from 2003-2008.
but the early 00s are part of the core era as well. There were some things that were popular in late 2001 and '02 that define the time period.


I'm still confused on what Y2K is supposed to mean now. Kind of making me wonder what's the point of even using the term "Y2K" if there is no real 100% agreed upon definition of what it's supposed to be.
The definition is the era referring close to 2000. The time period consists of 3/4 years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 1:27 pm


When the majority of the people talk about the 2000's decade, they talk about stuff that were relevant from 2003/2004-2009. No one talks about stuff that were relevant from 2000-2002/2003. Only 9/11, Bush becoming president, or the Iraq War are exceptions. When it come to politics or the world they'll talk about stuff from pretty much the whole 2000's, but when it comes to the pop culture and technology people focus on 2004-2009 only. I can feel Slim's pain though, I can't stand it when people, especially some hypocrites who criticize the 2000's always lumps the early 2000's (2000-2003) with the 90's, which I can't stand myself. However, when people have conversations about the stuff that mainly impacted the 2000's, keep in mind that people are referring the core 2000's and even late 2000's too. NOT the early 2000's or millennial era.


Guess due to them hating the 2000s. Due to liking 2000-2002/3 they don't want to put it in the same group as the rest of the 2000s which just sounds very strange to me. In other words if it's an old/good era than it must be part of the 1990s. I tend to get annoyed of this as well at times. Anything between Jan 1st 2000 to Dec 31st 2009 belongs to the 2000s. Can't argue against that.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/27/16 at 1:27 pm


I'm still confused on what Y2K is supposed to mean now. Kind of making me wonder what's the point of even using the term "Y2K" if there is no real 100% agreed upon definition of what it's supposed to be.


Some people on here think Y2K culture means late 90's culture only. Some people on here including me and Jordan believe that Y2K culture means late 90's & early 2000's culture combined together. Some people on here believe that Y2K culture is separate in between late 90's and early 2000's.

Like I know some people who think that late 1996-mid 1998 is late 90's culture, late 1998-mid 2001 is Y2K/millennial culture, and late 2001-mid 2003 is early 2000's culture.

Jordan & I believe that the peak of Y2K/millennial lasted from 1998-2002, basically late 90's and early 2000's culture combined together, with 1997 being the transition from core 90's to Y2K/millennial, and 2003 being the transition from Y2K/millennial to core 2000's.

Others believe that Y2K/millennial is the exact same as late 90's culture only, which to them started in late 1997 and ended in 2001 when 9/11 happened.

I don't know of anybody on here who believes that Y2K/millennial means early 2000's culture only.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 1:29 pm

1999/2000 are the undeniable Y2K years. You can stretch that backward and forward however you like for whatever years you feel have a similar vibe.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/27/16 at 1:31 pm


1999/2000 are the undeniable Y2K years. You can stretch that backward and forward however you like for whatever years you feel have a similar vibe.


I agree, although, when it comes to late 90's culture, IMO I'd consider 1999 as the quintessential year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 1:33 pm


but the early 00s are part of the core era as well. There were some things that were popular in late 2001 and '02 that define the time period.

Most people tend to not see 2001-2002 as core era or years that define the core 2000s.


The definition is the era referring close to 2000. The time period consists of 3/4 years.


Odd as I was told it meant both the Late '90s and Early '00s cultural eras. Seems to be having differing definitions again I guess.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 1:40 pm


Some people on here think Y2K culture means late 90's culture only. Some people on here including me and Jordan believe that Y2K culture means late 90's & early 2000's culture combined together. Some people on here believe that Y2K culture is separate in between late 90's and early 2000's.

Like I know some people who think that late 1996-mid 1998 is late 90's culture, late 1998-mid 2001 is Y2K/millennial culture, and late 2001-mid 2003 is early 2000's culture.

Jordan & I believe that the peak of Y2K/millennial lasted from 1998-2002, basically late 90's and early 2000's culture combined together, with 1997 being the transition from core 90's to Y2K/millennial, and 2003 being the transition from Y2K/millennial to core 2000's.

Others believe that Y2K/millennial is the exact same as late 90's culture only, which to them started in late 1997 and ended in 2001 when 9/11 happened.

I don't know of anybody on here who believes that Y2K/millennial means early 2000's culture only.


Yeah, I thought Y2K/milennial meant both Late '90s AND early '00s. As mentioned before the late '90s to me culturally began in 1998 which is why I start Y2K in 1998. The early '00s can be said to end in 2002/2003 which is why I give the year span of 1998-2002/3. I ask this one more time. If Y2K is supposed to just be to referring to late '90s culture then why the heck don't we just call it late '90s era or simply late '90s?! No point in giving it another name like "Y2K (which isn't even a late 1990s year)" when you just can call it late '90s. That can bring confusion. Late '90s culture can be said to end in 2001, but the early '00s culture was still going on until it ended sometime in 2003. To me Y2K is both Late '90s/early '00s so I end it on where both of the late '90s AND early '00s culture disappears which is in 2003. 1998-2002 is the peak era with 1997 and 2003 being the transitional years. And to me Y2K is not separate from the late '90s and early '00s as to me it's combination of both.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 1:42 pm

I personally think of the late 90's and early 00's as nearly the same thing but if we were to split them up it'd be this:

1998-1999 - late 90's

2000-2002 - early 00's.

Simple.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/27/16 at 2:07 pm


1999/2000 are the undeniable Y2K years. You can stretch that backward and forward however you like for whatever years you feel have a similar vibe.


This is my opinion of it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/27/16 at 4:23 pm

The thing I don't get is why do people say the early 2000s are more 90s just because it's grouped with the late 90s? Why can't you say the late 90s are the 2000s if you use that same thinking? I understand the late 90s/early 00's are one era, but everyone seems to lump it into the 90s and I don't know why. I see it more 00's than 90s, 90s are more the beggining of internet or no internet at all and grunge culture.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/27/16 at 4:35 pm


The thing I don't get is why do people say the early 2000s are more 90s just because it's grouped with the late 90s? Why can't you say the late 90s are the 2000s if you use that same thinking? I understand the late 90s/early 00's are one era, but everyone seems to lump it into the 90s and I don't know why. I see it more 00's than 90s, 90s are more the beggining of internet or no internet at all and grunge culture.


I mean, things like Bill Clinton still being President of the United States, the Dot Com Bubble, and millennial boybands are pretty heavily associated with the 90s, but you do have a very valid point.  I always thought George W. Bush becoming President, the end of the Dot Com Boom, 9/11, the takeoff of sixth generation video games, the decline of teen pop, and the release of movies like Shrek, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone put society squarely in a 2000s world and severed any lingering ties to the true 90s.  The 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 school years were both highly transformative in moving us away from classic 90s influences and laying the foundations for what would become the 2000s.  2001, for example, seems a lot farther from 1995 than just 6 years, in my opinion.

People here seem to focus on how shows like Friends, Rugrats, and Frasier were still on television during the early 2000s, as well as fashion not being that different from the late 90s (for the record, things like sweatpants and curtained hair started to decline around that time, while long straightened hair on women grew big after Avril Lavigne became famous).  They also point to things like the first Shrek movie, Halo, and the GameCube as still having a "Y2K feel" to them, which I think makes no sense.  I will admit that there are a fair deal of similarities between the early 2000s and late 90s, but that doesn't make the two periods practically identical in terms of popular culture; the differences are all too overlooked.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/27/16 at 6:14 pm


Britney Spears was still popular during the core '00s.


She was too busy getting married for less than a day and shaving her head.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/27/16 at 7:09 pm


I personally think of the late 90's and early 00's as nearly the same thing but if we were to split them up it'd be this:

1998-1999 - late 90's

2000-2002 - early 00's.

Simple.

So none of 2003 is in your early 00s section? ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/27/16 at 7:12 pm


I mean, things like Bill Clinton still being President of the United States, the Dot Com Bubble, and millennial boybands are pretty heavily associated with the 90s, but you do have a very valid point.  I always thought George W. Bush becoming President, the end of the Dot Com Boom, 9/11, the takeoff of sixth generation video games, the decline of teen pop, and the release of movies like Shrek, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone put society squarely in a 2000s world and severed any lingering ties to the true 90s.  The 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 school years were both highly transformative in moving us away from classic 90s influences and laying the foundations for what would become the 2000s.  2001, for example, seems a lot farther from 1995 than just 6 years, in my opinion.

People here seem to focus on how shows like Friends, Rugrats, and Frasier were still on television during the early 2000s, as well as fashion not being that different from the late 90s (for the record, things like sweatpants and curtained hair started to decline around that time, while long straightened hair on women grew big after Avril Lavigne became famous).  They also point to things like the first Shrek movie, Halo, and the GameCube as still having a "Y2K feel" to them, which I think makes no sense.  I will admit that there are a fair deal of similarities between the early 2000s and late 90s, but that doesn't make the two periods practically identical in terms of popular culture; the differences are all too overlooked.

To be fair,The first Shrek movie did kinda feel Y2Kish to me when I first saw it!  ;D 

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 7:26 pm


I mean, things like Bill Clinton still being President of the United States, the Dot Com Bubble, and millennial boybands are pretty heavily associated with the 90s, but you do have a very valid point.  I always thought George W. Bush becoming President, the end of the Dot Com Boom, 9/11, the takeoff of sixth generation video games, the decline of teen pop, and the release of movies like Shrek, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone put society squarely in a 2000s world and severed any lingering ties to the true 90s.  The 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 school years were both highly transformative in moving us away from classic 90s influences and laying the foundations for what would become the 2000s.  2001, for example, seems a lot farther from 1995 than just 6 years, in my opinion.

People here seem to focus on how shows like Friends, Rugrats, and Frasier were still on television during the early 2000s, as well as fashion not being that different from the late 90s (for the record, things like sweatpants and curtained hair started to decline around that time, while long straightened hair on women grew big after Avril Lavigne became famous).  They also point to things like the first Shrek movie, Halo, and the GameCube as still having a "Y2K feel" to them, which I think makes no sense.  I will admit that there are a fair deal of similarities between the early 2000s and late 90s, but that doesn't make the two periods practically identical in terms of popular culture; the differences are all too overlooked.


I assume the "Y2K feel" (depending on your definition as no one can agree on a single meaning on Y2K around here) they're referring to is the fact that Shrek, Halo, Gamecube all were in development throughout the late '90s/early '00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/27/16 at 7:26 pm


I assume the "Y2K feel" (depending on your definition as no one can agree on a single meaning on Y2K around here) they're referring to is the fact that Shrek, Halo, Gamecube all were in development throughout the late '90s/early '00s.

Exactly! :)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/27/16 at 7:42 pm


I assume the "Y2K feel" (depending on your definition as no one can agree on a single meaning on Y2K around here) they're referring to is the fact that Shrek, Halo, Gamecube all were in development throughout the late '90s/early '00s.


How on earth does that make a huge difference?  What matters is ultimately when something is released and attains popularity, not when it was made.  If we're going by that definition, then Ocarina of Time is a mid-90s video game because it was in development since before the Nintendo 64 came out.  It would also make The Phantom Menace a mid-90s movie to some people because it was filmed in June 1997 (which I see as late 90s, but certainly not identical to the time the movie finally came out).

In fact, pretty much all popular things have their roots at least a few years before they reach their peak; underground musical movements take years to hit the mainstream, groundbreaking movies are often based on or influenced by something else (i.e., Jurassic Park being based on a 1990 novel of the same name), and television shows are often dictated by the producers' personal lives up to that point, which means the recent past plays an important role in their premises.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 7:56 pm


How on earth does that make a huge difference?  What matters is ultimately when something is released and attains popularity, not when it was made.  If we're going by that definition, then Ocarina of Time is a mid-90s video game because it was in development since before the Nintendo 64 came out.  It would also make The Phantom Menace a mid-90s movie to some people because it was filmed in June 1997 (which I see as late 90s, but certainly not identical to the time the movie finally came out).


I'm talking about the fact that since they were in development during the late '90s/early '00s those things would have influences from those eras.  For example you said that people say things like Shrek and Halo have that "Y2K feel". I assumed this was because they were in development throughout the late '90s/early '00s. The people during the development period had the Y2K influences on them when they wrote the script and did the animation. This doesn't make them Y2K things (also this confuses me, but I'm not getting into that), but it means they would have Y2K influences on them. Things like Phantom Menace is 1997 in terms of pop cultural relevance, but mid-90s in terms of influence. If I were to make a move that released in 2009, but I started the development in 2005 then you'd most likely be seeing a lot of core '00s influences in the movie, but in terms of popularity and relevance it's a late '00s movie.

Saying things like Shrek or Halo as late '90s is strange as no one really knew about them in that time. But in terms of cultural influences within them you'd probably see some late '90s/early '00s influences. But in terms of popularity and cultural relevance they're early '00s. Other examples would be shows like Tiny toon adventures which released in 1990. But the idea and most of its initial development was between 1987-1989 meaning it may feel like a late '80s show, but in terms of popularity/relevance it's early '90s (ended in 1992).


In fact, pretty much all popular things have their roots at least a few years before they reach their peak; underground musical movements take years to hit the mainstream, groundbreaking movies are often based on or influenced by something else (i.e., Jurassic Park being based on a 1990 novel of the same name), and television shows are often dictated by the producers' personal lives up to that point, which means the recent past plays an important role in it.


This I've been aware of. I've mentioned this before. For example Ipods came out in 2001, but didn't get big until 2005 or so. Apple's Iphone can out in 2007, but didn't get big until the 2010s. DVDs came out in 1996, but wasn't commonly used until sometime in 2000. Broadband was around way before 2005, but it took up to 2004/5 for it overtake Dial up in terms of popularity/use. Certain bands would form together in one year, but won't be a big part of culture until maybe a few years later. Not everything is instantly a part of pop culture as soon as it's released. It needs to become popular among people for it to be a part of pop culture.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: SpyroKev on 02/27/16 at 8:27 pm

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that Early 2000s feel in Shrek 1 haha Its the most fun and my only favorite out of the series.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 8:30 pm


I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that Early 2000s feel in Shrek 1 haha Its the most fun and my only favorite out of the series.


Shrek 1 was HUGE when it came out. Nearly every Kid-Adult saw it when it came out. My favorites are Shreks 1 and 2, but the first one is the overall best to me. I remember watching Shrek 1 when it opened in theaters. Good times. Good times.  8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/27/16 at 8:35 pm


Shrek 1 was HUGE when it came out. Nearly every Kid-Adult saw it when it came out. My favorites are Shreks 1 and 2, but the first one is the overall best to me. I remember watching Shrek 1 when it opened in theaters. Good times. Good times.  8)


Shrek 1 and 2 were the sh*t when I was a kid. I did saw Shrek The Third and Shrek Forever After, but I didn't thought it was good enough compared to the first two.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 8:40 pm


Shrek 1 and 2 were the sh*t when I was a kid. I did saw Shrek The Third and Shrek Forever After, but I didn't thought it was good enough compared to the first two.


Shrek 3rd and Forever After were a bit.....err.. they just weren't as good as the first 2 to me. Forever After was just plain weird to me. Shrek 3rd was okay, though.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 8:45 pm

Shrek 1 was great. Even my grandma loved that movie LOL

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 8:50 pm


Shrek 1 was great. Even my grandma loved that movie LOL


One thing I loved about Shrek's writing/humor is that can appeal to all ages. Might see an innuendo or pop cultural reference that'll appeal to the older audience. And silly/nonsensical humor for the kiddies. 

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/27/16 at 8:55 pm

Shrek 1 is like my second-favorite animated movie ever, second only to Toy Story 1.  Shrek 2 is also funny, though it feels a little more manufactured than its predecessor.  Shrek the Third is incredibly underwhelming, while Shrek Forever After is actually pretty decent, though still not nearly as funny or memorable as the first film.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 9:01 pm


One thing I loved about Shrek's writing/humor is that can appeal to all ages. Might see an innuendo or pop cultural reference that'll appeal to the older audience. And silly/nonsensical humor for the kiddies.


Yes! Watching the movie as a kid and then rewatching it as an adult is a completely different experience! I did not catch 90% of those jokes Fiona's parents were making the first time around.

What about Puss in Boots? I thought that was a very good movie too. Better than Shrek 3.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/27/16 at 9:03 pm


Shrek 1 is like my second-favorite animated movie ever, second only to Toy Story 1.  Shrek 2 is also funny, though it feels a little more manufactured than its predecessor.  Shrek the Third is incredibly underwhelming, while Shrek Forever After is actually pretty decent, though still not nearly as funny or memorable as the first film.


Yes, this is how I felt too. Shrek 2 was really trying to be better but it fell flat, it was good overall though. Shrek 3 was very disappointing. I don't think I watched Shrek Forever After, or I might have forgot watching it, which must mean it was pretty bad.  :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 9:21 pm


Yes! Watching the movie as a kid and then rewatching it as an adult is a completely different experience! I did not catch 90% of those jokes Fiona's parents were making the first time around.

What about Puss in Boots? I thought that was a very good movie too. Better than Shrek 3.


If a movie can appeal to all audiences no matter the age then I see it as a really good movie. It's why I like Pixar's movies such as Monster's Inc or Toy Story. They're for kids, but they can also appeal to adults. Puss in Boots was a decent movie. Don't have that many complaints for it. I remember being excited for the movie due to liking Puss in the 2nd movie.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/27/16 at 9:22 pm


Yes, this is how I felt too. Shrek 2 was really trying to be better but it fell flat, it was good overall though. Shrek 3 was very disappointing. I don't think I watched Shrek Forever After, or I might have forgot watching it, which must mean it was pretty bad.  :o


I've seen ALL of the Shrek movies in the theater except for the Third one. Forever After was my least favorite one, and I agree that the Third one had a weak ending to it for some reason. I think it's a tight one between the original or 2nd one for me!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/27/16 at 9:23 pm


If a movie can appeal to all audiences no matter the age then I see it as a really good movie. It's why I like Pixar's movies such as Monster's Inc or Toy Story. They're for kids, but they can also appeal to adults. Puss in Boots was a decent movie. Don't have that many complaints for it. I remember being excited for the movie due to liking Puss in the 2nd movie.


Call me crazy, but same could be said about Megamind, Wreck It Ralph, or even Frozen too.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/27/16 at 9:33 pm


Call me crazy, but same could be said about Megamind, Wreck It Ralph, or even Frozen too.


Which is why Frozen is a HUGE billion dollar making movie (highest grossing Disney movie as of yet I think)and Wreck it Ralph is seen as part of the Disney Revival era. Same for Megamind being a success. The 2010s overall has been having a lot of cross-age appeal in animation. Especially with TV shows like Gravity Falls, Adventure Time, Regular Show (which has been getting away with A LOT of things), Steven Universe (especially the messages it gives in certain episodes) etc

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/27/16 at 10:19 pm


So none of 2003 is in your early 00s section? ???


2003 is iffy so I leave it out.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/27/16 at 11:28 pm

I would consider Shreck a Y2K era movie. I mean the theme song for that movie was Smash Mouth's All Star...

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/27/16 at 11:55 pm


I would consider Shreck a Y2K era movie. I mean the theme song for that movie was Smash Mouth's All Star...


The soundtrack is seriously the only thing about it that feels Y2K.  Yeah, it also contains stuff like Leslie Carter's "Like Wow," Self's "Stay Home," and the Baha Men's "Best Years of Our Lives," but the movie itself is 2000s from head to toe.  Even as far as the soundtrack itself goes, it was never common for animated movies to have such a reliance on pop hits as opposed to original musical numbers until Shrek came out.  Movies like Shark Tale, Madagascar, and even Disney's Lilo & Stitch followed up on this concept as the 2000s decade progressed.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/28/16 at 1:55 am


The soundtrack is seriously the only thing about it that feels Y2K.  Yeah, it also contains stuff like Leslie Carter's "Like Wow," Self's "Stay Home," and the Baha Men's "Best Years of Our Lives," but the movie itself is 2000s from head to toe.  Even as far as the soundtrack itself goes, it was never common for animated movies to have such a reliance on pop hits as opposed to original musical numbers until Shrek came out.  Movies like Shark Tale, Madagascar, and even Disney's Lilo & Stitch followed up on this concept as the 2000s decade progressed.


But what represents the cultural era of the movie better than its soundtrack?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/28/16 at 2:20 am


But what represents the cultural era of the movie better than its soundtrack?


The movie itself?  Is music automatically more significant to a cultural period than movies?  I suppose Pulp Fiction is really an early 60s movie, due to the fact that it has a popular soundtrack that features "Misirlou."

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/28/16 at 2:53 am


The movie itself?  Is music automatically more significant to a cultural period than movies?  I suppose Pulp Fiction is really an early 60s movie, due to the fact that it has a popular soundtrack that features "Misirlou."


Well the movie came out during the Y2K era (as illustrated by the soundtrack). To me that makes it a Y2K era movie.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/28/16 at 3:13 am


Well the movie came out during the Y2K era (as illustrated by the soundtrack). To me that makes it a Y2K era movie.


You can't just simplify the movie to its release date.  It's still predominantly a 2000s film in its content, aside from its soundtrack.  The multi-hundred-million-dollar-grossing sequels to Shrek came out in 2004, 2007, and 2010, respectively, 2011 counting Puss in Boots.  Yes, the movie did come out while it was still the Y2K era, which is why its soundtrack is full of songs that wouldn't have been made deeper into the decade, but it's still far, far more attached to movies like Shrek 2, Madagascar, Chicken Little, Ice Age, and Shark Tale than it is to Tarzan, The Prince of Egypt, Mulan, Hercules, or The Road to El Dorado.  In fact, the entire film was an outright repudiation of the Disney Renaissance of the 90s, breaking away from the fairytale plot stereotypes and introducing a completely modern angle to animated kids movies.  After Shrek came out, Disney Renaissance-style films went completely out of style until the end of the decade, when The Princess and the Frog was released.  I really don't understand how so many people can sort it with the late Disney Renaissance over just about any of the most popular non-Pixar animated movies from the 2000s.  This is all the equivalent situation to calling the Nintendo 64 a mid-90s video game console just because it first came out in 1996 (even though its heyday was clearly the Y2K era) or saying Nirvana's Nevermind was a late 80s album just because there was still a heavy 80s atmosphere at the time of its release.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/28/16 at 4:01 am


You can't just simplify the movie to its release date.


If we're discussing what era it's from, it seems like release date would be a major factor.

It's still predominantly a 2000s film in its content, aside from its soundtrack.  The multi-hundred-million-dollar-grossing sequels to Shrek came out in 2004, 2007, and 2010, respectively, 2011 counting Puss in Boots.

And none of those are Y2K era movies. But we're talking about the original Shrek...

Yes, the movie did come out while it was still the Y2K era, which is why its soundtrack is full of songs that wouldn't have been made deeper into the decade, but it's still far, far more attached to movies like Shrek 2, Madagascar, Chicken Little, Ice Age, and Shark Tale than it is to Tarzan, The Prince of Egypt, Mulan, Hercules, or The Road to El Dorado.  In fact, the entire film was an outright repudiation of the Disney Renaissance of the 90s, breaking away from the fairytale plot stereotypes and introducing a completely modern angle to animated kids movies.

Would you consider Toy Story a 00s movie? It has a modern angle and no fairytale plot whatsoever.

After Shrek came out, Disney Renaissance-style films went completely out of style until the end of the decade, when The Princess and the Frog was released.  I really don't understand how so many people can sort it with the late Disney Renaissance over just about any of the most popular non-Pixar animated movies from the 2000s.

I wouldn't sort it with the Disney Renaissance...

This is all the equivalent situation to calling the Nintendo 64 a mid-90s video game console just because it first came out in 1996 (even though its heyday was clearly the Y2K era) or saying Nirvana's Nevermind was a late 80s album just because there was still a heavy 80s atmosphere at the time of its release.

Unlike the Nintendo 64, Shrek's heyday was when it first came out (as is the case with most blockbuster films). And Nirvana's Nevermind didn't come out in the 80s (obviously), whereas Shrek did come out during the Y2K era, so I don't see how those statements are equivalent.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/28/16 at 4:33 am


If we're discussing what era it's from, it seems like release date would be a major factor.


Release date is still irrelevant to the content of the movie itself, especially considering May 2001 was in the midst of the transition out of the Y2K era and into the regular early 2000s, so there was still a mixture of incoming 2000s culture alongside dying Y2K-era culture.

And none of those are Y2K era movies. But we're talking about the original Shrek...

What's so radically different between Shrek 1 and its sequels?

Would you consider Toy Story a 00s movie? It has a modern angle and no fairytale plot whatsoever.

Toy Story didn't influence the film industry in the same way as Shrek.  It was particularly important in giving full credibility to 3D-animated movies and promoting innovation over plot, whereas Shrek set the standard for big-budget animated films in the 2000s to have lots of pop cultural references, pop songs, and irreverent humor.  Even then, Toy Story is similar to the Internet in that it was an anomaly that was way ahead of its time and, despite receiving a lot of attention in late 1995, would ultimately influence the 2000s more than the late 90s.

I wouldn't sort it with the Disney Renaissance...

Then why is is not an early 2000s movie?  The Disney Renaissance was still going on during the Y2K era; Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan all came out during that period.  I can understand comparing Shrek to The Emperor's New Groove, since both movies are buddy comedies with lots of pop cultural references and irreverent humor, but even The Emperor's New Groove represents the transition out of the late 90s/Y2K era, considering it's the first regular post-Renaissance Disney movie.

Unlike the Nintendo 64, Shrek's heyday was when it first came out (as is the case with most blockbuster films). And Nirvana's Nevermind didn't come out in the 80s (obviously), whereas Shrek did come out during the Y2K era, so I don't see how those statements are equivalent.


The Nintendo 64 was pretty popular right upon its release thanks to Super Mario 64, and Mario Kart 64 only expanded upon the hype further.  If you're of the opinion that the first half of 1997 was still mid-90s (I only see the first month as majority mid-90s, but a lot of people disagree), does that make Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64 mid-90s video games, and thus better categorized with the Donkey Kong Country trilogy than Banjo-Kazooie and Diddy Kong Racing?  They're both still clearly late 90s influences, even if they came out during the mid-90s.  Also, regarding Nirvana, a lot of people still consider 1991 and even 1992 to be mostly 80s-holdover years (Jordan, for example, thinks the 90s didn't truly begin until Beavis & Butthead premiered in 1993).  By your logic, that would necessarily make Nevermind an 80s holdover.  But besides, if Nevermind can get away as a 90s album despite coming out in 1991, then why is Shrek not a 2000s movie when it came out in 2001?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: af2010 on 02/28/16 at 6:22 am


Release date is still irrelevant to the content of the movie itself, especially considering May 2001 was in the midst of the transition out of the Y2K era and into the regular early 2000s, so there was still a mixture of incoming 2000s culture alongside dying Y2K-era culture.

What's so radically different between Shrek 1 and its sequels?

Toy Story didn't influence the film industry in the same way as Shrek.  It was particularly important in giving full credibility to 3D-animated movies and promoting innovation over plot, whereas Shrek set the standard for big-budget animated films in the 2000s to have lots of pop cultural references, pop songs, and irreverent humor.  Even then, Toy Story is similar to the Internet in that it was an anomaly that was way ahead of its time and, despite receiving a lot of attention in late 1995, would ultimately influence the 2000s more than the late 90s.

Then why is is not an early 2000s movie?  The Disney Renaissance was still going on during the Y2K era; Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan all came out during that period.  I can understand comparing Shrek to The Emperor's New Groove, since both movies are buddy comedies with lots of pop cultural references and irreverent humor, but even The Emperor's New Groove represents the transition out of the late 90s/Y2K era, considering it's the first regular post-Renaissance Disney movie.

The Nintendo 64 was pretty popular right upon its release thanks to Super Mario 64, and Mario Kart 64 only expanded upon the hype further.  If you're of the opinion that the first half of 1997 was still mid-90s (I only see the first month as majority mid-90s, but a lot of people disagree), does that make Super Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64 mid-90s video games, and thus better categorized with the Donkey Kong Country trilogy than Banjo-Kazooie and Diddy Kong Racing?  They're both still clearly late 90s influences, even if they came out during the mid-90s.  Also, regarding Nirvana, a lot of people still consider 1991 and even 1992 to be mostly 80s-holdover years (Jordan, for example, thinks the 90s didn't truly begin until Beavis & Butthead premiered in 1993).  By your logic, that would necessarily make Nevermind an 80s holdover.  But besides, if Nevermind can get away as a 90s album despite coming out in 1991, then why is Shrek not a 2000s movie when it came out in 2001?


By definition, an era is a period of time marked by distinctive character, events, etc. This discussion will never end because I believe that whatever occurs within the time period of an era by definition defines that era. If we assume that May 2001 was still part of the "Y2K Era", then so is everything that occurred at that time. There might be outliers, such as Shrek (which I don't really see as an outlier, but let's say it is), but those outliers still contribute to, and ultimately help define, the era in which they take place.

As far as early 00s vs. Y2K era, I posted earlier in this thread my thoughts on early/mid/late labels. I consider Shrek both an early 00s (January 1 2000 - 30 April 2003) and Y2K era movie.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 6:57 am


Most people tend to not see 2001-2002 as core era or years that define the core 2000s.

Odd as I was told it meant both the Late '90s and Early '00s cultural eras. Seems to be having differing definitions again I guess.
They need to as that's when it started. These same people are still confused on the early being different from the core when it's the same thing. Going back, the core 2000s is almost the entire era.

Well the Y2K time period was only two years which was the 1999-00 and 2000-01 year. I don't remember seeing many Y2K elements throughout the 1998-99 and 2001-02 year yet at all.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 9:09 am


I mean, things like Bill Clinton still being President of the United States, the Dot Com Bubble, and millennial boybands are pretty heavily associated with the 90s, but you do have a very valid point.  I always thought George W. Bush becoming President, the end of the Dot Com Boom, 9/11, the takeoff of sixth generation video games, the decline of teen pop, and the release of movies like Shrek, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone put society squarely in a 2000s world and severed any lingering ties to the true 90s.  The 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 school years were both highly transformative in moving us away from classic 90s influences and laying the foundations for what would become the 2000s.  2001, for example, seems a lot farther from 1995 than just 6 years, in my opinion.

People here seem to focus on how shows like Friends, Rugrats, and Frasier were still on television during the early 2000s, as well as fashion not being that different from the late 90s (for the record, things like sweatpants and curtained hair started to decline around that time, while long straightened hair on women grew big after Avril Lavigne became famous).  They also point to things like the first Shrek movie, Halo, and the GameCube as still having a "Y2K feel" to them, which I think makes no sense.  I will admit that there are a fair deal of similarities between the early 2000s and late 90s, but that doesn't make the two periods practically identical in terms of popular culture; the differences are all too overlooked.
This! If people noticed, the late 90s and early 00s were actually different in general. In fact,  the Y2K vibe was gone by late 2001 in addition to the late 90s era. If we added all the factors to both time periods, there are differences than similarities.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 9:15 am


This! If people noticed, the late 90s and early 00s were actually different in general. In fact,  the Y2K vibe was gone by late 2001 in addition to the late 90s era. If we added all the factors to both time periods, there are differences than similarities.


Well then, why the hell do people consider the Y2K era as 1998-2003?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 10:12 am


Well then, why the hell do people consider the Y2K era as 1998-2003?


You mean 1998-2002. 2003 is considered as the transition into the core 2000's like 1997 was the transition out of the core 90's. However, like I said before, some people think Y2K is a synonym for late 90's culture, while some people think Y2K is separate stuck in between late 90's and early 2000's culture. My question is that if Y2K = late 90's culture only, then what's the point of using the word "Y2K" then when you could just use "late 90's"? Y2K originally meant that the world was supposed to end in 2000 which is why the term was defined by any year close to 2000. So with 1998 being two years before 2000, and 2002 being two years after 2000. It would make perfect since for Y2K culture to be late 90's and early 2000's culture combined together with the peak lasting from 1998-2002 with 2000 being the ultimate year for it. I hear people say that 1999-2001 was the peak of Y2K, which is equivalent to 1998-2002 or 1997-2003. 1996 and 2004 are completely out, since 1996 was mid 90's while 2004 was mid 2000's. Wow, how opposite is that? and it's funny how 1996 and 2004 were election years. 1996 is when Bill Clinton got elected for his 2nd term, and 2004 is when George Bush got elected for his 2nd term. While 2000, the peak of Y2K era, was the last year Bill Clinton was president while George Bush got elected that year, which is like the intercept. I wouldn't even mind defining Y2K culture as the transition from late 90's to early 2000's culture or stuck in between late 90's & early 2000's. But Y2K culture being late 90's only doesn't make since to me, otherwise stop using the word "Y2K" then. I don't know about you, but I'm sticking with 1998-2002 as the peak of Y2K culture.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 11:06 am


Well then, why the hell do people consider the Y2K era as 1998-2003?
That's because I think they're confused. Y2K is associated with the era close to 2000 and the trends that define it. Going back to what I said, the time period is a bridge between the late 90s and the early 00s. It is its own era.


Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 11:10 am


That's because I think they're confused. Y2K is associated with the era close to 2000 and the trends that define it. Going back to what I said, the time period is a bridge between the late 90s and the early 00s. It is its own era.


So you're one of the ones who believes Y2K is a separate era from late 90's & early 2000's culture. In other words, in between late 90's & early 2000's culture, like a transition. I'll take note of that! ;D Then again, I know people on here who thinks it's late 90's & early 2000's culture combined together, or just late 90's culture only.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 11:13 am

I used to secretely hide my opinion that 2002 isn't Y2K era; I got a Gamecube in 2002 and I considered that a different era from my N64 days in 1998-2001, but looking back I keep warming up to it being a part of the Y2K era. I still find it hard to ignore the fact that things like 6th gen gaming, Windows XP, LCD monitors on computers among other things were very common in 2002, but not 2001. Fashion wise and music wise (excluding teen pop), 2002 and 2001 have a lot of similarities.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 11:17 am


So you're one of the ones who believes Y2K is a separate era from late 90's & early 2000's culture. In other words, in between late 90's & early 2000's culture, like a transition. I'll take note of that! ;D Then again, I know people on here who thinks it's late 90's & early 2000's culture combined together, or just late 90's culture only.
Yep. I used to think it was all together, but after looking at photos from both time periods, I realized they were actually different.

Now as for the late 90s, that period would be the 1997-98 and 1998-99 years while the early 00s are the 2001-02 and 2002-03 years. Y2K would be the 1999-00 and 2000-01 years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 11:19 am

*grabbed from the other thread*


A lot of what you mentioned started in 2001 though, and from my personal life and experiences, I still consider 2001 as the transition from late 90's culture to early 2000's culture. 2001 marked the beginning of quintessential early 2000's trends but marked the end of quintessential late 90's trends, but at the same time there were still A LOT of late 90's influences which carried on throughout 2002 and even 2003 too. 2001 equally felt like the cusp between 1999/2000 and 2002/early 2003. Not just numerically, but even pop culturally too.


It was very late 2001 though, and no one owned any of those things late 2001 from what I remember (except PS2). So I always punted it to 2002.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 11:20 am


That's because I think they're confused. Y2K is associated with the era close to 2000 and the trends that define it. Going back to what I said, the time period is a bridge between the late 90s and the early 00s. It is its own era.


Well, okay then. 2001 would definitely be Y2K-wise, but whatever.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 11:24 am


Now as for the late 90s, that period would be the 1997-98 and 1998-99 years while the early 00s are the 2001-02 and 2002-03 years. Y2K would be the 1999-00 and 2000-01 years.


You know when I think about it, that actually makes perfect sense! But if someone wants to include 1997-98, 1998-99, 2001-02, or 2002-03 as part of the Y2K, then I have no problem with that. What you're basically saying is that 1999-00 and 2000-01 are the peak or epitome of the Y2K era. Like the most important years. So basically, 1997-98 and 1998-99 we're getting away from the core 90's but closer and closer to the Y2K, which is late 90's. While from 2001-02 and 2002-03 we're getting away from the Y2K era, but closer and closer to the core 2000's, which is early 2000's. 1996-97 is usually considered as the last core 90's year while 2003-04 is usually considered as the first core 2000's year. This explanation is like combining all of our opinions together.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 11:27 am


Yep. I used to think it was all together, but after looking at photos from both time periods, I realized they were actually different.

Now as for the late 90s, that period would be the 1997-98 and 1998-99 years while the early 00s are the 2001-02 and 2002-03 years. Y2K would be the 1999-00 and 2000-01 years.


1998-99 school year was pure Y2K. I believe most consider 1997-98 transition into Y2K culture, which makes sense since a lot of popular Y2K shows and games were introduced then and the 5th gen consoles picked up major steam.

As for 2001-02, I am warming up to it being Y2K (the 2002 part), but it definitely does have noticeable differences compared to the previous year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 11:33 am


The movie itself?  Is music automatically more significant to a cultural period than movies?  I suppose Pulp Fiction is really an early 60s movie, due to the fact that it has a popular soundtrack that features "Misirlou."


Pulp Fiction is like an 50s/early-mid 60s movie. The soundtrack has a lot of '50s style songs, BTW.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 11:37 am


So you're one of the ones who believes Y2K is a separate era from late 90's & early 2000's culture. In other words, in between late 90's & early 2000's culture, like a transition. I'll take note of that! ;D Then again, I know people on here who thinks it's late 90's & early 2000's culture combined together, or just late 90's culture only.


Here's my take using school years:

Millennium Era= Late 90's/Early 00's Culture aka 1997-1998 School Year to 2003-2004 School Year


Y2K Era= First Half of Millennium Era aka 1997-1998 to 1999-2000

Lizzie McGuire Era= Second Half of Millennium Era aka 2001-2002 to 2003-2004


2000-2001 would be the quintessential school year being the transition from Y2K culture (aka predominantly late 90's) to Lizzie McGuire Culture (predominantly early 00's culture).

There are trends exclusive to these two sub eras. But in the grand scheme of things were relatively similar, Classic DCOMs, Discmans/early MPs3s, Nu Metal, Pop Punk, Glam Rap, Neptunes R&B, Baggy Jeans, preppy clothing, flared jeans, 70's revival, frosted tips, goth fashion, etc.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 11:43 am


Here's my take using school years:

Millennium Era= Late 90's/Early 00's Culture aka 1997-1998 School Year to 2003-2004 School Year


Y2K Era= First Half of Millennium Era aka 1997-1998 to 1999-2000

Lizzie McGuire Era= Second Half of Millennium Era aka 2001-2002 to 2003-2004


2000-2001 would be the quintessential school year being the transition from Y2K culture (aka predominantly late 90's) to Lizzie McGuire Culture (predominantly early 00's culture).

There are trends exclusive to these two sub eras. But in the grand scheme of things were relatively similar, Classic DCOMs, Discmans/early MPs3s, Nu Metal, Pop Punk, Glam Rap, Neptunes R&B, Baggy Jeans, preppy clothing, flared jeans, 70's revival, frosted tips, goth fashion, etc.


This is a decent description, although, I disagree with the 2003-04 school year being part of the millennial era. By 2003-04 there were no late 90's influences leftover, the core 2000's were in full effect by then. However, 2003-04 school year was still the transition from early 2000's to mid 2000's culture, but there were too much 2000's stuff relevant for it to be part of the millennial era. I think Summer 2003 was the last gasp of the millennial era. Spring & Summer 2003 felt like all of 2002 to me, however, Fall 2003 there was a huge shift that made it feel like the beginning of the core 2000's, even though mid 2000's culture wasn't in full effect until the following year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 12:02 pm


This is a decent description, although, I disagree with the 2003-04 school year being part of the millennial era. By 2003-04 there were no late 90's influences leftover, the core 2000's were in full effect by then. However, 2003-04 school year was still the transition from early 2000's to mid 2000's culture, but there were too much 2000's stuff relevant for it to be part of the millennial era. I think Summer 2003 was the last gasp of the millennial era. Spring & Summer 2003 felt like all of 2002 to me, however, Fall 2003 there was a huge shift that made it feel like the beginning of the core 2000's, even though mid 2000's culture wasn't in full effect until the following year.


No there were still tons of late 90's leftovers in 2003-2004. CN and Nick were at the tail end of their Golden/Silver Ages, it was the last season of Frasier, Friends, & Angel, iPODs still weren't as popular as the Discman (in fact it was 2004 when the iPod popularity increased immensely), dial up Internet and AOL was still very common, no modern social media (while MySpace launched in 03' it didn't rise in popularity until late 04'), The Neptunes Souncd in R&B, Pop Punk, & Nu Metal were at the tail end of their popularity, and fashion was still generally baggy and more early 00's influenced.

However I agree that in the grand scheme of things the school year was more of a transition. For instance the beginning was late 2003 which is arguably the tail end of any mainstream Millennium influences, while the end which was 2004 was the very start of core 00's influences.


Anyways this is how I see the 00's in general:

2000-Mid 2001: A continuation (or transition) of the Y2K Culture

Late 2001-Early 2004: Mainly Early 00's Culture

Mid 2004-Mid 2006: Mainly Mid 00's Culture

Late 2006-Early 2009: Mainly Late 00's Culture

Mid 2009-On: Mainly Early 10's Culture

Core 00's (best representation of 2000's culture): would be Late 2004-Mid 2007

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/28/16 at 12:24 pm

I agree with mxcrashxm, the late 90s, Y2K era, and early 2000s are all separate, identifiable sub-eras with a decent amount of similarities across the board.  The late 90s, represented by things like Puff Daddy, the Spice Girls, Cow & Chicken, the peak of King of the Hill, and No Limit, was dominant from roughly spring 1997 to winter 1998/1999.  The Y2K era, represented by Britney Spears, Pokémania, latin pop, rap/rock, etc., truly took off in spring 1999 and lasted until 9/11.  Finally, the early 2000s, marked by the peak of the Neptunes, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Lizzie McGuire, Game Boy Advance, post-9/11 patriotism, the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, etc., was from 9/11 until roughly the end of 2003.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 12:30 pm


I agree with mxcrashxm, the late 90s, Y2K era, and early 2000s are all separate, identifiable sub-eras with a decent amount of similarities across the board.  The late 90s, represented by things like Puff Daddy, the Spice Girls, Cow & Chicken, the peak of King of the Hill, and No Limit, was dominant from roughly spring 1997 to winter 1998/1999.  The Y2K era, represented by Britney Spears, Pokémania, latin pop, rap/rock, etc., truly took off in spring 1999 and lasted until 9/11.  Finally, the early 2000s, marked by the peak of the Neptunes, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Lizzie McGuire, Game Boy Advance, post-9/11 patriotism, the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, etc., was from 9/11 until roughly the end of 2003.


Yeah I've heard of he three way theory as well. And come to think of it makes a lot of sense!

So I guess school year wise the entire Millennium Era would look like this:

Late 90's/Spice Girls Sub Era:

1996-1997

1997-1998

1998-1999


Turn of the Century/Y2K Era Sub Era:

1999-2000

2000-2001


Early 00's/Lizzie McGuire Sub Era

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004


1996-1997 being the ultimate mid 90's-late 90's transitional school year, 2003-2004 the ultimate early 00's-mid 00's transitional school year

Either 1999-2000 or 2000-2001 being the quintessential school years for the Millennium Era as a whole!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 12:38 pm


No there were still tons of late 90's leftovers in 2003-2004. CN and Nick were at the tail end of their Golden/Silver Ages, it was the last season of Frasier, Friends, & Angel, iPODs still weren't as popular as the Discman (in fact it was 2004 when the iPod popularity increased immensely), dial up Internet and AOL was still very common, no modern social media (while MySpace launched in 03' it didn't rise in popularity until late 04'), The Neptunes Souncd in R&B, Pop Punk, & Nu Metal were at the tail end of their popularity, and fashion was still generally baggy and more early 00's influenced.

However I agree that in the grand scheme of things the school year was more of a transition. For instance the beginning was late 2003 which is arguably the tail end of any mainstream Millennium influences, while the end which was 2004 was the very start of core 00's influences.


Anyways this is how I see the 00's in general:

2000-Mid 2001: A continuation (or transition) of the Y2K Culture

Late 2001-Early 2004: Mainly Early 00's Culture

Mid 2004-Mid 2006: Mainly Mid 00's Culture

Late 2006-Early 2009: Mainly Late 00's Culture

Mid 2009-On: Mainly Early 10's Culture

Core 00's (best representation of 2000's culture): would be Late 2004-Mid 2007


Here's how I usually define it.

Core 90's

late 1992-mid 1993: transition from early 90's to mid 90's

late 1993-mid 1996: mid 90's (1995: quintessential year)

late 1996-mid 1997: transition from mid 90's to late 90's


Millennial Era

late 1997-mid 2000: late 90's (1999: quintessential year)

late 2000-mid 2001: transition from late 90's to early 00's

late 2001-mid 2003: early 00's (2002: quintessential year)


Core 00's

late 2003-mid 2004: transition from early 00's to mid 00's

late 2004-mid 2006: mid 00's (2005: quintessential year)

late 2006-mid 2008: late 00's (2007-08 season: quintessential year)


Electropop Era

late 2008-mid 2009: transition from late 00's to early 10's

late 2009-mid 2012: early 10's (2011: quintessential year)


Core 10's

late 2012-mid 2013: transition from early 10's to mid 10's

late 2013-present: mid 10's (2015: quintessential year)

late 2016-mid 2017 will be the mid 10's to late 10's transition (bold prediction)


Just keep in mind that core =/= mid. I understand this confuses a lot of people. I used to think that the 2003-04 season used to belong in the millennial era, but now when I think about it, it was completely core 2000's by then, not mid 2000's yet though. It was in the transition from early 00's to mid 00's but that didn't mean it still belonged in the millennial era. Same goes for the 1992-93 season no longer being the neighties era or the 2008-09 season no longer being the core 00's, but 1992-93 was still the early 90's to mid 90's transition, while 2008-09 was the late 00's to early 10's transition. I feel the exact way about the 2003-04 school year. In fact, even though a lot of what you mentioned was still relevant in 2003-04, you can't forgot all the other stuff that were already gone by then and all of the core 00's trends that were relevant by that time. Remember that 2003 as a whole was the transition from millennial to core 00's. Meaning that 2003 marked the END of the peak 1998-2002 Y2K era and the BEGINNING of the core 00's 2004-2007 era.





Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 12:40 pm


I agree with mxcrashxm, the late 90s, Y2K era, and early 2000s are all separate, identifiable sub-eras with a decent amount of similarities across the board.  The late 90s, represented by things like Puff Daddy, the Spice Girls, Cow & Chicken, the peak of King of the Hill, and No Limit, was dominant from roughly spring 1997 to winter 1998/1999.  The Y2K era, represented by Britney Spears, Pokémania, latin pop, rap/rock, etc., truly took off in spring 1999 and lasted until 9/11.  Finally, the early 2000s, marked by the peak of the Neptunes, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Lizzie McGuire, Game Boy Advance, post-9/11 patriotism, the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, etc., was from 9/11 until roughly the end of 2003.



Yeah I've heard of he three way theory as well. And come to think of it makes a lot of sense!

So I guess school year wise the entire Millennium Era would look like this:

Late 90's/Spice Girls Sub Era:

1996-1997

1997-1998

1998-1999


Turn of the Century/Y2K Era Sub Era:

1999-2000

2000-2001


Early 00's/Lizzie McGuire Sub Era

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004


1996-1997 being the ultimate mid 90's-late 90's transitional school year, 2003-2004 the ultimate early 00's-mid 00's transitional school year

Either 1999-2000 or 2000-2001 being the quintessential school years for the Millennium Era as a whole!


SO many Y2K or millennial theories you could use, this is fun. My mind is being blown to pieces right now!
http://emojisaurus.com/images/emoji/dizzy_face.png

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 12:54 pm


Here's how I usually define it.

Core 90's

late 1992-mid 1993: transition from early 90's to mid 90's

late 1993-mid 1996: mid 90's (1995: quintessential year)

late 1996-mid 1997: transition from mid 90's to late 90's


Millennial Era

late 1997-mid 2000: late 90's (1999: quintessential year)

late 2000-mid 2001: transition from late 90's to early 00's

late 2001-mid 2003: early 00's (2002: quintessential year)


Core 00's

late 2003-mid 2004: transition from early 00's to mid 00's

late 2004-mid 2006: mid 00's (2005: quintessential year)

late 2006-mid 2008: late 00's (2007-08 season: quintessential year)


Electropop Era

late 2008-mid 2009: transition from late 00's to early 10's

late 2009-mid 2012: early 10's (2011: quintessential year)


Core 10's

late 2012-mid 2013: transition from early 10's to mid 10's

late 2013-present: mid 10's (2015: quintessential year)

late 2016-mid 2017 will be the mid 10's to late 10's transition (bold prediction)


Just keep in mind that core =/= mid. I understand this confuses a lot of people. I used to think that the 2003-04 season used to belong in the millennial era, but now when I think about it, it was completely core 2000's by then, not mid 2000's yet though. It was in the transition from early 00's to mid 00's but that didn't mean it still belonged in the millennial era. Same goes for the 1992-93 season no longer being the neighties era or the 2008-09 season no longer being the core 00's, but 1992-93 was still the early 90's to mid 90's transition, while 2008-09 was the late 00's to early 10's transition. I feel the exact way about the 2003-04 school year. In fact, even though a lot of what you mentioned was still relevant in 2003-04, you can't forgot all the other stuff that were already gone by then and all of the core 00's trends that were relevant by that time. Remember that 2003 as a whole was the transition from millennial to core 00's. Meaning that 2003 marked the END of the peak 1998-2002 Y2K era and the BEGINNING of the core 00's 2004-2007 era.
I know it's your opinion, but the core would be longer than 5 years as it consists of all eras with in a decade. There are things that tie the time period together.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 12:57 pm

I feel like 2012 is a core 2010s year in full, despite being early 2010s. But maybe my opinion will change once there is some distance between the years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 12:58 pm

2000, 2001 and 2002 will always be Y2K era for me but I don't see the point of spitting up 2000 from 2001 and 2002 and calling it "late 90's" or whatever. The first year with 20XX isn't early 2000's? I don't think so.

I don't see how a lot of late 90's trends just disappeared in 2001. They didn't.


I used to secretely hide my opinion that 2002 isn't Y2K era; I got a Gamecube in 2002 and I considered that a different era from my N64 days in 1998-2001, but looking back I keep warming up to it being a part of the Y2K era. I still find it hard to ignore the fact that things like 6th gen gaming, Windows XP, LCD monitors on computers among other things were very common in 2002, but not 2001. Fashion wise and music wise (excluding teen pop), 2002 and 2001 have a lot of similarities.


Very upset with you mister. >:(

Kidding. ;) But LCD monitors first came out for computers in 1997 and XP didn't actually catch on until late '03 when SP1a came out.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 1:02 pm


I know it's your opinion, but the core would be longer than 5 years as it consists of all eras with in a decade. There are things that tie the time period together.


Do you pretty much think the whole decade is core? Is that you think late 2001 - early 2009 is the core 2000s?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 1:08 pm


2000, 2001 and 2002 will always be Y2K era for me but I don't see the point of spitting up 2000 from 2001 and 2002 and calling it "late 90's" or whatever. The first year with 20XX isn't early 2000's? I don't think so.

I don't see how a lot of late 90's trends just disappeared in 2001. They didn't.

Very upset with you mister. >:(

Kidding. ;) But LCD monitors first came out for computers in 1997 and XP didn't actually catch on until late '03 when SP1a came out.


I think I first saw an LCD screen in 2002. I thought it was magic!  :D The image seemed to come out of nowhere. Also I liked putting the phone/magnets next to the LCD screen or poking it real hard to get those weird colours.  :-[

Lesson: keep kids away from electronics.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 1:10 pm


I think I first saw an LCD screen in 2002. I thought it was magic!  :D The image seemed to come out of nowhere. Also I liked putting the phone/magnets next to the LCD screen or poking it real hard to get those weird colours.  :-[

Lesson: keep kids away from electronics.


I did that once and it seemed cool.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 1:13 pm


I think I first saw an LCD screen in 2002. I thought it was magic!  :D The image seemed to come out of nowhere. Also I liked putting the phone/magnets next to the LCD screen or poking it real hard to get those weird colours.  :-[

Lesson: keep kids away from electronics.


I first saw a few sometime in 1998-ish. Maybe even late, late 1997. I, too, wanted to put the magnets next to the screen to get weird colors but when you're 16 people are less tolerant to wacky hi-jinks (even those done for the good of mankind).

Lesson: don't keep heroic teenagers away from electronics because they might save your life one day.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 1:17 pm


I first saw a few sometime in 1998-ish. Maybe even late, late 1997. I, too, wanted to put the magnets next to the screen to get weird colors but when you're 16 people are less tolerant to wacky hi-jinks (even those done for the good of mankind).

Lesson: don't keep heroic teenagers away from electronics because they might save your life one day.


I don't see what's so heroic about this  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 1:19 pm


Do you pretty much think the whole decade is core? Is that you think late 2001 - early 2009 is the core 2000s?
No. It would be 7/8 years.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 1:21 pm


No. It would be 7/8 years.


Yeah, that's almost the whole decade.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 1:22 pm


I don't see what's so heroic about this  ;D


You don't understand because you're not a brave, majestic knight that is a well-crafted sculpture of honesty like I am. The LCD monitors clearly had weird colors because the aliens from that one Star Trek episode had placed themselves inside so, when a human decided to do some computing, they'd possess their body. I'm smart so I decided to put an end to it once and for all.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:25 pm


2000, 2001 and 2002 will always be Y2K era for me but I don't see the point of spitting up 2000 from 2001 and 2002 and calling it "late 90's" or whatever. The first year with 20XX isn't early 2000's? I don't think so.

I don't see how a lot of late 90's trends just disappeared in 2001. They didn't.


I may just go back to calling it "Late '90s/Early '00s" as it caused less of an issue. The term "Y2K" is just some made term anyways (referring to the era not the year....unless you mean to tell me that the year 2000 never existed to begin with  :o). I didn't even hear about it until I joined this forum. Y2K means different years/things to different people on here. But "Late '90s/Early '00s" should mean the same thing to everyone. Kind of curious on who came up with the term Y2K anyways. Wonder if they're any other terms like this for other decades. "Late 50s/Early '60s" or "Late '00s/Early '10s" for example.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 1:28 pm


I may just go back to calling it "Late '90s/Early '00s" as it caused less of an issue. The term "Y2K" is just some made term anyways (referring to the era not the year....unless you mean to tell me that the year 2000 never existed to begin with  :o). I didn't even hear about it until I joined this forum. Y2K means different years/things to different people on here. But "Late '90s/Early '00s" should mean the same thing to everyone. Kind of curious on who came up with the term Y2K anyways. Wonder if they're any other terms like this for other decades. "Late 50s/Early '60s" or "Late '00s/Early '10s" for example.
It's not made up. It's another word for year 2000. If you noticed, there are sports games that use 2K as the title such as NBA 2K16 and NFL 2K4.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 1:29 pm


I may just go back to calling it "Late '90s/Early '00s" as it caused less of an issue. The term "Y2K" is just some made term anyways. I didn't even hear about it until I joined this forum. Y2K means different years/things to different people on here. But "Late '90s/Early '00s" should mean the same thing to everyone. Kind of curious on who came up with the term Y2K anyways. Wonder if they're any other terms like this for other decades. "Late 50s/Early '60s" or "Late '00s/Early '10s" for example.


Yeah, it's just something someone made up! To me, 1998-2002 will always be one era. Always. That's how I remember it and what I'll look back at to be nostalgic for. I think even if you say "late 90s/early 00s" people will wanna debate that one, too. I know the late 80s and early 90s are referred to the Neon era but that's it for era names, I think.


It's not made up. It's another word for year 2000. If you noticed, there are sports games that use 2K as the title such as NBA 2K16 and NFL 2K4.


I think he's talking about "Y2K era" not the term Y2K itself.

Technically, it is still made up by somebody though so you could say it's made up. :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 1:31 pm


I may just go back to calling it "Late '90s/Early '00s" as it caused less of an issue. The term "Y2K" is just some made term anyways (referring to the era not the year....unless you mean to tell me that the year 2000 never existed to begin with  :o). I didn't even hear about it until I joined this forum. Y2K means different years/things to different people on here. But "Late '90s/Early '00s" should mean the same thing to everyone. Kind of curious on who came up with the term Y2K anyways. Wonder if they're any other terms like this for other decades. "Late 50s/Early '60s" or "Late '00s/Early '10s" for example.


Early 10s and Late 00s are completely different! Don't taint my era!  >:(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 1:32 pm


Early 10s and Late 00s are completely different! Don't taint my era!  >:(


The 2010's are like a more futurist core 2000's on repeat. ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:33 pm


It's not made up. It's another word for year 2000. If you noticed, there are sports games that use 2K as the title such as NBA 2K16 and NFL 2K4.


I know. In my post I said I was referring to the Y2K era and not the year. I know Y2K is the year 2000 (Y = Year. 2K = 2000) I wrote "The term "Y2K" is just some made term anyways (referring to the era not the year....unless you mean to tell me that the year 2000 never existed to begin with  :o)"

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:35 pm


Early 10s and Late 00s are completely different! Don't taint my era!  >:(


Tainting eras is what I do best, Mate.  8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 1:36 pm


The 2010's are like a more futurist core 2000's on repeat. ;)


8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 1:37 pm


Tainting eras is what I do best, Mate.  8)


>:( >:( >:( >:( There was no Obama in 2007/2008. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT TO ME, THE EARLY 10S GUY.  >:( >:(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:39 pm


Yeah, it's just something someone made up! To me, 1998-2002 will always be one era. Always. That's how I remember it and what I'll look back at to be nostalgic for. I think even if you say "late 90s/early 00s" people will wanna debate that one, too. I know the late 80s and early 90s are referred to the Neon era but that's it for era names, I think.

People are going to try and debate years that're part of the late '90s and early '00s numerically AND culturally? Oh wow.  ::)



Technically, it is still made up by somebody though so you could say it's made up. :P


Yeah, but the term 2000 known as Y2K seems to be more official since I've heard it in many other places. The term "Y2K era"  is something I've never seen until I visited this board.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:42 pm


>:( >:( >:( >:( There was no Obama in 2007/2008. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT TO ME, THE EARLY 10S GUY.  >:( >:(


I do what I want.  8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 1:43 pm


>:( >:( >:( >:( There was no Obama in 2007/2008. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT TO ME, THE EARLY 10S GUY.  >:( >:(


Yeah, well, how do you think the sacrilege in this thread (especially the sacrilege said by you, mister. If you don't watch your mouth and confirm to historian's factual viewpoints, you'll soon be making friends with Bubba) is making me, The Early 00s Guy, feel!?!?!? Huh, you ever thought about that!?!?? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(


People are going to try and debate years that're part of the late '90s and early '00s numerically AND culturally? Oh wow.  ::)


Yeah, people think 2000 is a late 90's year. ;D The early 00s are mighty on their own, if you ask me. 2000, 2001 and 2002!? Those years are rad! The last three great years. Those crappy real 2000's though... 8-P 8-P 8-P


Yeah, but the term 2000 known as Y2K seems to be more official since I've heard it in many other places. The term "Y2K era"  is something I've never seen until I visited this bored.


This is true but it was still made up by somebody! ;D It is very official, though. I remember back in 1999 hearing "Y2K Y2K Y2K!!!!" all the time. I don't even remember where I first heard "Y2K era" but it was a looooonnnggg time ago.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 1:45 pm


I think he's talking about "Y2K era" not the term Y2K itself.

Technically, it is still made up by somebody though so you could say it's made up. :P



I know. In my post I said I was referring to the Y2K era and not the year. I know Y2K is the year 2000 (Y = Year. 2K = 2000) I wrote "The term "Y2K" is just some made term anyways (referring to the era not the year....unless you mean to tell me that the year 2000 never existed to begin with  :o)"
It might be made up, but it does represent the era very much.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 1:47 pm


It might be made up, but it does represent the era very much.


It really doesn't. It's a subjective thing that nobody agrees on.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:52 pm


Yeah, people think 2000 is a late 90's year. ;D The early 00s are mighty on their own, if you ask me. 2000, 2001 and 2002!? Those years are rad! The last three great years. Those crappy real 2000's though... 8-P 8-P 8-P

What I find funny about the "Y2K era" is the fact most of 2000 is just 1999 part 2. It's called the Y2K era despite the fact that the actual Y2K/2000 year isn't the year where the culture of "Y2K era" is said to begin. Nearly everything in 2000 is actually from 1999.


This is true but it was still made up by somebody! ;D It is very official, though. I remember back in 1999 hearing "Y2K Y2K Y2K!!!!" all the time. I don't even remember where I first heard "Y2K era" but it was a looooonnnggg time ago.


True. When 2000 I heard Y2K as they were referring to the year. And we know of the Y2K Bug. But in these moments they're referring to the year and not the an era.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 1:55 pm


Yeah, well, how do you think the sacrilege in this thread (especially the sacrilege said by you, mister. If you don't watch your mouth and confirm to historian's factual viewpoints, you'll soon be making friends with Bubba) is making me, The Early 00s Guy, feel!?!?!? Huh, you ever thought about that!?!?? >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(


Hey, hey, I said I was warming up to your theory  ;D

Now start warming up to mine. The 2010s, a core 2000s on repeat?!  8-P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 1:56 pm


The 2010's are like a more futurist core 2000's on repeat. ;)


Nah. It feels NOTHING like the core 2000s. If they were, I would've been more happy at this moment.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 1:57 pm


1998-99 school year was pure Y2K. I believe most consider 1997-98 transition into Y2K culture, which makes sense since a lot of popular Y2K shows and games were introduced then and the 5th gen consoles picked up major steam.

As for 2001-02, I am warming up to it being Y2K (the 2002 part), but it definitely does have noticeable differences compared to the previous year.
Not even. The 1999-00 was the pure one. The previous was half.

You're the first to say that the 1997-98 year was the transition. Mostly, it's late 90's all the way.


It really doesn't. It's a subjective thing that nobody agrees on.
That's because some people are confused on how long the era is.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 1:59 pm


It might be made up, but it does represent the era very much.



It really doesn't. It's a subjective thing that nobody agrees on.


And that's the issue. Can't go bringing up the term "Y2K era" without some argument/debate starting. A debate that reaches no full agreement that'll yet just spawn up again along with more debating. I mean a lot of things go into debates (that's the whole point of having discussions on here), but when a certain idea continues to keep popping up in debates then to me it to starts to get overly repetitive.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 2:01 pm


What I find funny about the "Y2K era" is the fact most of 2000 is just 1999 part 2. It's called the Y2K era despite the fact that the actual Y2K/2000 year isn't the year where the culture of "Y2K era" is said to begin. Nearly everything in 2000 is actually from 1999.


Haha, yeah, pretty much. I'm starting to think I should be giving this "Y2K era" stuff a rest, too. It's getting tiring going 'round and 'round in circles repeating the same things over and over and over again. The era will always be 1998-2002 to me and that's not going to change. I'd like to discuss it but in a more nostalgic way without constant annoying debates over the same things.


True. When 2000 I heard Y2K as they were referring to the year. And we know of the Y2K Bug. But in these moments they're referring to the year and not the an era.


Yeah, 2000 and 2000 alone. Who could forget the mighty Y2K bug that was supposed to destroy humanity! ;D


Hey, hey, I said I was warming up to your theory  ;D

Now start warming up to mine. The 2010s, a core 2000s on repeat?!  8-P


I only said that to set you off. ;)

I thought you already agreed with me already, though? That's what you said in the other thread. Anyway! If you're warming up to Jordan's Theory Factual Answer (we have Einstein's theory, Phythagoroarum's Theory now it's time for Jordan's Factual Answer. Take that old dude, I actually have the facts) you have to remember that 2001 and 2002 are completely Xtreme!! and exactly the same thing as 1998 and you're not allowed to say otherwise or you will be punished (probably by Bubba) for all eternity! 


Nah. It feels NOTHING like the core 2000s. If they were, I would've been more happy at this moment.


Haha, I know. SlowpokeMc2001 just HATES the core 00's so I wanted to set him off.


That's because some people are confused on how long the era is.


Dude, nobody's confused. They just have different opinions on what that era actually is.


And that's the issue. Can't go bringing up the term "Y2K era" without some argument/debate starting. A debate that reaches no full agreement that'll yet just spawn up again along with more debating. I mean a lot of things go into debates (that's the whole point of having discussions on here), but when a certain idea continues to keep popping up in debates then to me it to starts to get overly repetitive.


Exactly this. It's going around in the same circles over and over and over and over again.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:08 pm


Not even. The 1999-00 was the pure one. The previous was half.

You're the first to say that the 1997-98 year was the transition. Mostly, it's late 90's all the way.
That's because some people are confused on how long the era is.


I  don't know dude. What was there in 1999-2000 that wasn't there 1998-99? We were into the exact same things in terms of kid culture, namely Pokemon, N64, DBZ, teen pop, CGI movies such A Bug's Life, Internet being well established with Windows 98 and dial-up. What exactly is it missing?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 2:15 pm


Yeah, people think 2000 is a late 90's year. ;D The early 00s are mighty on their own, if you ask me. 2000, 2001 and 2002!? Those years are rad! The last three great years. Those crappy real 2000's though... 8-P 8-P 8-P


Well remember, my definition of Y2K era is very similar to yours, except I consider it as late 90's culture AND early 2000's culture combined together. late 1997-mid 2000 was late 90's culture (Y2K era part 1), late 2000-mid 2001 was the transition from late 90's to early 00's culture (Y2K era midpoint), and late 2001-mid 2003 was early 2000's culture (Y2K era part 2). Since you can see how I define late 1997-mid 2003 was the full duration, I consider 1998-2002 to be the peak of the era. Remember, late 90's culture means late 90's trends were mostly dominant, but there were still early 2000's influences coming in. Early 2000's culture means early 2000's trends were mostly dominant, but there were still late 90's influences leftover. I can still get by mxcrashxm and infinity's logics of Y2K being separate from late 90's culture and early 2000's culture. Meaning that Y2K culture in stuck between late 90's culture & early 2000's culture. Then again, I've seen people on blogs and posts who think Y2K culture means late 90's culture only circa late 1997-mid 2001 which I disagree with.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:16 pm


Haha, yeah, pretty much. I'm starting to think I should be giving this "Y2K era" stuff a rest, too. It's getting tiring going 'round and 'round in circles repeating the same things over and over and over again. The era will always be 1998-2002 to me and that's not going to change. I'd like to discuss it but in a more nostalgic way without constant annoying debates over the same things.

Yeah, 2000 and 2000 alone. Who could forget the mighty Y2K bug that was supposed to destroy humanity! ;D

I only said that to set you off. ;)

I thought you already agreed with me already, though? That's what you said in the other thread. Anyway! If you're warming up to Jordan's Theory Factual Answer (we have Einstein's theory, Phythagoroarum's Theory now it's time for Jordan's Factual Answer. Take that old dude, I actually have the facts) you have to remember that 2001 and 2002 are completely Xtreme!! and exactly the same thing as 1998 and you're not allowed to say otherwise or you will be punished (probably by Bubba) for all eternity! 

Haha, I know. SlowpokeMc2001 just HATES the core 00's so I wanted to set him off.

Dude, nobody's confused. They just have different opinions on what that era actually is.

Exactly this. It's going around in the same circles over and over and over and over again.


Well, Einstein's Theory wasn't accepted for decades after he proposed it. It was around 1919, 14 years after he proposed Special Relativity, where then it started to become more accepted, after experimental data proved his hypothesis correct. But even then, there was still controversy (though more anti-Semitic in nature) up until the 1940s.  :P So I will need 15 years to process this theory of yours.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 2:17 pm


Well, Einstein's Theory wasn't accepted for decades after he proposed it. It was around the 1919, 14 years after he proposed Special Relativity when it started to become more accepted, after experimental data proved it correct. But even then, there was still controversy (though more anti-Semitic in nature) up until the 1940s.  :P So I will need 15 years to process this theory of yours.


15 YEARS?!  :o  See you all in 2031.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 2:21 pm


Well, Einstein's Theory wasn't accepted for decades after he proposed it. It was around 1919, 14 years after he proposed Special Relativity, where then it started to become more accepted, after experimental data proved his hypothesis correct. But even then, there was still controversy (though more anti-Semitic in nature) up until the 1940s.  :P So I will need 15 years to process this theory of yours.


So we pretty much need 15 years over a f*cking theory on decades? Bro, this is 2016. Pretty much more than half of the Internet is liberal. Why do we clearly need that time, just because they find Einstein's theories to be untrue until the '40s?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 2:23 pm


Well remember, my definition of Y2K era is very similar to yours, except I consider it as late 90's culture AND early 2000's culture combined together. late 1997-mid 2000 was late 90's culture (Y2K era part 1), late 2000-mid 2001 was the transition from late 90's to early 00's culture (Y2K era midpoint), and late 2001-mid 2003 was early 2000's culture (Y2K era part 2). Since you can see how I define late 1997-mid 2003 was the full duration, I consider 1998-2002 to be the peak of the era. Remember, late 90's culture means late 90's trends were mostly dominant, but there were still early 2000's influences coming in. Early 2000's culture means early 2000's trends were mostly dominant, but there were still late 90's influences leftover. I can still get by mxcrashxm and infinity's logics of Y2K being separate from late 90's culture and early 2000's culture. Meaning that Y2K culture in stuck between late 90's culture & early 2000's culture. Then again, I've seen people on blogs and posts who think Y2K culture means late 90's culture only circa late 1997-mid 2001 which I disagree with.


Yeah, ours is very similar. The difference is that I consider late 90s and early 00s culture to be relatively the same thing but if I were to split the two up: 1998 and 1999 would be late 90s and 2000, 2001 and 2002 would be early 00's. I've seen people who think it's 1999-2002 or 1998-2000 or 1997-2001 or 1996-1999, etc., etc. Nobody is ever going to agree on one definition.


Well, Einstein's Theory wasn't accepted for decades after he proposed it. It was around 1919, 14 years after he proposed Special Relativity, where then it started to become more accepted, after experimental data proved his hypothesis correct. But even then, there was still controversy (though more anti-Semitic in nature) up until the 1940s.  :P So I will need 15 years to process this theory of yours.


No, because my Factual Answer is very factual and not to be doubted. Historians are already looking at my answer as we speak and are nodding their heads saying "oh yes, yes. This is exact." Get hip, son.


So we pretty much need 15 years over a f*cking theory on decades? Bro, this is 2016. Pretty much more than half of the Internet is liberal. Why do we clearly need that time, just because they find Einstein's theories to be untrue until the '40s?


Listen to this man. He has the right idea. Stop being stuck in the 40's, it's 2016!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 2:23 pm


So we pretty much need 15 years over a f*cking theory on decades? Bro, this is 2016. Pretty much more than half of the Internet is liberal. Why do we clearly need that time, just because they find Einstein's theories to be untrue until the '40s?


Mate, you can't go wrong with 15 years.  8) All the time needed to process such a complex theory.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 2:24 pm


15 YEARS?!  :o  See you all in 2031.


We would soon be officially closer in time to the year 2031 than the year 2000 :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 2:27 pm


We would soon be officially closer in time to the year 2031 than the year 2000 :o


We already are  :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 2:28 pm


Mate, you can't go wrong with 15 years.  8) All the time needed to process such a complex theory.


You do realize Slowpoke said that because Einstein was Jewish. Therefore, they found his theories to be untrue because of their anti-semitic thoughts on him until the end of World War II?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 2:29 pm


You do realize Slowpoke said that because Einstein was Jewish. Therefore, they found his theories to be untrue because of their anti-semitic thoughts on him until the end of World War II?


What!? Does he think I'm Jewish, too? ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:29 pm


We already are  :o


:o :o :o :o :o Trippy.  :o :o :o :o :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:31 pm


You do realize Slowpoke said that because Einstein was Jewish. Therefore, they found his theories to be untrue because of their anti-semitic thoughts on him until the end of World War II?


Lol it was a joke dude.  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 2:31 pm


Yeah, ours is very similar. The difference is that I consider late 90s and early 00s culture to be relatively the same thing but if I were to split the two up: 1998 and 1999 would be late 90s and 2000, 2001 and 2002 would be early 00's. I've seen people who think it's 1999-2002 or 1998-2000 or 1997-2001 or 1996-1999, etc., etc. Nobody is ever going to agree on one definition.

Which is why I don't see the point of using something that nobody can fully agree on. Too many definitions due to everyone having different opinions. Yet some try to treat their opinion as fact. If someone disagrees with me then that's fine. But the Y2K era thing just isn't working. Just saying "Late '90s/Early '00s" is good enough for me as it didn't cause such an issue on what years count as late '90s and counts as early '00s (people can try to debate if they please, but Late '90s and Early '00s aren't made up years/terms and are more widely used).

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 2:33 pm


We would soon be officially closer in time to the year 2031 than the year 2000 :o


We already are  :o


:o :o :o :o :o Trippy.  :o :o :o :o :o


Don't you just love how time/cultures works?  ;D Soon enough we'll be closer to the year 2031 than year 2011 in the future.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 2:37 pm


Lol it was a joke dude.  ;D


Oh. :c

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 2:39 pm


Lol it was a joke dude.  ;D


I'm not Jewish, though. I don't know why you think I am.


Which is why I don't see the point of using something that nobody can fully agree on. Too many definitions due to everyone having different opinions. Yet some try to treat their opinion as fact. If someone disagrees with me then that's fine. But the Y2K era thing just isn't working. Just saying "Late '90s/Early '00s" is good enough for me as it didn't cause such an issue on what years count as late '90s and counts as early '00s (people can try to debate if they please, but Late '90s and Early '00s aren't made up years/terms and are more widely used).


You're totally right, Toon. There's no factual answer here whatsoever. This isn't some medical science where people lives depend on whether 1999 or 2003 is Y2K era or not. One person might think the Y2K era is 1987-2059 or something and they wouldn't be wrong. Like I said, all of 1998 to 2002 is one era to me and nothing's going to change that. I don't expect nor do I really care if people agree or disagree with me or not but I will say it's cool to have people who agree and can express nostalgia with. These debates are the same things over and over again and there's no real nostalgia attached to them. 

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:41 pm


Oh. :c


Haha, if I ever say anything outrageous, I am most likely joking. My humour is dry like that. It doesn't work too well on the Internet without my tone of voice.  :( But I try to use emoticons to make it more obvious, so look out for ":P", " :D" and " ;D"

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/28/16 at 2:43 pm


I did that once and it seemed cool.


i did it also, almost damaged my phone.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:43 pm


I'm not Jewish, though. I don't know why you think I am.


That's why it will only take 15 years for me to process your theory instead of 40. Check your white privelege.  :P

This joke has gone on too long ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/28/16 at 2:45 pm


What!? Does he think I'm Jewish, too? ???


I'm Jewish.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 2:46 pm


That's why it will only take 15 years for me to process your theory instead of 40. Check your white privelege.  :P


Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. One moment I'm Jewish and the next I'm not. Make up your mind.

While you're left behind, historians will be looking at my 100% factual answer to the cultural eras and say "Hmmm... Oh yes, yes. This is exact. The proportions and measurements of this are most definitely not to be underestimated relatively speaking. I say, these are the facts." You'll be left in the dust because you think I'm a Jew. You can't win with racism. 


I'm Jewish.


I'd stay away from SlowpokeMc2001 then.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 2:50 pm


Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. One moment I'm Jewish and the next I'm not. Make up your mind.

While you're left behind, historians will be looking at my 100% factual answer to the cultural eras and say "Hmmm... Oh yes, yes. This is exact. The proportions and measurements of this are most definitely not to be underestimated relatively speaking. I say, these are the facts." You'll be left in the dust because you think I'm a Jew. You can't win with racism. 

I'd stay away from SlowpokeMc2001 then.


I said Einstein's theory wasn't accepted because he was Jewish, not you (hence "though more anti-Semitic in nature").  :-\\ This is a joke gone horribly wrong.  :-[ I apologize if I offended anyone.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 2:50 pm


You're totally right, Toon. There's no factual answer here whatsoever. This isn't some medical science where people lives depend on whether 1999 or 2003 is Y2K era or not. One person might think the Y2K era is 1987-2059 or something and they wouldn't be wrong. Like I said, all of 1998 to 2002 is one era to me and nothing's going to change that. I don't expect nor do I really care if people agree or disagree with me or not but I will say it's cool to have people who agree and can express nostalgia with. These debates are the same things over and over again and there's no real nostalgia attached to them.


I'm with you and Toon. The only nostalgia I have for the era is 2002 if that counts, but all the other years I was still in my early childhood and hardly remember it, which is why I call myself an early & mid 2000's kid. The same goes for the core childhood debate whether it's ages 6-10, 6-12, 5-10, 7-10, 8-11, or whatever, there will never be a fact and it depends on how well people's memories go and their personal life experiences.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 2:54 pm


I said Einstein's theory wasn't accepted because he was Jewish, not you (hence "though more anti-Semitic in nature").  :-\\ This is a joke gone horribly wrong.  :-
I'm with you and Toon. The only nostalgia I have for the era is 2002 if that counts, but all the other years I was still in my early childhood and hardly remember it, which is why I call myself an early & mid 2000's kid. I will never call myself a late 90's or Y2K kid.


Well, you know I think it counts! ;) I am extremely nostalgia for this era because it was when I was a teen/young adult. Man, the memories I have from that time are incredible. Anything from the 80's to 2003-ish I look back upon very fondly. I just can't connect with stuff from 2003 onward.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 3:08 pm


Don't you just love how time/cultures works?  ;D Soon enough we'll be closer to the year 2031 than year 2011 in the future.


STOP I'm getting chills down my spine :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 3:11 pm


Thank you for the apology but it's gonna take 15 years for these scars to heal. Thanks, man. Thanks a lot. 

Well, you know I think it counts! ;) I am extremely nostalgia for this era because it was when I was a teen/young adult. Man, the memories I have from that time are incredible. Anything from the 80's to 2003-ish I look back upon very fondly. I just can't connect with stuff from 2003 onward.


What if by a divine miracle there is a EXTREME Late 90's/Early 00's Revival within a few years ;) ?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 3:16 pm


What if by a divine miracle there is a EXTREME Late 90's/Early 00's Revival within a few years ;) ?


Being Xtreme! better come back!  >:( It'll have to be like how it was in the Late '90s/Early '00s where literally everything was trying to be Xtreme! Commercials, Food, Toys, Video Games, Cartooons everything will need that Xtreme! vibe.

If it ain't Action Man levels of Xtreme then it's not extreme enough.

http://gamesdbase.com/Media/SYSTEM/Sony_Playstation/Title/big/Action_Man-_Operation_Extreme_-_2000_-_Hasbro_Interactive.jpg

"Alex Mann, Action Man's civilian identity, is an extreme sports athlete of Team Xtreme."

I'm not even making that up.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 3:19 pm


What if by a divine miracle there is a EXTREME Late 90's/Early 00's Revival within a few years ;) ?


Then I'd better be in charge of making sure it is of the UPTMOST XTREME!!!!!!!

Everyone also better be sure to include all of 1998-2002 in the revival (but I think most people I've met do that anyway). Man, I'd love for all the stuff of that era to come back. Frosted tips, Pop Punk and it's mighty jumps, skateboarding, Tony Hawk, baggy dickies shorts, etc., etc.


Being Xtreme! better come back!  >:( It'll have to be like how it was in the Late '90s/Early '00s where literally everything was trying to be Xtreme! Commercials, Food, Toys, Video Games, Cartooons everything will need that Xtreme! vibe.


We also need the Discman, PS1 and PS2 to make a comeback!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 3:29 pm


Being Xtreme! better come back!  >:( It'll have to be like how it was in the Late '90s/Early '00s where literally everything was trying to be Xtreme! Commercials, Food, Toys, Video Games, Cartooons everything will need that Xtreme! vibe.

If it ain't Action Man levels of Xtreme then it's not extreme enough.

http://gamesdbase.com/Media/SYSTEM/Sony_Playstation/Title/big/Action_Man-_Operation_Extreme_-_2000_-_Hasbro_Interactive.jpg

"Alex Mann, Action Man's civilian identity, is an extreme sports athlete of Team Xtreme."

I'm not even making that up.



Then I'd better be in charge of making sure it is of the UPTMOST XTREME!!!!!!!

Everyone also better be sure to include all of 1998-2002 in the revival (but I think most people I've met do that anyway). Man, I'd love for all the stuff of that era to come back. Frosted tips, Pop Punk and it's mighty jumps, skateboarding, Tony Hawk, baggy dickies shorts, etc., etc.

We also need the Discman, PS1 and PS2 to make a comeback!




So how about we host an

EXTREME
MILLENNIUM
PARTY


https://onehellofaslobberknocker.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wallpaper-of-d-generation-x.jpg

on the 20th anniversary of

9/9/99 8)
http://www.seganerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dreamcast-launch.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/CbLkV.jpg
Who is with me!??!??!?!?!?!?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 3:32 pm


So how about we host an EXTREME MILLENNIUM PARTY on the 20th anniversary of 9/9/99 8)

Who is with me!??!??!?!?!?!?


You have made your sensei, proud! This is a TOTALLY RAD idea, dude!

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/bencurtis_dell.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 3:34 pm


You have made your sensei, proud! This is a TOTALLY RAD idea, dude!

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/bencurtis_dell.jpg


Narley 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 3:36 pm


Narley 8)


Steve wants to bring the weed!

http://images.sodahead.com/slideshows/000010711/3b2b75ab0334586026a9318604e7ce67_xlarge.jpeg

Hey, Steve! Should we bring our Dell Computers!?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Dude_4038e1_1824599.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 3:39 pm


So how about we host an

EXTREME
MILLENNIUM
PARTY


https://onehellofaslobberknocker.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wallpaper-of-d-generation-x.jpg

on the 20th anniversary of

9/9/99 8)
http://www.seganerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dreamcast-launch.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/CbLkV.jpg
Who is with me!??!??!?!?!?!?


I can't due to being sick on that day. Yes, I schedule my sick days years in advance. 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 3:43 pm


http://www.seganerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dreamcast-launch.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/CbLkV.jpg


Poor guy but hey! At least it's not as bad as the Saturn. Imagine be surrounded by 1,000 turds. 8-P


Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 3:53 pm


Steve wants to bring the weed!

http://images.sodahead.com/slideshows/000010711/3b2b75ab0334586026a9318604e7ce67_xlarge.jpeg

Hey, Steve! Should we bring our Dell Computers!?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Dude_4038e1_1824599.jpg


LOL. Maybe weed would be legalized in the U.S by then :D


I can't due to being sick on that day. Yes, I schedule my sick days years in advance. 8)


Damn that sucks :\'( It wont be the same without you



Poor guy but hey! At least it's not as bad as the Saturn. Imagine be surrounded by 1,000 turds. 8-P





Yeah personally I think the Dreamcast was the greatest Sega console ever made!!!! Unfortunately it died too soon :\'(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 3:55 pm


LOL. Maybe weed would be legalized in the U.S by then :D


Even his Mugshots are XTREME!

http://i20.tinypic.com/wr026e.jpg

"duuuudddeee, I just wanted a Dell!"


Damn that sucks :\'( It wont be the same without you


:\'( :\'( :\'( :\'(


Yeah personally I think the Dreamcast was the greatest Sega console ever made!!!! Unfortunately it died too soon :\'(


I agree. I love the Dreamcast. The Saturn, however, is a big fat turd.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 02/28/16 at 3:59 pm

You're totally right, Toon. There's no factual answer here whatsoever. This isn't some medical science where people lives depend on whether 1999 or 2003 is Y2K era or not. One person might think the Y2K era is 1987-2059 or something and they wouldn't be wrong. Like I said, all of 1998 to 2002 is one era to me and nothing's going to change that. I don't expect nor do I really care if people agree or disagree with me or not but I will say it's cool to have people who agree and can express nostalgia with. These debates are the same things over and over again and there's no real nostalgia attached to them.


Yeah, it's sort of just a general vicinity thing, with boundaries that depend heavily on the person's experience.  1998-2002 was basically one solid, coherent era as Jordan lived through it, but I personally felt like things changed a lot over the course of 2001 and that the Y2K era traces at least as far back as 1997, not 1998.  Every influence factors differently for each person.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/28/16 at 3:59 pm


Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. One moment I'm Jewish and the next I'm not. Make up your mind.

While you're left behind, historians will be looking at my 100% factual answer to the cultural eras and say "Hmmm... Oh yes, yes. This is exact. The proportions and measurements of this are most definitely not to be underestimated relatively speaking. I say, these are the facts." You'll be left in the dust because you think I'm a Jew. You can't win with racism. 

I'd stay away from SlowpokeMc2001 then.


Why?  ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 4:12 pm


I  don't know dude. What was there in 1999-2000 that wasn't there 1998-99? We were into the exact same things in terms of kid culture, namely Pokemon, N64, DBZ, teen pop, CGI movies such A Bug's Life, Internet being well established with Windows 98 and dial-up. What exactly is it missing?
Digimon, CCF, Christina Aguilera, Dreamcast, and SpongeBob. Xtina was not popular during that school year and the other things didn't exist.  In addition, Home improvement, Sega Saturn, pre-TOM Toonami, SatAM CBS line up and Sister, Sister were still there.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 4:12 pm


Yeah, it's sort of just a general vicinity thing, with boundaries that depend heavily on the person's experience.  1998-2002 was basically one solid, coherent era as Jordan lived through it, but I personally felt like things changed a lot over the course of 2001 and that the Y2K era traces at least as far back as 1997, not 1998.  Every influence factors differently for each person.


Exactly. As our good friend The Early 90s Guy says (he's so quotable!) "Everyone looks at the world through different angles" and he's right. People's personal views and experiences will heavily shape how they see things. Like the majority of things, it's all subjective. No matter what, these debates will always have our personal feelings interjected into them no matter what and there's nothing wrong with that.


Why?  ???


Well, I'd make a joke about him not liking Jews but I don't think he wants to continue that anymore. Just for the record, SlowpokeMc2001 is not a hateful person. He is very accepting and loving of everyone. That's why he posts about my supposed "favorite songs of 2003-2009" ::)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 4:13 pm


Even his Mugshots are XTREME!

http://i20.tinypic.com/wr026e.jpg

"duuuudddeee, I just wanted a Dell!"


RADICAL

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 4:18 pm


RADICAL


TOTALLY EXCELLENT, DUDE

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 4:19 pm


Yeah, it's sort of just a general vicinity thing, with boundaries that depend heavily on the person's experience.  1998-2002 was basically one solid, coherent era as Jordan lived through it, but I personally felt like things changed a lot over the course of 2001 and that the Y2K era traces at least as far back as 1997, not 1998.  Every influence factors differently for each person.


That's understandable. I can see people giving different definitions based on their experiences. While I may not agree with other's opinion on the era I can't fully say that the person is wrong either. And I can't say that I'm 100% correct as well as I'm basing things on my own experience which is something no one but myself would fully understand. We all have are different reasons/factors that we use to define the era. For example I've noticed that some of us mention the extreme sports cultural trends while others don't mention it at all. Some may remember certain movies or fashion while others may see it remember it differently based on what they experienced. Different people with different views in different places at different times will give different opinions.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 4:24 pm


And that's the issue. Can't go bringing up the term "Y2K era" without some argument/debate starting. A debate that reaches no full agreement that'll yet just spawn up again along with more debating. I mean a lot of things go into debates (that's the whole point of having discussions on here), but when a certain idea continues to keep popping up in debates then to me it to starts to get overly repetitive.
Well going from everyone's view, we could split the Y2K era into two. 1997-98 to 1999-00 years are Part 1 (Late 90s) while 2000-01 to 2002-03 years are Part 2 (Early 00s). That way they're equal.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 4:29 pm


Digimon, CCF, Christina Aguilera, Dreamcast, and SpongeBob. Xtina was not popular during that school year and the other things didn't exist.  In addition, Home improvement, Sega Saturn, pre-TOM Toonami, SatAM CBS line up and Sister, Sister were still there.


That seems to be more a development of Y2K culture rather than the beginning of it. None of these are as relevant as the things I listed previously, with the exception of Christina, but she is basically continuing the already established teen pop trend.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 4:31 pm


Well going from everyone's view, we could split the Y2K era into two. 1997-98 to 1999-00 years are Part 1 (Late 90s) while 2000-01 to 2002-03 years are Part 2 (Early 00s). That way they're equal.


That could work as I sort of see it that way anyways. But it depends on if it can work for everyone else as well.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 4:32 pm


That could work as I sort of see it that way anyways. But it depends on if it can work for everyone else as well.


I don't like using school years so I'd say this

Part 1: 1998-1999

Part 2: 2000-2002

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/e89b54a9006e2b3cde685b1160b755b6/http://th02.deviantart.net/fs40/150/i/2009/048/9/0/Gir_Wallpaper_by_xX_Witlof_Xx.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 4:40 pm


I don't like using school years so I'd say this

Part 1: 1998-1999

Part 2: 2000-2002

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/e89b54a9006e2b3cde685b1160b755b6/http://th02.deviantart.net/fs40/150/i/2009/048/9/0/Gir_Wallpaper_by_xX_Witlof_Xx.jpg


Well as mentioned before it's up to the individual's opinion.  We all use certain things to define the era and see it differently. One of the best things about being human. We all can get the same thing, but somehow get different opinions/results from it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 4:40 pm


I don't like using school years so I'd say this

Part 1: 1998-1999

Part 2: 2000-2002

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/e89b54a9006e2b3cde685b1160b755b6/http://th02.deviantart.net/fs40/150/i/2009/048/9/0/Gir_Wallpaper_by_xX_Witlof_Xx.jpg
Or like this:

Part 1: 1997 to 1999

Y2K

Part 2: 2001 to 2003.

Still equal with 2000 in the middle.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 4:42 pm


Well as mentioned before it's up to the individual's opinion.  We all use certain things to define the era and see it differently. One of the best things about being human. We all can get the same thing, but somehow get different opinions/results from it.


Sounds like other humans are getting in the way of my facts.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 4:43 pm


Well as mentioned before it's up to the individual's opinion.  We all use certain things to define the era and see it differently. One of the best things about being human. We all can get the same thing, but somehow get different opinions/results from it.


This is true! If I'm not mistaken, don't you view the era the same way I do? ;D


Or like this:

Part 1: 1997 to 1999

Y2K

Part 2: 2001 to 2003.

Still equal with 2000 in the middle.


There are so many ways we could split up this era.


Sounds like other humans are getting in the way of my facts.


You mean my facts?? I'm the historian here.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 4:44 pm


Or like this:

Part 1: 1997 to 1999

Y2K

Part 2: 2001 to 2003.

Still equal with 2000 in the middle.


I can see how that'd work.

Part 1
1997 - Transitional year into the era
1998
1999

Y2K absolute core/peak
2000  - The year that the era is named after making it the most important year

Part 2
2001
2002
2003 - Transition out of the era

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 4:50 pm


Sounds like other humans are getting in the way of my facts.


Gonna have to stop them other humans from interfering somehow.  8)


This is true! If I'm not mistaken, don't you view the era the same way I do? ;D


Well yeah. We view it the same way.  ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 4:53 pm


There are so many ways we could split up this era.
Yeah, but it's better being seen as equal than uneven.


I can see how that'd work.

Part 1
1997 - Transitional year into the era
1998
1999

Y2K absolute core/peak
2000  - The year that the era is named after making it the most important year

Part 2
2001
2002
2003 - Transition out of the era
You got right!  8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 4:54 pm


Well yeah. We view it the same way.  ;)


Rad, dude. 1998-2002 4 lyfe. 8)


Yeah, but it's better being seen as equal than uneven.


I like the way I do it best, though. :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 4:56 pm


I can see how that'd work.

Part 1
1997 - Transitional year into the era
1998
1999

Y2K absolute core/peak
2000  - The year that the era is named after making it the most important year

Part 2
2001
2002
2003 - Transition out of the era


It's all about the Spirit of 2000. The first six months especially.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 4:57 pm


It's all about the Spirit of 2000. The first six months especially.


No, it's the spirit of 1999. That's what the Early 90s Guy said.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:02 pm


No, it's the spirit of 1999. That's what the Early 90s Guy said.


I think the Early00sGuy would be the expert  ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:05 pm


I think the Early00sGuy would be the expert  ;)


True. Then it would be the spirit of 1998. I remember when I first met him I insisted that 1999 to 2002 was "the spirit of 1998" (which it still is) and I told him "in 2003, we got out of our 1998 chairs and started to walk away from the spirit of 1998 and moved forward to the spirit of 2004."

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:09 pm


True. Then it would be the spirit of 1998. I remember when I first met him I insisted that 1999 to 2002 was "the spirit of 1998" (which it still is) and I told him "in 2003, we got out of our 1998 chairs and started to walk away from the spirit of 1998 and moved forward to the spirit of 2004."


That jives well with his categorizing of everything into three-year boxes. So 1998-2000 would be the first part, and 2001-2003 would be the second part, and then you get to spirit of 2004 in 2004-2006. Unfortunately, if you extend this backward, you get 1989-1991 for early 90s which I'm sure he doesn't like lol.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:14 pm


That jives well with his categorizing of everything into three-year boxes. So 1998-2000 would be the first part, and 2001-2003 would be the second part, and then you get to spirit of 2004 in 2004-2006. Unfortunately, if you extend this backward, you get 1989-1991 for early 90s which I'm sure he doesn't like lol.


The difference is I also insisted that 1998-2002 had no incoming 2004 culture but 2003 did. ;D We are still living in the spirit of 2004. ;) Oh, he really won't like that! Him and I view things very similarly. He has his 1990-1992 and I have my 2000-2002 but I also agree with him that 1990-1992 is it's own thing.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:17 pm

We are still living in the spirit of 2004. ;)

8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

2004 is closer to 1998 than it ever will be to the glorious 2010.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:18 pm


8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

2004 is closer to 1998 than it ever will be to the glorious 2010.


2010 was 2004 with smartphones. ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 5:19 pm


2010 was 2004 with smartphones. ;)


And YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:21 pm


2010 was 2004 with smartphones. ;)


1998 was just 2004 in general.  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 5:25 pm


1998 was just 2004 in general.  ;D


That's funny. I don't recall seeing any late 90s culture in 2004. Or unless, 1998 was basically the quintessential year of the late 90s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:26 pm


1998 was just 2004 in general.  ;D


What no!!!!! HOW COULD YOU SAY THIS TO ME!? THE EARLY 00's GUY!

Pre 2003:
http://static.buzznet.com/uploads/2012/10/msg-134914813381.jpg

Post 2003:
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/myimmortal/images/8/81/2004-Photoshoot-good-charlotte-11039898-1000-751.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121214042231

I know what I'm talking about, thank you. I was born before 1987.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 5:26 pm


That's funny. I don't recall seeing any late 90s culture in 2004. Or unless, 1998 was basically the quintessential year of the late 90s.


2004 is one of them years that don't relate to either late '90s or early '10s to me.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:29 pm


That's funny. I don't recall seeing any late 90s culture in 2004.


And I didn't see any 2004 in 2010  8-P

In 2004 we had Green Day, Blink-182, and Eminem that's enough late 90s.  ;D We also had the Spongebob Movie.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:31 pm


And I didn't see any 2004 in 2010  8-P

In 2004 we had Green Day, Blink-182, and Eminem that's enough late 90s.  ;D We also had the Spongebob Movie.


2004

- Garbage Green Day

- Lame blink-182

- Not as good Eminem with no Slim Shady theme

Sorry, you're wrong. 2010 is basically the spirit of 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:32 pm

We also had 90s cartoons like My Life As A Teenage Robot and Samurai Jack continuing to air in 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:33 pm


We also had 90s cartoons like My Life As A Teenage Robot and Samurai Jack continuing to air in 2004.


I don't know anything about My Life As a Teenage Robot but Samurai Jack is definitely half a 90's cartoon. Two years in the 90's and two years in the 2000's.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/28/16 at 5:34 pm


1998 was just 2004 in general.  ;D

1998 and 2004 are very different. 2004 and 2010 are different as well.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 5:34 pm


We also had 90s cartoons like My Life As A Teenage Robot and Samurai Jack continuing to air in 2004.

lhckuhUxcgA

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:35 pm

Face it, SlowpokeMc2001. There have been no cultural changes since 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/28/16 at 5:35 pm


2004 is one of them years that don't relate to either late '90s or early '10s to me.

Of course, people always seem to forget the 2000s existed.  ;D 2004 is a 2000s year, why is it so hard for people to understand that?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:37 pm


Actually 2014 was the new 1998. 2010 was the new 1994.


The 2010's are the new 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Slim95 on 02/28/16 at 5:37 pm

I think it's time for this thread to come to an end. People are talking too much about decadology.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:39 pm


The 2010's are the new 2004.


That would also mean the 2010s are the new 1998, which would mean 1998 was the old 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:42 pm


I think it's time for this thread to come to an end. People are talking too much about decadology.


Jordan doesn't want to admit that 2004 has more in common with his 1998-2003 era than it does with my glorious 2009-2012.  8)

But yes, this topic has been dried out lol.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:43 pm


That would also mean the 2010s are the new 1998, which would mean 1998 was the old 2004.


No, the spirit of 1998 only lasted through 1999 to 2002. 2003 was us getting out of our 1998 and moving towards our 2004 chairs to which we sit in today. There have been on cultural changes since 2004. '04 to infinity. 

https://i.gyazo.com/82dd7731cc6f46f63a4e632c8fd60c51.png


Jordan doesn't want to admit that 2004 has more in common with his 1998-2003 era than it does with my glorious 2009-2012.  8)

But yes, this topic has been dried out lol.


The only year you mention that 2004 has in common is 2003. 2004 is exactly like 2009-2012. I can't even tell the difference between those years and 2004. 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 5:44 pm


But yes, this topic has been dried out lol.


Topic has derailed quite a bit. So I'll be seeing you all in other threads.


https://i.gyazo.com/82dd7731cc6f46f63a4e632c8fd60c51.png


That edit. I...I can't even..  ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:45 pm


Topic has derailed quite a bit. So I'll be seeing you all in other threads.


Derailed threads are the best, though.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 5:46 pm


The 2010's are the new 2004.


No. Just no. I don't think the 2010s relate to 2004 at all. Not even one single bit.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 5:46 pm


Derailed threads are the best, though.


Jordan likes to derail threads confirmed.  :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 5:47 pm


Jordan likes to derail threads confirmed.  :o


Or unless he simply likes to spread the message about his early 2000s supremacy.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:50 pm


That edit. I...I can't even..  ???


Dude, that edit is perfect.

Wait, no! I fixed it so now they have faux-Emo hair cuts and eyeliner. Just like people still wear today:

https://i.gyazo.com/0265992491d56266241611a8023c211e.png


No. Just no. I don't think the 2010s relate to 2004 at all. Not even one single bit.


Then why does it feel like 2004 on repeat?


Jordan likes to derail threads confirmed.  :o


You just as guilty as I am! ;)


Or unless he simply likes to spread the message about his early 2000s supremacy.


2000, 2001 and 2002 4 lyfe.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 5:53 pm



2000, 2001 and 2002 4 lyfe.


I see a subtle message  ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:54 pm


I see a subtle message  ;)


You wish, 2004 Fanboy. ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/28/16 at 5:57 pm

I know this shouldn't change Jordan's opinion, but on most Internet forums I go to, 2004 seems to be regarded as one of the greatest, most tremendous years of all-time (especially for gaming, Internet culture, and movies).

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 5:58 pm


I know this shouldn't change Jordan's opinion, but on most Internet forums I go to, 2004 seems to be regarded as one of the greatest, most tremendous years of all-time (especially for gaming, Internet culture, and movies).


???

By kids who's mothers dropped them on their heads as babies, right? BrainDamageForums.org

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 5:59 pm


Then why does it feel like 2004 on repeat?


It doesn't. There were so many pop cultural changes that happened since 2004. If it were 2004, I would've use Windows XP instead of Windows 7.


2000, 2001 and 2002 4 lyfe.


Early 2000s supremacy from Jordan confirmed.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:00 pm


It doesn't. There were so many pop cultural changes that happened since 2004. If it were 2004, I would've use Windows XP instead of Windows 7.


Windows 7 wouldn't be possible without SP1a Windows XP. I'm afraid you're still living in 2004, New York Eagle. ;)


Early 2000s supremacy from Jordan confirmed.


You're late to the party.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 6:05 pm


I know this shouldn't change Jordan's opinion, but on most Internet forums I go to, 2004 seems to be regarded as one of the greatest, most tremendous years of all-time (especially for gaming, Internet culture, and movies).


I don't think you're having a lot of people agree with you. Especially Jordan.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/28/16 at 6:06 pm

Early 90s supremacy from Early90sFan; early 00s supremacy from Jordan; early 10s supremacy from Slowpoke. It's confirmed that the early portion of decade will always be the best than the rest.  ;D ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 6:09 pm


Windows 7 wouldn't be possible without SP1a Windows XP. I'm afraid you're still living in 2004, New York Eagle. ;)


No, I don't think so. Did anybody used a smartphone back in 2004? Were people socially awkward while texting every day in their lives back in 2004? Did anybody even heard of an iPad back in 2004? No. Therefore, I feel like we've been living in 2012 on repeat. Since that's the year when everything felt recent to me.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:11 pm


Did anybody used a smartphone back in 2004?


Yes.


Were people socially awkward while texting every day in their lives back in 2004?


Yes.


Did anybody even heard of an iPad back in 2004?


Yes.

We're living in a perpetual 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:15 pm

Were there people eating ketchup in 1998? Yes. Were there people eating ketchup in 2004? Yes.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 6:16 pm


Early 90s supremacy from Early90sFan; early 00s supremacy from Jordan; early 10s supremacy from Slowpoke. It's confirmed that the early portion of decade will always be the best than the rest.  ;D ;D


I've seem to notice that trend as well. Can't wait to see the early 20s supremacy.  Might be from me. ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:19 pm

I don't make a good early 10s fanboy since I like the mid-10s as well ;D I think bchris02 does a better job :P (but he likes the nasty late 2000s as well 8-P)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:20 pm


Were there people eating ketchup in 1998? Yes. Were there people eating ketchup in 2004? Yes.


Ketchup in 1998:

https://i.gyazo.com/94a10928669b5fd7548529484b6b8993.png

Ketchup in 2004:

https://i.gyazo.com/23155fb9ece7a6a86c91e51a99c581ee.png

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 6:30 pm


I don't make a good early 10s fanboy since I like the mid-10s as well ;D I think bchris02 does a better job :P (but he likes the nasty late 2000s as well 8-P)


You son of a bitch. Don't ever insult the late 2000s. I will defend it till the day I die.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 6:32 pm


You son of a bitch. Don't ever insult the late 2000s. I will defend it till the day I die.


We got ourselves a Late'00sGuy right here. 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:33 pm


You son of a bitch. Don't ever insult the late 2000s. I will defend it till the day I die.


NIgfiSzCy1o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 6:35 pm


Ketchup in 1998:

https://i.gyazo.com/94a10928669b5fd7548529484b6b8993.png

Ketchup in 2004:

https://i.gyazo.com/23155fb9ece7a6a86c91e51a99c581ee.png


NIgfiSzCy1o
This laugh just works with everything.

Anything with the Dell Dude's face on it makes it better. Ketchup back then was all Xtreme. Now it's all dull and boring. Whatever happened to the days of good ketchup?  :\'(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:35 pm


We got ourselves a Late'00sGuy right here. 8)


TheEarly10sGuy and TheLate00sGuy are mortal enemies.  >:(

The early 10s did the Lord's work and killed the 2000s. Jesus wanted it to be this way

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:37 pm


NIgfiSzCy1o

Anything with the Dell Dude's face on it makes it better. Ketchup back then was all Xtreme. Now it's all dull and boring. Whatever happened to the days of good ketchup?  :\'(


Yes. These were the Xtreme! days! Then 2004 happened and we've been stuck in that year ever since. Dull, boring and melodramatic.


TheEarly10sGuy and TheLate00sGuy are mortal enemies.  >:(

The early 10s did the Lord's work and killed the 2000s. Jesus wanted it to be this way


The Early 00s Guy hates you all. 2002 is the last good year and everything after that sucks.

How'd the early 10's kill the 2000's when we're still stuck in 2004?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:38 pm


Anything with the Dell Dude's face on it makes it better. Ketchup back then was all Xtreme. Now it's all dull and boring. Whatever happened to the days of good ketchup?  :\'(


When did that nasty coloured ketchup thing happen? I think it was at a fast food restaurant, probably McDonalds but I can't remember. It was around 2002-2003 from what I remember.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:39 pm


When did that nasty coloured ketchup thing happen? I think it was at a fast food restaurant, probably McDonalds but I can't remember. It was around 2002-2003 from what I remember.


EZ Squirt lasted from 2000 to 2003.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 6:39 pm


NIgfiSzCy1o


Oh whatever Early00sGuy. The late 00s had more personality than your nu metal listening, spikey haired, Xtreme  early 00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:42 pm


EZ Squirt lasted from 2000 to 2003.


8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Ketchup definitely did taste better in 2004. (although the last time I ate ketchup in 1997 it was pretty nasty, it was probably worse in 1998-2003).

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:44 pm

This is what Jesus did to the late 2000s. First the lady is late 2000s but comes out early 2010s. God's work is in everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNFBWyIAOE4

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:45 pm


Oh whatever Early00sGuy. The late 00s had more personality than your nu metal listening, spikey haired, Xtreme  early 00s.


The late 00's are ok if you like generic Zac Afron hair.

2002 (the last good year ;)):

https://i.gyazo.com/a99622f235957a603ac2e482d8fbf56e.gif

See? These are real Pop Punk jumps! Super XTREME!

2007 (crap):
https://i.gyazo.com/7f5cc2c1b786d8cdb94e63719c006454.gif

What the hell is this sh!t? You call that jumping? Sissies!


8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Ketchup definitely did taste better in 2004. (although the last time I ate ketchup in 1997 it was pretty nasty, it was probably worse in 1998-2003).


Would you like some Faux-Emo with your Ketchup? ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 6:50 pm


The late 00's are ok if you like generic Zac Afron hair.

2002 (the last good year ;)):

https://i.gyazo.com/a99622f235957a603ac2e482d8fbf56e.gif

See? These are real Pop Punk jumps! Super XTREME!

2009 (crap):
https://i.gyazo.com/7f5cc2c1b786d8cdb94e63719c006454.gif

What the hell is this sh!t? You call that jumping? Sissies!

Would you like some Faux-Emo with your Ketchup? ;)


fudge is wrong with you. I really don't like pop punk or emo but nu metal I do like. Give me System of A Down or Linkin Park over some stupid sheesh like Panic at The Disco or Black Veil Brides. P.S. BVB's music is the textbook definition of caner so I really recommend you don't listen to them.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:51 pm



What the hell is this sh!t? You call that jumping? Sissies!

Would you like some Faux-Emo with your Ketchup? ;)


I do prefer ketchup when it is red and not green or purple  8-P

My friend told me the green ketchup was from Greenland and I believed him. He said green chicken nuggets were next!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:52 pm


fudge is wrong with you. I really don't like pop punk or emo but nu metal I do like. Give me System of A Down or Linkin Park over some stupid sheesh like Panic at The Disco or Black Veil Brides. P.S. BVB's music is the textbook definition of caner so I really recommend you don't listen to them.


???

I thought you didn't like Nu Metal and the Early 00's?


I do prefer ketchup when it is red and not green or purple  8-P

My friend told me the green ketchup was from Greenland and I believed him. He said green chicken nuggets were next!


The green ketchup is from Shrek. ;)

;D ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 6:53 pm

Nah man I was just playin you. I like some nu metal from the early 200s like System of A Down, Linkin Park, and early Slipknot.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 6:54 pm


Nah man I like some nu metal like System of A Down, Linkin Park, and early Slipknot.


What about Trapt and Crazy Town?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 6:56 pm


What about Trapt and Crazy Town?


Ehh. not bad.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 7:01 pm


Yes.
We're living in a perpetual 2004.


I don't really think so. If anything, 2004 was less advanced than 2016. That's 12 years ago you're talking about, and nobody gives a sh*t today. Hell, there would've been more people using VHS tapes in 2004 than the whole 2010s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 7:02 pm


I don't really think so. If anything, 2004 was less advanced than 2016. That's 12 years ago you're talking about, and nobody gives a sh*t today. Hell, there would've been more people using VHS tapes in 2004 than the whole 2010s.


I'm not so sure, man. 2004 is almost exactly like 2016. There are barely any differences.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 7:03 pm


TheEarly10sGuy and TheLate00sGuy are mortal enemies.  >:(

The early 10s did the Lord's work and killed the 2000s. Jesus wanted it to be this way


Your "lord" pretty much wants to living hell out of people who like the '00s. What did the 2000s do to you? Mug you in an alley?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 7:04 pm


I'm not so sure, man. 2004 is almost exactly like 2016. There are barely any differences.


I don't remember seeing any HD technology back in 2004. If 2004 was like today, then life would've been happy as sh*t for me. Even if I was 4 to 5 back in 2004.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 7:05 pm


I'm not so sure, man. 2004 is almost exactly like 2016. There are barely any differences.


Oh yeah a pre iPhone, Youtube, and social media dominant world is not really from 2016.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 7:06 pm


I don't remember seeing any HD technology back in 2004. If 2004 was like today, then life would've been happy as sh*t for me. Even if I was 4 to 5 back in 2004.


Life should be "happy as sh!t" for you, then. 2004 is exactly like 2016.


Oh yeah a pre iPhone, Youtube, and social media dominant world is not really from 2016.


2004 is still exactly like 2016.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 7:08 pm


Life should be "happy as sh!t" for you, then. 2004 is exactly like 2016.

2004 is still exactly like 2016.


Dude you're wrong. 2004 is not exactly like 2016.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 7:09 pm


Dude you're wrong. 2004 is not exactly like 2016.


I'm not so sure, dude. 2004 feels exactly like 2016 does. ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 7:09 pm


2004 is still exactly like 2016.


LMAO I know right!?  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 7:11 pm


LMAO I know right!?  ;D


I'm glad you see the truth, mqg. Culture has been stuck in place for years and years. We are stagnant in 2004 and have yet to escape it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 02/28/16 at 7:15 pm


LMAO I know right!?  ;D


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But.. you were 7/8 twelve years ago and now your 19/20. :o  Your logic makes no sense. >:(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 7:18 pm


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But.. you were 7/8 twelve years ago and now your 19/20. :o  Your logic makes no sense. >:(


We've enter a dark hole on January 1st, 2004; where everything made from that point on is pure utter sh!t. Music, video games, movies, fashion, heck slang went from 'Radical' and 'Tight' to 'THOT' and 'BAE' overnight. We've been in a dark age of humanity ever since :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/28/16 at 7:31 pm


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But.. you were 7/8 twelve years ago and now your 19/20. :o  Your logic makes no sense. >:(

He's being sarcastic! ;D ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 7:35 pm


Life should be "happy as sh!t" for you, then. 2004 is exactly like 2016.


Dude, you can't be f*cking serious on this. 2004 was like WAY different from today.

2004:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/Oscars2003.JPG/220px-Oscars2003.JPG
http://www.posters.ws/images/425417/super_bowl_xxxviii_panthers_vs_patriots_match_up_photofile.jpg
http://v017o.popscreen.com/dkV1bXp2blU5Z1kx_o_tom-brady-69-yards-drive-mike-vrabel-td-super-bowl-xxxix.jpg
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2004-World-Champs.gif
http://covers.cbrd.info/7573564e3ef5fb7b96e332fc3ea1dff7_xl.jpg
https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/588633.jpg

2016:
http://pocketnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ipad-plus-12.9-inch.jpg
http://undertale.com/images/undertale_logo.png

I'm pretty sure you know the rest, since you believe that we live in a 2004 world.


2004 is still exactly like 2016.


No. Just no.  >:(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 7:39 pm


Dude, you can't be f*cking serious on this. 2004 was like WAY different from today.

2004:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/Oscars2003.JPG/220px-Oscars2003.JPG
http://www.posters.ws/images/425417/super_bowl_xxxviii_panthers_vs_patriots_match_up_photofile.jpg
http://v017o.popscreen.com/dkV1bXp2blU5Z1kx_o_tom-brady-69-yards-drive-mike-vrabel-td-super-bowl-xxxix.jpg
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2004-World-Champs.gif
http://covers.cbrd.info/7573564e3ef5fb7b96e332fc3ea1dff7_xl.jpg
https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/588633.jpg

2016:
http://pocketnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ipad-plus-12.9-inch.jpg
http://undertale.com/images/undertale_logo.png

I'm pretty sure you know the rest, since you believe that we live in a 2004 world.

No. Just no.  >:(


All that stuff looks like it could come out in 2016. There have literally been no cultural changes since 2004.


We've enter a dark hole on January 1st, 2004; where everything made from that point on is pure utter sh!t. Music, video games, movies, fashion, heck slang went from 'Radical' and 'Tight' to 'THOT' and 'BAE' overnight. We've been in a dark age of humanity ever since :o


This is the truth. You're learning well!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 8:05 pm

2004 has the Spirit of 2002 according to the all-knowing Early90sGuy, even if the Spirit of 2005 was on its way of coming into being.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 8:07 pm


2004 has the Spirit of 2002 according to the all-knowing Early90sGuy, even if the Spirit of 2005 was on its way of coming into being.


What!? No! There is no spirit of 2002 as 2002 consisted of the spirit of 1998! Early 90s Guy agrees that 2002 is a year of the very early 00's but me, The Early 00s Guy, I am the definitive source on all things early 00's. 2004 has it's own spirit. 

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 8:12 pm


What!? No! There is no spirit of 2002 as 2002 consisted of the spirit of 1998! Early 90s Guy agrees that 2002 is a year of the very early 00's but me, The Early 00s Guy, I am the definitive source on all things early 00's. 2004 has it's own spirit.


All he said was 2002 (and thus 2002-04) have more in common with 1999-2001 than it does with 2008-2010. So if anything, he's agreeing with me, the definitive source of all things early 10s.  ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 8:16 pm


All he said was 2002 (and thus 2002-04) have more in common with 1999-2001 than it does with 2008-2010. So if anything, he's agreeing with me, the definitive source of all things early 10s.  ;)


No! It's 2003-2005! Early 90s Guy clearly realizes that 2002 consists of the spirit of 1998, not 2004. We are stuck in 2004, not 1998.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 8:18 pm


Dude, you can't be f*cking serious on this. 2004 was like WAY different from today.

2004:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/Oscars2003.JPG/220px-Oscars2003.JPG
http://www.posters.ws/images/425417/super_bowl_xxxviii_panthers_vs_patriots_match_up_photofile.jpg
http://v017o.popscreen.com/dkV1bXp2blU5Z1kx_o_tom-brady-69-yards-drive-mike-vrabel-td-super-bowl-xxxix.jpg
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2004-World-Champs.gif
http://covers.cbrd.info/7573564e3ef5fb7b96e332fc3ea1dff7_xl.jpg
https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/588633.jpg


That year was the peak of my childhood! I remember going to Jamaica that year, my first plane ride and the only time I've been out of the country my whole life, and TV channels, whether it was kid channels or family channels had really epic lineups. Going to the stores and reading magazines had such a different vibe then. Spider-Man 2 was awesome. The Incredibles ended up being my favorite Pixar movie ever, and White Chicks was really hilarious. Racing games like Mario Kart Double Dash and Crash Nitro Kart were the big craze, in fact, 2004 was an epic year for gaming too. Thanks for the nostalgia trip NewYorkEagle! 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 8:23 pm


This is the truth. You're learning well!


I'm just gonna say that you're f*cking with me, since you obviously know that 2004 was different than 2016. I'm just gonna stop.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 8:24 pm


I'm just gonna say that you're f*cking with me, since you obviously know that 2004 was different than 2016. I'm just gonna stop.


I was hoping you caught on a while ago. :P ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 8:30 pm


No! It's 2003-2005! Early 90s Guy clearly realizes that 2002 consists of the spirit of 1998, not 2004. We are stuck in 2004, not 1998.


First half of 2004 is still early 2000s to a lot of people.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 8:36 pm


First half of 2004 is still early 2000s to a lot of people.


:o :o :o

How dare you! The real early 00's are 2000, 2001 and 2002! You can include 2003 but not at all 2004! >:(

You need to stop hanging around BrainDamageForums.org, dude. :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 8:43 pm

The early 2000s: living out Mean Girls in real life, dyeing our hair black while listening to emo music e.g. Fall Out Boy's From Under The Cork Tree.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 8:47 pm


First half of 2004 is still early 2000s to a lot of people.


I don't consider the 1st half of 2004 early 2000's or mid 2000's.

late 2003-mid 2004 was the transition from early 2000's to mid 2000's culture, but it was the first full core 2000's year at the same time.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 8:48 pm


I don't consider the 1st half of 2004 early 2000's or mid 2000's.

late 2003-mid 2004 was the transition from early 2000's to mid 2000's culture, but it was the first full core 2000's year at the same time.


Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 9:04 pm


The early 2000s: living out Mean Girls in real life, dyeing our hair black while listening to emo music e.g. Fall Out Boy's From Under The Cork Tree.


What!?!? No!!! >:(


Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


Early 00's is 2000, 2001 and 2002. Keep your crappy 2004 out of it, you Myspace fiend!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 9:10 pm

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/12/Oh-Snap-GIF-2015.gif?gs=a

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 9:11 pm


http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/12/Oh-Snap-GIF-2015.gif?gs=a


Only MySpace cretins would try to fit 2004 as an early 00's year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 9:13 pm


Early 00's is 2000, 2001 and 2002. Keep your crappy 2004 out of it, you Myspace fiend!


Well, MySpace pretty much existed since 2003. So, it was a bit early 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 9:14 pm

Last time I'd see any early '00s culture was during that transition in late '03-early '04. And even then it felt more core than early.

2003 is the transition from early '00s to core '00s to me. Before that the early '00s culture was more dominant.

2004 is a core 00s years with some early '00s leftovers.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 9:32 pm


Well, MySpace pretty much existed since 2003. So, it was a bit early 2000s.


I guess, but it came out August 2003.


Last time I'd see any early '00s culture was during that transition in late '03-early '04. And even then it felt more core than early.

2003 is the transition from early '00s to core '00s to me. Before that the early '00s culture was more dominant.

2004 is a core 00s years with some early '00s leftovers.




2000-2002 is complete early 00's 100%. 2003 leans more towards early but has undeniable real 00's culture. 2004 is complete and total real 2000's.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 10:02 pm


I guess, but it came out August 2003.

Existed in 2003. Didn't become a big part of pop culture until 2005-2008 as those are its peak years in popularity. Before (2003-2004) that Myspace wasn't as widely used. After (2009 onward) that it went downhill as Facebook/Twitter were becoming more popular.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 10:07 pm


Existed in 2003. Didn't become a big part of pop culture until 2005-2008 as those are its peak years in popularity. Before (2003-2004) that Myspace wasn't as widely used. After (2009 onward) that it went downhill as Facebook/Twitter were becoming more popular.


Yeah, yeah, I gueessss you're right. :P

Those MySpace fiends better stay away from my early 2000's, though.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 10:13 pm


Yeah, yeah, I gueessss you're right. :P

Those MySpace fiends better stay away from my early 2000's, though.


Nope! It'll be the Facebook fiends who'll ruin the early '00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 10:17 pm


Nope! It'll be the Facebook fiends who'll ruin the early '00s.


"omg remembur in duh earlly 00s lik 2003 or 2004 when we dyed our hair blaq watched mean gurls n white chickz n listened to mcr n green dhey? early two00s duh bezt"

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 10:21 pm


"omg remembur in duh earlly 00s lik 2003 or 2004 when we dyed our hair blaq watched mean gurls n white chickz n listened to mcr n green dhey? early two00s duh bezt"


It's can just hear them facebook users tapping their keyboards. Ready to ruin any charm the early '00s had.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 10:23 pm


It's can just hear them facebook users tapping their keyboards. Ready to ruin any charm the early '00s had.


They think the early 00's meant melodramatic and lame like 2003 and 2004 rather than RADICAL and XTREME! like 2000, 2001 and 2002. Damn kids need to get off my lawn!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/28/16 at 10:26 pm


They think the early 00's meant melodramatic and lame like 2003 and 2004 rather than RADICAL and XTREME! like 2000, 2001 and 2002. Damn kids need to get off my lawn!


If the grass is greener then they'll get all over that lawn. They'll be talking the more non-wacky music and fashion that was big in 2003-2005 and call those early '00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/28/16 at 10:32 pm


If the grass is greener then they'll get all over that lawn. They'll be talking the more non-wacky music and fashion that was big in 2003-2005 and call those early '00s.


"omg rmember in duh early 00's when tite shirts, eyeliner, blaq hair, falloutboy, myspace and of courze dah quintezzteinle movie of duh early 00s mean girls were popular? bring me bak 2 those days. 2005 is my favrotie early 00s year. 2000, 2001 and 2002? no i dont kno about those years but i love 2005 and 2006. every 2007onward sux"

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: KatanaChick on 02/29/16 at 6:21 am


2007 was slightly different but in a positive way.  It was the last year of ringtone rap and while songs like "Crank Dat Soulja Boy" were still terrible, it was a step above "Laffy Taffy" and all the other similar songs that dominated 2005 and 2006.

Don't forget the song "U and Dat." It was catchy at first and quickly became annoying after being played so much.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 02/29/16 at 1:16 pm


Don't forget the song "U and Dat." It was catchy at first and quickly became annoying after being played so much.


That song is still super popular on my local small-town Top 40 station.  Real tired of hearing it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/29/16 at 1:52 pm


I've seem to notice that trend as well. Can't wait to see the early 20s supremacy.  Might be from me. ;)
  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

---------------------------------

I'm not gonna lie. We have been in a dump world since 2004. Everything and I mean everything will never be in the same high position as the early 00s.  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 2:31 pm


I'm not gonna lie. We have been in a dump world since 2004. Everything and I mean everything will never be in the same high position as the early 00s.  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


This is the truth. 2000, 2001 and 2002 are the last three great years and then we slowly descended into sh!t in 2003 while reaching the gutter completely in 2004.

But let's be honest, the 80's were the best. 90's can't compare.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 2:32 pm


"omg rmember in duh early 00's when tite shirts, eyeliner, blaq hair, falloutboy, myspace and of courze dah quintezzteinle movie of duh early 00s mean girls were popular? bring me bak 2 those days. 2005 is my favrotie early 00s year. 2000, 2001 and 2002? no i dont kno about those years but i love 2005 and 2006. every 2007onward sux"


Pfffftt!!! How can they have early 00s nostalgia if they don't know anything about those years?! Unless 2003 is the start of the early 00s or something.  :o

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 2:36 pm


Pfffftt!!! How can they have early 00s nostalgia if they don't know anything about those years?! Unless 2003 is the start of the early 00s or something.  :o


Damn kids don't even know about the real early 00's years! Unless they're saying 2000, 2001 and 2002 are late 90's years (yes, I will allow it). Still, 2004, 2005 and 2006 are not early 2000's in the slightest. Some of these kids, they think the early 00's was 2000-2006 and everything "2007 onward sux acktually."

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 2:50 pm


Damn kids don't even know about the real early 00's years! Unless they're saying 2000, 2001 and 2002 are late 90's years (yes, I will allow it). Still, 2004, 2005 and 2006 are not early 2000's in the slightest. Some of these kids, they think the early 00's was 2000-2006 and everything "2007 onward sux acktually."


If the year doesn't have that Xtreme! cultural vibe then it ain't early '00s.  8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 2:52 pm


If the year doesn't have that Xtreme! cultural vibe then it ain't early '00s.  8)


I agree! 2003 just barely makes it but like I always say: 2000, 2001 and 2002 for lyfe! 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/29/16 at 3:01 pm


I think it's time for this thread to come to an end. People are talking too much about decadology.


I agree Slim.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/29/16 at 3:02 pm


Were there people eating ketchup in 1998? Yes. Were there people eating ketchup in 2004? Yes.


That's a silly question. ::)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:03 pm


That's a silly question. ::)


He's always asking silly questions.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Philip Eno on 02/29/16 at 3:04 pm


Were there people eating ketchup in 1998? Yes. Were there people eating ketchup in 2004? Yes.
How about the ketchup of 1966?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Philip Eno on 02/29/16 at 3:04 pm


He's always asking silly questions.
May be I should take that into consideration?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 3:05 pm


He's always asking silly questions.


That's what I like about Slowpoke. He can be silly at times which is usually humorous. But then again we all act silly or say silly things. Ain't that right, Early00sGuy?  ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/29/16 at 3:08 pm


How about the ketchup of 1966?


http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Heinz-Tomato-Ketchup-Glass-Bottle.jpg
Ketchup from the 60's.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:08 pm


How about the ketchup of 1966?


It should still be good. Won't expire until another year or so. You're better off eating pre-2003 Ketchup.


May be I should take that into consideration?


You should. ;)


That's what I like about Slowpoke. He can be silly at times which is usually humorous. But then again we all act silly or say silly things. Ain't that right, Early00sGuy?  ;)


I don't ask silly questions or do silly things. I'm very serious about my debates and discussion. I am a historian who's bringing my factual deductions to the table and expressing them with great knowledge above the horizons.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 3:10 pm


I don't ask silly questions or do silly things. I'm very serious about my debates and discussion. I am a historian who's bringing my factual deductions to the table and expressing them with great knowledge above the horizons.


IdtKbq3Omkw
Caught your nose growing again, mate.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:15 pm


IdtKbq3Omkw
Caught your nose growing again, mate.


I am not lying. I do not have room for humor or these silly little games. This is serious, Toon. Serious.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/29/16 at 3:25 pm


That's a silly question. ::)


Not really. Have you tried the 2000-2003 green ketchup?!  8-P No one wanted to eat ketchup those years except SpongeBob.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 3:26 pm


I am not lying. I do not have room for humor or these silly little games. This is serious, Toon. Serious.


Can this "serious" business/discussion determine the fate of the world?  ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:29 pm


Can this "serious" business/discussion determine the fate of the world?  ???


Yes. People's lives depend on this!! This is serious stuff.


Not really. Have you tried the 2000-2003 green ketchup?!  8-P No one wanted to eat ketchup those years except SpongeBob.


What about Shrek?

http://41.media.tumblr.com/4ae841ac14d7d9b7c4b2b822aae9ef8c/tumblr_njw3oycpQJ1unrjioo1_250.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 3:29 pm


Not really. Have you tried the 2000-2003 green ketchup?!  8-P No one wanted to eat ketchup those years except SpongeBob.


Here is the true story behind the "Green Ketchup disaster of the early '00s". You see the ketchup factories forgot to keep the Ketchup fresh. So the ketchup turned from Red to Green. Not wanting to waste all the money they spent making ketchup they decided to sell it anyways. It's been reported that people who consume too much of it turned into monsters or something like that.

Keep that 2000-2003 Ketchup away from your children! :(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:33 pm

2004 was far worse:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr03/20/11/enhanced-buzz-4179-1384965958-2.jpg

"Dippin cups" Back in my day we used to call that "your mother."

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr07/20/13/grid-cell-9395-1384972378-7.jpg

I don't wanna know what the "secret" is.

http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/october28/1.jpg

Now everyone can have a lil' bit of Shrek's "cream filling" in their Twinkees!

http://saga.guhsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/shrek.jpg

This one he's being a little bit more forward.

https://neuroethicscanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/shrek1.jpg

I'm not even going to comment on this one...

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 3:44 pm


2004 was far worse:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr03/20/11/enhanced-buzz-4179-1384965958-2.jpg

"Dippin cups" Back in my day we used to call that "your mother."

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr07/20/13/grid-cell-9395-1384972378-7.jpg

I don't wanna know what the "secret" is.

http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/october28/1.jpg

Now everyone can have a lil' bit of Shrek's "cream filling" in their Twinkees!

http://saga.guhsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/shrek.jpg

This one he's being a little bit more forward.

https://neuroethicscanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/shrek1.jpg

I'm not even going to comment on this one...


http://24.media.tumblr.com/f5e0fb5144e2d07c47cd812e2d9b972d/tumblr_mfrm1oSRg81rjpxgso1_500.gif

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:45 pm


http://24.media.tumblr.com/f5e0fb5144e2d07c47cd812e2d9b972d/tumblr_mfrm1oSRg81rjpxgso1_500.gif


That's what I was thinking. And he's always making that stupid "I've done what I'm not supposed to do tee hee" face on every box!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 3:51 pm


That's what I was thinking. And he's always making that stupid "I've done what I'm not supposed to do tee hee" face on every box!


Oh that's just a thing that Dreamworks like to do with their characters.

http://2damnfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dreamworks-Make-a-Meme-Out-Of-Their-Animal-Faces.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 3:53 pm


2004 was far worse:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr03/20/11/enhanced-buzz-4179-1384965958-2.jpg

"Dippin cups" Back in my day we used to call that "your mother."

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr07/20/13/grid-cell-9395-1384972378-7.jpg

I don't wanna know what the "secret" is.

http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/october28/1.jpg

Now everyone can have a lil' bit of Shrek's "cream filling" in their Twinkees!

http://saga.guhsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/shrek.jpg

This one he's being a little bit more forward.

https://neuroethicscanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/shrek1.jpg

I'm not even going to comment on this one...


Dude, all of that sh*t seems more edible than the f*cking ketchup you had during the early 2000s. Hell, I would eat anything from what you listed there. That sh*t gives me mid-2000s vibes, man.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 3:55 pm


Oh that's just a thing that Dreamworks like to do with their characters.

http://2damnfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dreamworks-Make-a-Meme-Out-Of-Their-Animal-Faces.jpg


They've really outdone themselves with that one!

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/3/3/6/8/7/5/SHREK-GRIN-39382370932.jpeg


Dude, all of that sh*t seems more edible than the f*cking ketchup you had during the early 2000s. Hell, I would eat anything from what you listed there. That sh*t gives me mid-2000s vibes, man.


You'd actually eat that sh!t!?

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

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 4:00 pm


You'd actually eat that sh!t!?

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


At least I wouldn't get diseases from eating that sh*t. Hertz was really f*cked up back in the early 2000s. That Xtreme! sh*t you keep mentioning was kinda f*cked up with its toxic foods.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:02 pm


At least I wouldn't get diseases from eating that sh*t. Hertz was really f*cked up back in the early 2000s. That Xtreme! sh*t you keep mentioning was kinda f*cked up with its toxic foods.


How do you know? You don't know what diseases Shrek's carrying inside. You can try to spit upon the great name of the early 2000's but it won't work. XTREME! =/= toxic. That song didn't even come out until 2003!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 4:03 pm


At least I wouldn't get diseases from eating that sh*t. Hertz was really f*cked up back in the early 2000s. That Xtreme! sh*t you keep mentioning was kinda f*cked up with its toxic foods.


HA! Never make anything Xtreme! or else you'll end up making toxic food.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 4:05 pm


How do you know? You don't know what diseases Shrek's carrying inside. You can try to spit upon the great name of the early 2000's but it won't work. XTREME! =/= toxic. That song didn't even come out until 2003!


Shrek is a dirty bastard, but he wouldn't make kids sick. Especially in Far-Far-Away Land. He didn't make Fiona's parents sick when he was in the castle in Shrek 2.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:08 pm


Shrek is a dirty bastard, but he wouldn't make kids sick. Especially in Far-Far-Away Land. He didn't make Fiona's parents sick when he was in the castle in Shrek 2.


Shrek would totally make kids suck. The slimy scumbag! Because he didn't feed them the "special twinkies."

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/29/16 at 4:20 pm


Not really. Have you tried the 2000-2003 green ketchup?!  8-P No one wanted to eat ketchup those years except SpongeBob.


I have no desire to.  :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 4:22 pm


Shrek would totally make kids suck. The slimy scumbag! Because he didn't feed them the "special twinkies."


lol

Says the person who likes early 2000s stuff.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 02/29/16 at 4:22 pm


2004 was far worse:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr03/20/11/enhanced-buzz-4179-1384965958-2.jpg

"Dippin cups" Back in my day we used to call that "your mother."

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr07/20/13/grid-cell-9395-1384972378-7.jpg

I don't wanna know what the "secret" is.

http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/october28/1.jpg

Now everyone can have a lil' bit of Shrek's "cream filling" in their Twinkees!

http://saga.guhsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/shrek.jpg

This one he's being a little bit more forward.

https://neuroethicscanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/shrek1.jpg

I'm not even going to comment on this one...


the cream filling looks like snot.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:24 pm


lol

Says the person who likes early 2000s stuff.


Says the person who likes post-2003 stuff. Low brow cretin. >:(


the cream filling looks like snot.


I was thinking something else but snot works, too.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 4:30 pm


Says the person who likes post-2003 stuff. Low brow cretin. >:(


For your information, I remember sh*t before 2003. F*ckin' Nick Jr. and Playhouse Disney was the sh*t back then. Although to be fair, that was my early childhood. So I didn't remember it that much compared to pre-K and my core childhood.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:35 pm


For your information, I remember sh*t before 2003. F*ckin' Nick Jr. and Playhouse Disney was the sh*t back then. Although to be fair, that was my early childhood. So I didn't remember it that much compared to pre-K and my core childhood.


Yeah, but that's stuff for the playground. If you don't remember crowd surfing to Green Day/Jimmy Eat World/blink-182 or watching Spider-Man in 2002, watching American Pie 2 in your Drive-Thru records shirt in 2001 or reppin' the Sums when Makes No Difference came out in 2000 then I really don't know what to tell you.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/29/16 at 4:38 pm

If you didn't play Mario Party 2 with all 4 players then you didn't live the early 2000s imo :D

Just kidding ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 4:42 pm


Yeah, but that's stuff for the playground. If you don't remember crowd surfing to Green Day/Jimmy Eat World/blink-182 or watching Spider-Man in 2002, watching American Pie 2 in your Drive-Thru records shirt in 2001 or reppin' the Sums when Makes No Difference came out in 2000 then I really don't know what to tell you.


Dude, that's teen's sh*t. I don't even think Eazy-EMan1995, ocarinafan96, nor mqg96 even remember that sh*t back in the early 2000s. Hell, I don't know why are you even asking them about teen sh*t. The only people here that'll remember it would be Howard, Philip Eno, violet_shy, pretty much anybody who can remember the 80s or earlier.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:44 pm


If you didn't play Mario Party 2 with all 4 players then you didn't live the early 2000s imo :D

Just kidding ;D


Kid stuff.

If you didn't own both a PlayStation 1 and 2 in 2000, 2001 and 2002 then you were prematurely looking forward to the spirit of 2004.

If you didn't live through the lyrics of "Dangers of Nu Metal" or "Girl All the Bad Guys Want" then you were probably excited for the faux-Emo "explosion" of 2004. 

If you didn't own every Drive-Thru release starting from 1997, then you were probably anticipating Fueled by Ramen's garbage mid 00's catalog.


Dude, that's teen's sh*t. I don't even think Eazy-EMan1995, ocarinafan96, nor mqg96 even remember that sh*t back in the early 2000s. Hell, I don't know why are you even asking them about teen sh*t. The only people here that'll remember it would be Howard, Philip Eno, violet_shy, pretty much anybody who can remember the 80s or earlier.


Because they were kids so they focused on the kids stuff whereas I was a teen/young adult back then so I focused on the regular culture of the time (which actually defines the times. :P) I don't ask them about teen sh!t, though. Dude, you know I'm just kidding with you, no need to get upset.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 02/29/16 at 4:47 pm


Kid stuff.

If you didn't own both a PlayStation 1 and 2 in 2000, 2001 and 2002 then you were prematurely looking forward to the spirit of 2004.

If you didn't live through the lyrics of "Dangers of Nu Metal" or "Girl All the Bad Guys Want" then you were probably existed for the faux-Emo "explosion" of 2004. 

If you didn't own every Drive-Thru release starting from 1997, then you were probably anticipating Fueled by Ramen's garbage mid 00's catalog.

Because they were kids so they focused on the kids stuff whereas I was a teen/young adult back then so I focused on the regular culture of the time (which actually defines the times. :P) I don't ask them about teen sh!t, though. Dude, you know I'm just kidding with you, no need to get upset.


It's perfectly adult. 8) I'm pretty sure I had some peach fuzz for a moustache by 2003. All the adults like me had a Gamecube.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:48 pm


It's perfectly adult. 8) I'm pretty sure I had some peach fuzz for a moustache by 2003. All the adults like me had a Gamecube.


I bet you didn't even have to live through a full play through of KoRn's Untouchables or Limp Bizkit's Hot Dog Favored Starfish! >:(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/29/16 at 4:49 pm


Because they were kids so they focused on the kids stuff whereas I was a teen/young adult back then so I focused on the regular culture of the time (which actually defines the times. :P) I don't ask them about teen sh!t, though. Dude, you know I'm just kidding with you, no need to get upset.


Oh. But still, just because they were kids back then, that doesn't they'll remember like a teenager would. Even for me, when I only remember 2002-2003 as part of the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 4:51 pm


Oh. But still, just because they were kids back then, that doesn't they'll remember like a teenager would. Even for me, when I only remember 2002-2003 as part of the early 2000s.


Yeah, I got ya. I was just messing around with you. ;)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 02/29/16 at 5:26 pm

I come in here already seeing Jordan disturbing the peace of this thread.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/29/16 at 5:45 pm


I come in here already seeing Jordan disturbing the peace of this thread.


I disturb the peace quite often.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/01/16 at 2:48 am


I disturb the peace quite often.
Give peace a chance

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/01/16 at 3:04 am


I disturb the peace quite often.


Jordan likes to disturb the peace confirmed. Time to get him arrested. 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/01/16 at 3:56 am


Jordan likes to disturb the peace confirmed. Time to get him arrested. 8)


Arrest me? I should be congratulated! 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/01/16 at 4:17 am


Arrest me? I should be congratulated! 8)


NOPE! Arrested.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/01/16 at 4:18 am


NOPE! Arrested.


How can you arrest me when I got Bubba on my side?

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/673633/673633,1299534463,2/stock-vector-mobster-or-italian-mafia-crime-boss-wearing-a-suit-72736855.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mqg96 on 03/01/16 at 9:32 am


Not really. Have you tried the 2000-2003 green ketchup?!  8-P No one wanted to eat ketchup those years except SpongeBob.


Fried green tomatoes are really good though!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/01/16 at 1:34 pm


Give peace a chance


I read this as "Give peas a chance."


Fried green tomatoes are really good though!


Will someone who doesn't like tomatoes in general enjoy it?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/01/16 at 8:04 pm


Not even. The 1999-00 was the pure one. The previous was half.

You're the first to say that the 1997-98 year was the transition. Mostly, it's late 90's all the way.

That's because some people are confused on how long the era is.

Nope, he's correct the 97-98 year was the absolute transition.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/01/16 at 8:10 pm


Nope, he's correct the 97-98 year was the absolute transition.


98-99 had the first Mario Party  :D Not as good as the second one, but still pretty fun.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/01/16 at 8:12 pm


No there were still tons of late 90's leftovers in 2003-2004. CN and Nick were at the tail end of their Golden/Silver Ages, it was the last season of Frasier, Friends, & Angel, iPODs still weren't as popular as the Discman (in fact it was 2004 when the iPod popularity increased immensely), dial up Internet and AOL was still very common, no modern social media (while MySpace launched in 03' it didn't rise in popularity until late 04'), The Neptunes Souncd in R&B, Pop Punk, & Nu Metal were at the tail end of their popularity, and fashion was still generally baggy and more early 00's influenced.

However I agree that in the grand scheme of things the school year was more of a transition. For instance the beginning was late 2003 which is arguably the tail end of any mainstream Millennium influences, while the end which was 2004 was the very start of core 00's influences.


Anyways this is how I see the 00's in general:

2000-Mid 2001: A continuation (or transition) of the Y2K Culture

Late 2001-Early 2004: Mainly Early 00's Culture

Mid 2004-Mid 2006: Mainly Mid 00's Culture

Late 2006-Early 2009: Mainly Late 00's Culture

Mid 2009-On: Mainly Early 10's Culture

Core 00's (best representation of 2000's culture): would be Late 2004-Mid 2007

I agree with mxcrashxm, the late 90s, Y2K era, and early 2000s are all separate, identifiable sub-eras with a decent amount of similarities across the board.  The late 90s, represented by things like Puff Daddy, the Spice Girls, Cow & Chicken, the peak of King of the Hill, and No Limit, was dominant from roughly spring 1997 to winter 1998/1999.  The Y2K era, represented by Britney Spears, Pokémania, latin pop, rap/rock, etc., truly took off in spring 1999 and lasted until 9/11.  Finally, the early 2000s, marked by the peak of the Neptunes, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Lizzie McGuire, Game Boy Advance, post-9/11 patriotism, the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, etc., was from 9/11 until roughly the end of 2003.

ALL OF THIS!!!!!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/01/16 at 8:13 pm


98-99 had the first Mario Party  :D Not as good as the second one, but still pretty fun.

98-99 school year was CRAZY! It was when core Gen Y kid culture transitioned to late Gen Y kid culture. Pokemon, DBZ on Toonami, Zoog Disney, etc. Also the Y2K boy bands and tv shows got popular and overtook the previous culture.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/01/16 at 8:22 pm


98-99 school year was CRAZY! It was when core Gen Y kid culture transitioned to late Gen Y kid culture. Pokemon, DBZ on Toonami, Zoog Disney, etc. Also the Y2K boy bands and tv shows got popular and overtook the previous culture.


Haha, yes!  :D The early Pokémon days were so much fun. There was also the Gameboy Color and Britney Spears  LOL. Everything about 1998-99 school year screams Y2K era. It has more similarities with 1999-00 school year than 1997-98.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/01/16 at 8:30 pm


Haha, yes!  :D The early Pokémon days were so much fun. There was also the Gameboy Color and Britney Spears  LOL. Everything about 1998-99 school year screams Y2K era. It has more similarities with 1999-00 school year than 1997-98.

Yea, cause in 97-98 the NBA was still centered around Michael Jordan, Seinfeld, Goosebumps, was still on, Simpson's last ''great''season, WCW was still kicking the WWE/WWF's ass in tv ratings, Pokemania hadn't begun yet, Nick (although transitioning to the silver age) was in it's last golden age day, NFL was still on the old NBC.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/02/16 at 1:42 pm


Nope, he's correct the 97-98 year was the absolute transition.
No way! ;D ::) That year still had some core 90s in it. The 1998-99 one was definitely the transition. Here are some photos and videos.



1997-98

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Sega-Saturn-Console-Set-Mk1.png

http://waltwhitmanhighschool.com/wwhs/classpics/1998_high.jpg

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

1998-99

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Game_Boy_Color.png

http://waltwhitmanhighschool.com/wwhs/classpics/1999_high.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp843eXXPqM&list=PL7VKWqz5UHLiSgr9EY2H7Gw90q9_wNK_f




98-99 had the first Mario Party  :D Not as good as the second one, but still pretty fun.
Both of them are awesome in their own way. They offered unique elements such as the first one for each character having their own board map while in the second one, they got to dress up in costumes in the respective board map.


98-99 school year was CRAZY! It was when core Gen Y kid culture transitioned to late Gen Y kid culture. Pokemon, DBZ on Toonami, Zoog Disney, etc. Also the Y2K boy bands and tv shows got popular and overtook the previous culture.
Do you consider the former as the last year for Core Y kid culture?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/02/16 at 2:19 pm


No way! ;D ::) That year still had some core 90s in it. The 1998-99 one was definitely the transition. Here are some photos and videos.



1997-98

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Sega-Saturn-Console-Set-Mk1.png

http://waltwhitmanhighschool.com/wwhs/classpics/1998_high.jpg

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

1998-99

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Game_Boy_Color.png

http://waltwhitmanhighschool.com/wwhs/classpics/1999_high.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp843eXXPqM&list=PL7VKWqz5UHLiSgr9EY2H7Gw90q9_wNK_f


Both of them are awesome in their own way. They offered unique elements such as the first one for each character having their own board map while in the second one, they got to dress up in costumes in the respective board map.
Do you consider the former as the last year for Core Y kid culture?



Awwwww....... My head is hurting! :D
97-98 season may have been the last core 90s school year, but it was when the millennium era was being ushered in. Sure Michael Jordan was still the face of the NBA, Seinfeld, Goosebumps, were still on, Simpson's last ''great''season, WCW was still kicking the WWE/WWF's ass in tv ratings, Pokemania hadn't begun yet, Nick (although transitioning to the silver age) was in it's last golden age day, but Cartoon Network entered it's golden age, One SaturdayMorning started, Zoog Disney started, boy bands started coming, South Park premiered, 5th gen gaming was the COMPLETE standard. So it was a transitionaleriod.
]Also the 98-99 school year debate..... I think that's when late Gen Y kid culture started. It was however the last school year to have core Y influences though, as  Anamaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, The New Batman Adventures, Cow and Chicken, all ended
]But we saw the premieres of Batman Beyond, powerpuff girls, Spongebob, Family Guy, Futurama, debuted, DBZ came to Toonami, Dil debuted on Rugrats, Pokemon premiered, etc. So yeah.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 03/02/16 at 3:07 pm

I really don't understand how 1997-1998 was supposedly such a transitional school year for popular culture.  The only really significant shift that occurred that year was Beavis & Butthead concluding at the end of 1997.  Otherwise, June 1998 was pretty much the exact same atmosphere as September 1997.  Even if you factor in things like The Simpsons and Seinfeld airing their last classic seasons during that school year, that would really make 1998-1999 the transitional period, since that would be the first time that there hadn't been a new episode of Seinfeld or a classic episode of The Simpsons in several months, thus gradually fading both shows from everybody's minds.

The 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 school years were much more transformative, in my opinion, on a broad scale.  It was during 1996-1997 (plus summer 1997) that the gaming industry made its leap from the 4th to 5th generation, both 2Pac and Biggie were murdered, mid-90s alternative bands like The Cranberries and Gin Blossoms released their last hits, millennial-era teen pop became huge, shows like Sabrina, King of the Hill, and 7th Heaven made their premiere; frosted tips became popular with guys, Bad Boy Records evolved into a more commercial label with Mase and Puff Daddy himself as its main proponents, No Limit replaced Death Row as the label's main rival beginning with the TRU album, disaster movies emerged as the most popular summer blockbusters (this started back in May with Twister, but it was still late 90s trend), the Internet emerged as definitely more than just a fad, post-britpop groups like The Verve and Radiohead started to overtake britpop ones, both Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network had well-established late 90s/Y2K era programs, Tony Blair became the British Prime Minister, mid-90s eurodance died out, Timbaland replaced Dr. Dre as the most influential hip hop producer, grunge completely died, and South Park first came out.  This school year took us from the mid-90s to the late 90s.

As for 1998-1999, it was only during the course of that school year that Pokémania emerged, teen pop entered its peak with the debut of Britney Spears and release of the Backstreet Boys' Millennium, nu-metal and rap-rock bands started to rival typical 90s-style alternative bands, rappers like Jay-Z, Eminem, and DMX became the new faces of hip hop; Bill Clinton was impeached, the Columbine Massacre occurred, revolutionary games like Half-Life and Ocarina of Time came out, the latin pop craze took off, CGI special effects juggernauts like The Matrix and The Phantom Menace hit theaters, shows like The Sopranos, The Powerpuff Girls, and Family Guy made their premieres; Napster was first launched, and both the Windows 98 and iMac were first released.  This school year took us from the core/classic 90s to the peak of the Y2K era.

Most of the things Eazy-EMAN1995 referred to about 1997-1998 were changes that already took place during the 1996-1997 school year or the preceding summer.  The 1997-1998 school year was really just the first entire period that all of these changes were fully observable, but hardly anything actually changed as the school year unfolded.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/02/16 at 4:17 pm


I really don't understand how 1997-1998 was supposedly such a transitional school year for popular culture.  The only really significant shift that occurred that year was Beavis & Butthead concluding at the end of 1997.  Otherwise, June 1998 was pretty much the exact same atmosphere as September 1997.  Even if you factor in things like The Simpsons and Seinfeld airing their last classic seasons during that school year, that would really make 1998-1999 the transitional period, since that would be the first time that there hadn't been a new episode of Seinfeld or a classic episode of The Simpsons in several months, thus gradually fading both shows from everybody's minds.

The 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 school years were much more transformative, in my opinion, on a broad scale.  It was during 1996-1997 (plus summer 1997) that the gaming industry made its leap from the 4th to 5th generation, both 2Pac and Biggie were murdered, mid-90s alternative bands like The Cranberries and Gin Blossoms released their last hits, millennial-era teen pop became huge, shows like Sabrina, King of the Hill, and 7th Heaven made their premiere; frosted tips became popular with guys, Bad Boy Records evolved into a more commercial label with Mase and Puff Daddy himself as its main proponents, No Limit replaced Death Row as the label's main rival beginning with the TRU album, disaster movies emerged as the most popular summer blockbusters (this started back in May with Twister, but it was still late 90s trend), the Internet emerged as definitely more than just a fad, post-britpop groups like The Verve and Radiohead started to overtake britpop ones, both Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network had well-established late 90s/Y2K era programs, Tony Blair became the British Prime Minister, mid-90s eurodance died out, Timbaland replaced Dr. Dre as the most influential hip hop producer, grunge completely died, and South Park first came out.  This school year took us from the mid-90s to the late 90s.

As for 1998-1999, it was only during the course of that school year that Pokémania emerged, teen pop entered its peak with the debut of Britney Spears and release of the Backstreet Boys' Millennium, nu-metal and rap-rock bands started to rival typical 90s-style alternative bands, rappers like Jay-Z, Eminem, and DMX became the new faces of hip hop; Bill Clinton was impeached, the Columbine Massacre occurred, revolutionary games like Half-Life and Ocarina of Time came out, the latin pop craze took off, CGI special effects juggernauts like The Matrix and The Phantom Menace hit theaters, shows like The Sopranos, The Powerpuff Girls, and Family Guy made their premieres; Napster was first launched, and both the Windows 98 and iMac were first released.  This school year took us from the core/classic 90s to the peak of the Y2K era.

Most of the things Eazy-EMAN1995 referred to about 1997-1998 were changes that already took place during the 1996-1997 school year or the preceding summer.  The 1997-1998 school year was really just the first entire period that all of these changes were fully observable, but hardly anything actually changed as the school year unfolded.

Well, what I aid earlier, it was just what I think. I don't think they're all factual, just my two cents on things. I just think that the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons were BOTH transitional. and I'm sticking by what I said and you are NOT going to change my mind. BTW, you can call me Eric!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/02/16 at 5:58 pm

Hey guys an interesting article!
http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/1829007-did-2000s-even-have-its-own.html

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/02/16 at 6:03 pm


Hey guys an interesting article!
http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/1829007-did-2000s-even-have-its-own.html


Typical 2000s adults. That's all I could say.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: #Infinity on 03/03/16 at 1:44 am


Well, what I aid earlier, it was just what I think. I don't think they're all factual, just my two cents on things. I just think that the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons were BOTH transitional. and I'm sticking by what I said and you are NOT going to change my mind. BTW, you can call me Eric!


Well, to be fair, you and some others focus on a lot of factors that I take less into consideration, and perhaps vice versa.  For instance, not everybody focuses on britpop or who the British Prime Minister is; conversely, you're clearly a lot more knowledgable about sports than I am.

I guess I just wonder what specifically, besides the end of Beavis & Butthead, made the 1997-1998 school year so transitional to other people, because, at least from what you've talked about, Eric, most of the things you referred to either came into being during the 1996-1997 school year, summer 1997, or 1998-1999.  1997-1998, at least in my opinion, mostly felt like a period of cultural equilibrium, before the Y2K era decided to finish defining itself the following year.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/18/16 at 5:48 am


You son of a bitch. Don't ever insult the late 2000s. I will defend it till the day I die.


You do realize he's joking, right?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/18/16 at 8:24 am


You do realize he's joking, right?


Nah, Slowpoke2001 loves his early 10s but he hates the late 00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/18/16 at 12:28 pm


Yeah cus Slowpoke is stupid. Late 00s RULE!!!


He has spoken.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/18/16 at 12:31 pm


Yeah cus Slowpoke is stupid. Late 00s RULE!!!


The only part of the late 2000s you like is the part where it's dying out. It was great but I prefer 2009-10 where I can enjoy the fruits of my labour. There was no Chad Warden or Britney Spears meltdown in 2008-09. Heck, there was a Britney Spears electro pop album that screams early 10s in 2008-09 school year. :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: bchris02 on 03/18/16 at 12:46 pm


The only part of the late 2000s you like is the part where it's dying out. It was great but I prefer 2009-10 where I can enjoy the fruits of my labour. There was no Chad Warden or Britney Spears meltdown in 2008-09. Heck, there was a Britney Spears electro pop album that screams early 10s in 2008-09 school year. :P


Britney Spears' "Circus" album leans late '00s more than early '10s but is an excellent representative of that era.  Britney was seen as a "has been" by that point but she actually had quite a nice comeback during the Circus era.  That album had multiple hits including "Womanizer", "Circus", "If You Seek Amy", and "Radar."  Those songs got a lot of club play as well and hearing them makes me very nostalgic.

Her song "3" on her next Greatest Hits album in late 2009 was a true electropop song.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/18/16 at 1:39 pm

Mid 2000's, late 2000's, who cares? All the same sh!t.


The real 2000's in a nutshell:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/WingsHaircut.jpg

"Yo, dogg, you lizten 2 rap?"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d2/46/e8/d246e82ced989555e9f945ff3ec8c354.jpg

"Yeah, of course I lizten 2 rap, dogg. What do u even hav 2 ask?"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/64/d3/a064d32b23871dbe03aa6ab77f09187a.jpg

"Yo, you guys like rap? sheeetttt, I like rap, too. G-G-G-G-G UNIT!"

http://bp2.blogger.com/_XAePxwGya7E/R1z9Rju2lVI/AAAAAAAAAjA/xknVW7bWRuM/s400/mitchel.jpg

"Sup, homies. Wanna play sum fiddy cent bullet proof on my psp?"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515V1RBN9VL._SY300_.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/WingsHaircut.jpg

"yo that's soooo G dogg"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/64/d3/a064d32b23871dbe03aa6ab77f09187a.jpg

"Yo I call playin as snoooooooooppp"

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/78f06c179de4e9973d40ed829e4cf0b7/http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj136/hmfsoccer2495/Teen-men-hairstyle-with-long-ban-3.jpg

"Yo doggz imma get in on diz"

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/18/16 at 2:32 pm


Yeah cus Slowpoke is stupid. Late 00s RULE!!!


Jesus, as much as I like the late 2000s, but I wouldn't attack Slowpoke for disliking it.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/18/16 at 3:51 pm


Britney Spears' "Circus" album leans late '00s more than early '10s but is an excellent representative of that era.  Britney was seen as a "has been" by that point but she actually had quite a nice comeback during the Circus era.  That album had multiple hits including "Womanizer", "Circus", "If You Seek Amy", and "Radar."  Those songs got a lot of club play as well and hearing them makes me very nostalgic.

Her song "3" on her next Greatest Hits album in late 2009 was a true electropop song.


Yeah, I remember her being considered disgraced in 2007, then in 2009 she made a huge comeback and it was acceptable to be a fan of hers again. I think most consider Womanizer as electorpop, I do remember it being described on the radio as such. It doesn sound like anything that could have come out of her Blackout album, which is a real late 2000s album with dance-pop that has R&B-influenced beats.


Jesus, as much as I like the late 2000s, but I wouldn't attack Slowpoke for disliking it.


Haha, he's just ribbin' (I hope)  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 03/19/16 at 10:02 am

Circus by Britney Spears is a late 2000s album imo.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/19/16 at 10:05 am


Circus by Britney Spears is a late 2000s album imo.


It was also the last 2000s album that she made. Culturally and numerically.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/23/16 at 5:39 pm


Mid 2000's, late 2000's, who cares? All the same sh!t.
Not every Caucasian guy had that hairstyle. Some had this one as well. I don't remember seeing the wing-haircut that much and I attended a predominately white school. 

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee136/suwarnaadi/blake.jpg

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/23/16 at 5:49 pm


Mid 2000's, late 2000's, who cares? All the same sh!t.


I find the late 2000s to be really different compared to the mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/23/16 at 6:17 pm


I find the late 2000s to be really different compared to the mid 2000s.

"2004 to Infinity"

- JordanK1982


But yeah I do see the differences in the late '00s and mid '00s. Mid '00s is one big transitional period to me. While the late '00s is an era after the transition has ended which makes the late part distinct from the early and mid parts.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/23/16 at 6:35 pm


"2004 to Infinity"

- JordanK1982


But yeah I do see the differences in the late '00s and mid '00s. Mid '00s is one big transitional period to me. While the late '00s is an era after the transition has ended which makes the late part distinct from the early and mid parts.


It basically seemed like its own era, while being related towards the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/23/16 at 11:35 pm


Not every Caucasian guy had that hairstyle. Some had this one as well. I don't remember seeing the wing-haircut that much and I attended a predominately white school. 

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee136/suwarnaadi/blake.jpg


I didn't see this hair style at all in the real 2000's, especially not with that little bleached part in the middle. I saw the wing hair, buzz cuts (non-bleached, though), and sh!tty slicked back hair. Spikes were out.


"2004 to Infinity"

- JordanK1982


But yeah I do see the differences in the late '00s and mid '00s. Mid '00s is one big transitional period to me. While the late '00s is an era after the transition has ended which makes the late part distinct from the early and mid parts.


It's the truth! ;)

I can see why someone would say the mid 00's are transitional but I think they're basically a less advanced version of the late 00's.


It basically seemed like its own era, while being related towards the early 2000s.


The mid 00's had more to do with the late 00's than the early 00s. The late 00s built off of mid 00s trends and stayed true to their initial forms.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/23/16 at 11:59 pm


Not every Caucasian guy had that hairstyle. Some had this one as well. I don't remember seeing the wing-haircut that much and I attended a predominately white school. 

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee136/suwarnaadi/blake.jpg


That's the hair I saw too but he doesn't believe me  >:(  Gel, gel, gel, everyone was obsessed wit hair gel. Whenever I got my hair cut the barber would ask if I want to put some gel in it. Sometimes they used to put in some without asking. Also, in the mid-2000s people our age started to become fashion concious. You could tell someone hit that stage when they came to school that day with their hair standing up and not down  ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 12:08 am


That's the hair I saw too but he doesn't believe me  >:(  Gel, gel, gel, everyone was obsessed wit hair gel. Whenever I got my hair cut the barber would ask if I want to put some gel in it. Sometimes they used to put in some without asking. Also, in the mid-2000s people our age started to become fashion concious. You could tell someone hit that stage when they came to school that day with their hair standing up and not down  ;D


I never saw that hair in the real 00's and I'm pretty sure that I was the only one with spiky hair after 2003. The 00's hair was all about that stupid Zac Afron hair. Bessiiidddesss... You guys didn't even listen to Rap Rock, how could you have spiky hair!? It was all about the wings and crappy rap music in the real 00's. I can see generic upright hair being big (aka sh!tty slicked back hair) but not real spikes from the early 00s.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/24/16 at 12:12 am


I never saw that hair in the real 00's and I'm pretty sure that I was the only one with spiky hair after 2003. The 00's hair was all about that stupid Zac Afron hair. Bessiiidddesss... You guys didn't even listen to Rap Rock, how could you have spiky hair!? It was all about the wings and crappy rap music in the real 00's. I can see generic upright hair being big (aka sh!tty slicked back hair) but not real spikes from the early 00s.


Linkin Park came out with their new album in 2004.

edit: okay 2003, but kids were listening to it in 2005/2006 lol.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 12:13 am


Linkin Park came out with their new album in 2004.


What!? Meteroa came out in early 2003. ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/24/16 at 12:21 am


What!? Meteroa came out in early 2003. ???

Kids were using it for background music in their YouTube DBZ videos in 2005/2006 ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

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


Kids were using it for background music in their YouTube DBZ videos in 2005/2006 ;D


They were clearly either:

A. Behind the times

B. Being nostalgic for the early 00's like I was in 2005 and 2006.

Sorry but nobody else listened to Rap Rock during those times.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/24/16 at 12:24 am


Kids were using it for background music in their YouTube DBZ videos in 2005/2006 ;D


How to define a classic youtube video
- Uses footage from a popular show (DBZ)
- Uses popular music (Linkin' Park for example)
- Video is in 240p or lower
- Solid Color screen in the video
- Comic sans text


I swear all the 2005-2010 vids were like this.  ???

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/24/16 at 12:30 am


They were clearly either:

A. Behind the times

B. Being nostalgic for the early 00's like I was in 2005 and 2006.

Sorry but nobody else listened to Rap Rock during those times.


You know what they say, the 90s didn't end until 2007.


How to define a classic youtube video
- Uses footage from a popular show (DBZ)
- Uses popular music (Linkin' Park for example)
- Video is in 240p or lower
- Solid Color screen in the video
- Comic sans text


I swear all the 2005-2010 vids were like this.  ???


It got better in 2007/8 ;D But yeah YouTube in 2005/2006 had mostly useless videos like that.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 12:35 am


You know what they say, the 90s didn't end until 2007.



https://mustbethistalltoride.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/tommy-lee-jones-face.jpg


It got better in 2007/8 ;D But yeah YouTube in 2005/2006 had mostly useless videos like that.


Oh, right. You mean when the 90's ended.

http://rs1082.pbsrc.com/albums/j370/Jezey/Bored%20Eye%20Roll%20Shaking%20Head%20Gifs/Judge-Judy-Shake-My-Head-Gif_zps66b02891.gif~c200

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/24/16 at 12:39 am

You told me you didn't watch Judge Judy. Are you going to be watching Judge Palin?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 12:41 am


You told me you didn't watch Judge Judy. Are you going to be watching Judge Palin?


I don't watch Judge Judy. The gif just capture my reaction perfectly. Judge Palin!?!?! Oh god no... Sarah Palin just shouldn't exist. She's worst than Fred Durst.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/24/16 at 12:48 am


I don't watch Judge Judy. The gif just capture my reaction perfectly. Judge Palin!?!?! Oh god no... Sarah Palin just shouldn't exist. She's worst than Fred Durst.


I didn't know that was Mr. Bizkit's real name.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 12:51 am


I didn't know that was Mr. Bizkit's real name.


???

I bring him up all the time, though!

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/24/16 at 12:58 am


???

I bring him up all the time, though!


Fred Durst>Kurt Cobain. Limp Bizkit is da best band eva.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: cool123 on 03/24/16 at 1:01 am

Oh man Jordan you are the greatest troll ever, you had me convinced for a quite a while that you hated the real 2000s. But why don't you just admit that you love everything about it and that it was your favorite era of pop culture.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 1:04 am


Fred Durst>Kurt Cobain. Limp Bizkit is da best band eva.


Machine Head said back in 1999 he used to post that exact same thing on message boards.


Oh man Jordan you are the greatest troll ever, you had me convinced for a quite a while that you hated the real 2000s. But why don't you just admit that you love everything about it and that it was your favorite era of pop culture.


But it sucked. I'd rather live in the 2010's than go back to the real 00's.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Howard on 03/24/16 at 3:33 pm


You told me you didn't watch Judge Judy. Are you going to be watching Judge Palin?



I watch Judge Judy.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/24/16 at 3:45 pm


Oh man Jordan you are the greatest troll ever, you had me convinced for a quite a while that you hated the real 2000s. But why don't you just admit that you love everything about it and that it was your favorite era of pop culture.


I don't think he likes the core 2000s. He said it too many times.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/24/16 at 9:56 pm


I don't think he likes the core 2000s. He said it too many times.


Yeah, the only 2000's years I like are 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/25/16 at 12:34 am

2003 was fun too. :(

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 12:38 am


2003 was fun too. :(


65/35 sure.

Most of 2003's culture was pretty good but it lies in the shadow of 2000/2001/2002.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/25/16 at 12:42 am


65/35 sure.

Most of 2003's culture was pretty good but it lies in the shadow of 2000/2001/2002.


Which one of those years was your favourite?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 12:43 am


Which one of those years was your favourite?


I like all three equally. They were a consistent stream of good sh!t that it's a crime to pick one over the other.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: 2001 on 03/25/16 at 12:46 am


I like all three equally. They were a consistent stream of good sh!t that it's a crime to pick one over the other.


That's cheating. I think 2000 was the best. :P

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 12:49 am


That's cheating. I think 2000 was the best. :P


No way! 2000/2001/2002 were all incredible. How can I look at them and think "Oh yeah, this one is better than this one" when they all complement each other? I'm not a true Early 00s Guy if I don't love each year of the early 00s equally. 

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 12:55 am

When it comes to the early 2000s I think 2001-2002 were the best. But 2000 and 2003 were great as well.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 12:56 am


When it comes to the early 2000s I think 2001-2002 were the best. But 2000 and 2003 were great as well.


I dunno, man. I think 2000 was just as mighty and incredible as 2001 and 2002. 8)

2003 was alright but it lies in 2000/2001/2002's big, mighty shadow.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 12:57 am


I dunno, man. I think 2000 was just as mighty and incredible as 2001 and 2002. 8)

2003 was alright but it lies in 2000/2001/2002's big, mighty shadow.


I was mainly referring to my personal life experiences. If we're talking pop culture I like them all. 

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 12:59 am


I was mainly referring to my personal life experiences. If we're talking pop culture I like them all.


Ah, ok. My personal life was super good during all of those years but 2003 was kinda uneventful. It felt like the burnout period. So personally and pop culture = 2000/2001/2002 for life. 8) Do you like all those years equally pop culture-wise?

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 1:06 am


Ah, ok. My personal life was super good during all of those years but 2003 was kinda uneventful. It felt like the burnout period. So personally and pop culture = 2000/2001/2002 for life. 8) Do you like all those years equally pop culture-wise?


Yep. All had that colorful, xtreme and upbeat cultural vibe to them which is something I'll always love. Nice music, games, movies, cartoons, and fashion. I like them all equally. From 2000-2003 there was a lot to enjoy up until we reached the late part of 2003. When things weren't as upbeat, xtreme, or colorful as 2002 or before.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 1:12 am


Yep. All had that colorful, xtreme and upbeat cultural vibe to them which is something I'll always love. Nice music, games, movies, cartoons, and fashion. I like them all equally. From 2000-2003 there was a lot to enjoy up until we reached the late part of 2003. When things weren't as upbeat, xtreme, or colorful as 2002 or before.


I agree. It seems that back then there was a consistent stream of good sh!t coming out! Man, one thing I've been remembering is those Rap Metal Pepsi Blue commercials. That one song by Sev "Same Old Song" Oh man! The vibe of the music, the artwork of the album it just takes me right back to those days. Summertime in the early 00s! Even 2003 had that cool MxPx Pepsi commerical. Early-mid 03 were so-so. They were still very bright and colorful despite some of the changes but as the year went by, it started feeling more like the real 00s (though, some late 03 stuff still felt like the final remains of 2000-2002. Still a good year, if you ask me).

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 1:45 am


I agree. It seems that back then there was a consistent stream of good sh!t coming out! Man, one thing I've been remembering is those Rap Metal Pepsi Blue commercials. That one song by Sev "Same Old Song" Oh man! The vibe of the music, the artwork of the album it just takes me right back to those days. Summertime in the early 00s! Even 2003 had that cool MxPx Pepsi commerical. Early-mid 03 were so-so. They were still very bright and colorful despite some of the changes but as the year went by, it started feeling more like the real 00s (though, some late 03 stuff still felt like the final remains of 2000-2002. Still a good year, if you ask me).


Oh yeah I remember those commercials. I liked early '00s way of advertising. Early-Mid '03 for the most part was just like 2002. Fall of 2003 was when I'd say we got into the core '00s, but we still had some early '00s left overs at the time.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 1:49 am


Oh yeah I remember those commercials. I liked early '00s way of advertising. Early-Mid '03 for the most part was just like 2002. Fall of 2003 was when I'd say we got into the core '00s, but we still had some early '00s left overs at the time.


Yeah, man! Everything about the early 00's was great. Man, that weird "new millennium" vibe was rad. Yeah, there were still some differences but early-mid 2003 still had noticeable connections to 2000-2002. It wasn't until early 2004 that we fully entered the real 00's. But man, 2000-2002 when the vibe was the strongest was the best. It was like living a cartoon even. 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 2:23 am


Yeah, man! Everything about the early 00's was great. Man, that weird "new millennium" vibe was rad. Yeah, there were still some differences but early-mid 2003 still had noticeable connections to 2000-2002. It wasn't until early 2004 that we fully entered the real 00's. But man, 2000-2002 when the vibe was the strongest was the best. It was like living a cartoon even. 8)


Living a cartoon? I didn't see it that. I saw 2000-2002 as living an Xtreme commercial. In those Xtreme commercials they were wacky, upbeat, and colorful which is how I describe 2000-2002. Imagine a commercial that instead of lasting for 30 seconds it lasted for a few years. Although there were some pretty cartoony moments that I've had in that time.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 2:27 am


Living a cartoon? I didn't see it that. I saw 2000-2002 as living an Xtreme commercial. In those Xtreme commercials they were wacky, upbeat, and colorful which is how I describe 2000-2002. Imagine a commercial that instead of lasting for 30 seconds it lasted for a few years. Although there were some pretty cartoony moments that I've had in that time.


An Xtreme! cartoon, man. 8) But you're totally right, it was definitely like an Xtreme commercial! Pepsi Blue, Dell Dudes, Rap Rock, Pop Punk, frosted tips, etc. I just think back to those Pepsi Blue/Dell Dude commercials or that video "I Feel Fine" by the Riddlin' Kids when I think of how 2000-2002 was.

I just found this commercial and I think it's a perfect description of the early 00s:
Hk_foi_Eyww

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 2:57 am


An Xtreme! cartoon, man. 8) But you're totally right, it was definitely like an Xtreme commercial! Pepsi Blue, Dell Dudes, Rap Rock, Pop Punk, frosted tips, etc. I just think back to those Pepsi Blue/Dell Dude commercials or that video "I Feel Fine" by the Riddlin' Kids when I think of how 2000-2002 was.

I just found this commercial and I think it's a perfect description of the early 00s:
Hk_foi_Eyww

That commercial had me like...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/f5e0fb5144e2d07c47cd812e2d9b972d/tumblr_mfrm1oSRg81rjpxgso1_500.gif

Yep, that commercial is how I'd describe a lot of things in life from the early '00s especially pop culture.  ;D Making me miss 2000-2002 all over again, Jordan.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 3:00 am


That commercial had me like...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/f5e0fb5144e2d07c47cd812e2d9b972d/tumblr_mfrm1oSRg81rjpxgso1_500.gif

Yep, that commercial is how I'd describe a lot of things in life from the early '00s especially pop culture.  ;D Making me miss 2000-2002 all over again, Jordan.


It was too crazy, man! The coloring and camera angles make it look like a weird N64 cartoon world. :D If you like, I'll send you some good ol' Rap Metal but I dunno, that might make you even more nostalgic (I don't like Nu Metal but it still makes me nostalgic).

Even though this came out in 1997, it reminds me of the early 00's because they're all hanging out in the suburbs causing trouble:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4R8C4HblkM

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 3:05 am


It was too crazy, man! The coloring and camera angles make it look like a weird N64 cartoon world. :D If you like, I'll send you some good ol' Rap Metal but I dunno, that might make you even more nostalgic (I don't like Nu Metal but it still makes me nostalgic).

Even though this came out in 1997, it reminds me of the early 00's because they're all hanging out in the suburbs causing trouble:

L4R8C4HblkM


Commercial is pretty cartoony and colorful. I liked the ending where the dog speaks. It's just one of them funny things that comes outta nowhere. I'm already listening to some Rap Metal and tons of other early 00's music as the nostalgia flows through me. Also wait a sec I thought you were a fan of Nu Metal.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 3:09 am


Commercial is pretty cartoony and colorful. I liked the ending where the dog speaks. It's just one of them funny things that comes outta nowhere. I'm already listening to some Rap Metal and tons of other early 00's music as the nostalgia flows through me. Also wait a sec I thought you were a fan of Nu Metal.


Haha, man that was the best part! I am nostalgic for those time and I like a few Rap Metal (namely Sev and Breaking Benjamin) albums but I'm not a big fan of it. It still makes me pretty nostalgic as I love things from the time. What I really like is the Rap-Pop Punk (Zebrahead/Sum 41/Good Charlotte) of the time, though.

I think I already sent you this one but I will send it again. This video is crazy! Why are there so many BMX'ers flying over him when he raps!? :D Too Xtreme! man!

6Is1jTkbad0

The best part is near the end when he tries to sit all emotionally while some BMX'ers fly over his head. I'm thinking "make up your minds, guys! Do you want to be Xtreme! or emotional??"

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 3:39 am


Haha, man that was the best part! I am nostalgic for those time and I like a few Rap Metal (namely Sev and Breaking Benjamin) albums but I'm not a big fan of it. It still makes me pretty nostalgic as I love things from the time. What I really like is the Rap-Pop Punk (Zebrahead/Sum 41/Good Charlotte) of the time, though.

I think I already sent you this one but I will send it again. This video is crazy! Why are there so many BMX'ers flying over him when he raps!? :D Too Xtreme! man!

6Is1jTkbad0

The best part is near the end when he tries to sit all emotionally while some BMX'ers fly over his head. I'm thinking "make up your minds, guys! Do you want to be Xtreme! or emotional??"


They want to me Xtremely emotional. 8) Yeah, I like the song. Still wondering why they wanted to have BMX bikers in their video. Must've just been due to extreme trend going on.

When it comes to early '00s music I love the music in the House genre.
VUQdjv1T-jw
iitSP0NulrI
Some of my favorite songs from 2001.

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 3:47 am


They want to me Xtremely emotional. 8) Yeah, I like the song. Still wondering why they wanted to have BMX bikers in their video. Must've just been due to extreme trend going on.

When it comes to early '00s music I love the music in the House genre.
VUQdjv1T-jw
iitSP0NulrI
Some of my favorite songs from 2001.


There's another part where they get to the bridge and it's all soft, right? But 1 BMX'er flies by as if "ok, you guys can go all soft for a short moment but we'll look like wimps if we don't have at least one BMX'er fly over your heads." The timing is so perfect that it's hilarious! Too Xtreme!! It's hilarious what "emotional" meant in the early 00's.

That music is super good, man! Even though this came out in 1998 (well, you know, still counts 8)) this song right here sounds super early 00's:

zvBg0es44ws

Even the album art is pretty early 00s! It gives me an early internet vibe. The lyrics are kinda stupid so they'll give a good laugh. ;D

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: Toon on 03/25/16 at 3:49 am


There's another part where they get to the bridge and it's all soft, right? But 1 BMX'er flies by as if "ok, you guys can go all soft for a short moment but we'll look like wimps if we don't have at least one BMX'er fly over your heads." The timing is so perfect that it's hilarious! Too Xtreme!!

That music is super good, man! Even though this came out in 1998 (well, you know, still counts 8)) this song right here sounds super early 00's:

zvBg0es44ws

Even the album art is pretty early 00s!


Prozzak  helps defines the late '90s and early '00s to me in terms of crazy music. 8)

Subject: Re: The core 2000's was SO SHORT!!!!!!!

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/25/16 at 3:51 am


Prozzak  helps defines the late '90s and early '00s to me in terms of crazy music. 8)


For sure. These guys are too of their time. It sucks that in 2005 they went all serious. Their older videos/songs were much, much better. Oh yeah, they had another song like this one from their 2000 album:

YzQnu1pHsPU

The album art and music of this one reminds me of Invader Zim and Jet Grind Radio/Future for some reason. That weird early 00's vibe. ;)

Check for new replies or respond here...