I have heard 2000-2003, 2000-2004, 2001-2004, 2002-2006 (Not joking). Idk if this is decadeology or not......... sorry if it is.

The first one although I say it's better to split them into two halves considering putting them into thirds doesn't actually come out equally as some people believe.

Welcome to the boards! :D

Generally, I think people refer to 2000-2003 when they speak of the early 2000s. Some people refer to 2000-2005 if they're dividing the decade into early and late halves. I go with 2000-2003 personally.

Welcome to the boards! :D

Generally, I think people refer to 2000-2003 when they speak of the early 2000s. Some people refer to 2000-2005 if they're dividing the decade into early and late halves. I go with 2000-2003 personally.
Thanks! Also, wouldn't
2000-2004: Early
2005-2009: Late  make more sense if you put it into two halves?

Most people are idiots and think "oh, 2000-2005? That equals FIVE years, that's a half!" - when it's actually technically SIX years.
  ;D Ikr 

To be honest, 2000-2003 is the accurate definition of the early 2000s. 2004 may have some early 2000s influences, but that's when the 2003-04 school year took place. I don't know how people think 2002-2006 is the early 2000s. The mid 2000s seemed different, despite having some crap that was seen from the early 2000s.

To be honest, 2000-2003 is the accurate definition of the early 2000s. 2004 may have some early 2000s influences, but that's when the 2003-04 school year took place. I don't know how people think 2002-2006 is the early 2000s. The mid 2000s seemed different, despite having some crap that was seen from the early 2000s.
Exactly. But here's how people say 2002-2006 was early.
2000-2001: "Still 90s"
2002-2006: "Early 2000s"
2007-2009:  "Late 2000s" lol

Exactly. But here's how people say 2002-2006 was early.
2000-2001: "Still 90s"
2002-2006: "Early 2000s"
2007-2009:  "Late 2000s" lol


That barely makes any sense. I could get that 2000-2001 was like the late 90s, but that's because it was before 9/11. With 2002 and 2003 as the early 2000s, along with 2004-2006 just doesn't cut with it.

2000-2003. That will never change. 2004-2006 is mid. 2007-2009 is late. Most of my peak childhood was spent during the mid 2000's. However, my peak childhood started during the early 2000's (late 2001). The late 2000's had it's fun moments especially the early 7th gen gaming era and some of the movies & music, but I don't consider it important to my childhood since it was a tough time for me in life.

2000-2003. That will never change. 2004-2006 is mid. 2007-2009 is late. Most of my peak childhood was spent during the mid 2000's. However, my peak childhood started during the early 2000's (late 2001). The late 2000's had it's fun moments especially the early 7th gen gaming era and some of the movies & music, but I don't consider it important to my childhood since it was a tough time for me in life.


I don't consider my preteen years to be part of my childhood. I wasn't really that happy, and I felt more mature than I was as a little kid. But even then, I think I would've been happy during the late 2000s, if I were a preteen at the time.

2000-2003. There really is no point in debating about this. And 2002-2006 sounds crazy. Especially since 2002 and 2006 aren't similar in terms of culture and feel.

2000-2003. There really is no point in debating about this. And 2002-2006 sounds crazy. Especially since 2002 and 2006 aren't similar in terms of culture and feel.


Well, it's the Internet's opinion that we're talking about here. It's not like most people would actually give a crap about knowing what the early-mid 2000s had, since they're just mind-boggled by popular opinions.

Well, it's the Internet's opinion that we're talking about here. It's not like most people would actually give a crap about knowing what the early-mid 2000s had, since they're just mind-boggled by popular opinions.


I suppose you're right. Still gets to me on how some can't notice the differences between the early and mid 2000s.

I suppose you're right. Still gets to me on how some can't notice the differences between the early and mid 2000s.


Well, it's kinda similar. Not that it's exactly the same, but it's just that there were some influences from 2000-2003 that kept on in the mid 2000s. Sure, that was the time when people stopped using VCRs, broadband Internet became more mainstream, and etc. However, I still remember seeing a bunch of crap that looked like it came from the early 2000s as a kid. It just seemed modern to some people, even if you asked them back in 2004-2006.

2000-2003. Said and done.

January 1, 2000 - September 10, 2001: Early 2000s, but still more culturally tied to the turn of the millennium (beginning late 1998/early 1999-ish).

September 11, 2001 - April 30, 2003: Solid early 2000s.

May 1, 2003 - Summer/Autumn 2003: Mid-2000s by definition, though culturally still a bit more early 2000s than mid.

Winter 2003 - Spring 2004: Solid mid-2000s, last stretch of time with anything that can be genuinely categorized as "early 2000s."

I have heard 2000-2003, 2000-2004, 2001-2004, 2002-2006 (Not joking). Idk if this is decadeology or not......... sorry if it is.


1999-2001: Very start of the new Millennium
2002-2004: Second part of the early 2000s
2005-2007:Mid 2000s
2008-2010: Late 2000s

1999-2001: Very start of the new Millennium
2002-2004: Second part of the early 2000s
2005-2007:Mid 2000s
2008-2010: Late 2000s
Culturally 2010 is the 2000s but really it is not.

Culturally 2010 is the 2000s but really it is not.


Why do you say that?

Most people are idiots and think "oh, 2000-2005? That equals FIVE years, that's a half!" - when it's actually technically SIX years.


Well it's the same logic that people use for saying 2003/2004 are early 2000s, in the early-mid-late categorization. 2005 is numerically late 2000s, but "culturally" early 2000s.


Why do you say that?


2010 is Obama recession smartphone era. The 2000s were history by then.

Why do you say that?
2000s and 2010s are different decades.
2000s were from 2000-2009 and the 2010s are from 2010-2019. 2010 is culturally still 2000s because most of the Apple/Android stuff didn't come out till 2011.

Well it's the same logic that people use for saying 2003/2004 are early 2000s, in the early-mid-late categorization. 2005 is numerically late 2000s, but "culturally" early 2000s.

2010 is Obama recession smartphone era. The 2000s were history by then.
Actually.......good point lol.

2010 is Obama recession smartphone era. The 2000s were history by then.


What were the 2000s? Was our country not in a transition from the Clinton to Obama administrations in that time?

2010 is culturally still 2000s because most of the Apple/Android stuff didn't come out till 2011.


We are of the same mind.

2000s and 2010s are different decades.
2000s were from 2000-2009 and the 2010s are from 2010-2019. 2010 is culturally still 2000s because most of the Apple/Android stuff didn't come out till 2011.


2010 isn't culturally 2000's, it's culturally early 2010's. A lot of people don't want to accept that SOME decades' culture can start before the actual decade begins. 2010's culture was coming in fast by late 2008 and it was in full effect by mid/late 2009.

2009 to 2009.  :D  :D  :D

2010 isn't culturally 2000's, it's culturally early 2010's. A lot of people don't want to accept that SOME decades' culture can start before the actual decade begins. 2010's culture was coming in fast by late 2008 and it was in full effect by mid/late 2009.


That 2010s culture was not popular until 2011, the first year of the 2010s.

Culturally 2010 is the 2000s but really it is not.


2010 was pretty much the start of the chronological and cultural 2010s, since there were a lot of things that debuted to be part of the decade.

2010 was pretty much the start of the chronological and cultural 2010s, since there were a lot of things that debuted to be part of the decade.


What things are you talking about?

What things are you talking about?


G4 My Little Pony, iPads, and Check It era Cartoon Network, to name a few.

G4 My Little Pony, iPads, and Check It era Cartoon Network, to name a few.


Law and Order was still on the air in the spring of 2010.

2010 may have been the start of the chronological 2010s, but culturally, it was the very last year of the 2000s. 

Law and Order was still on the air in the spring of 2010.

2010 may have been the start of the chronological 2010s, but culturally, it was the very last year of the 2000s.


Law and Order may have been around in the spring of 2010, but that doesn't mean it was enormously popular in the decade. Therefore, it was still part of the early 2010s at the very least.

Law and Order may have been around in the spring of 2010, but that doesn't mean it was enormously popular in the decade.


Law and Order was on for the full "decade" of the 2000s, how was it not enormously popular then? I think Law and Order constitutes as '00s culture. What do you make of it?

2010 was pretty much the start of the chronological and cultural 2010s, since there were a lot of things that debuted to be part of the decade.


You could pratically say the same thing about the years 1999 to 2009. Imagine the 2010s without LEGO Star Wars sets, Big Bang Theory, and Fast and Furious movie sequels…Would they be the 2010s to you?

We've had this trivial conversation several times before. All you really know, first, is that The Early 90s Guy only associates culture with the first period it existed since day 1, not when it was at its most popular; and second that these are the past few cultural decades in his eyes:

1970s: 1969-1977, 1969 is the decade's quintessential year
1980s: 1978-1989, 1978 is the decade's quintessential year
Early 90s: 1990-1992, 1990 is the 90s' quintessential year and the zenith of all popular culture
Mid-90s: 1993-1995
Late 90s: 1996-1998
2000s: 1999-2010, 1999 is the decade's quintessential year
2010s: 2011-present, 2011 is the decade's quintessential year

C'mon guys, don't start fights with Early 90s Guy again. He's entitled to his opinions.

I'm not trying to fight with him, he's too proud of his perspective to change his mind anyway. I just summarized his overall opinions about cultural boundaries so nobody has to argue the same stuff that's already been stated several times before.

We've had this trivial conversation several times before. All you really know, first, is that The Early 90s Guy only associates culture with the first period it existed since day 1, not when it was at its most popular; and second that these are the past few cultural decades in his eyes:

1970s: 1969-1977, 1969 is the decade's quintessential year
1980s: 1978-1989, 1978 is the decade's quintessential year
Early 90s: 1990-1992, 1990 is the 90s' quintessential year and the zenith of all popular culture
Mid-90s: 1993-1995
Late 90s: 1996-1998
2000s: 1999-2010, 1999 is the decade's quintessential year
2010s: 2011-present, 2011 is the decade's quintessential year
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So true girl!!

The Early 90's Guy is called what he is for a reason.  :-X  ;D

2010 isn't culturally 2000's, it's culturally early 2010's. A lot of people don't want to accept that SOME decades' culture can start before the actual decade begins. 2010's culture was coming in fast by late 2008 and it was in full effect by mid/late 2009.


Pretty much. 2010 didn't feel like the 2000s to me. 2010s culture was already in place by 2009.


2009 to 2009.  :D  :D  :D


This guy.....this guy right here...he gets it  8)

You could pratically say the same thing about the years 1999 to 2009. Imagine the 2010s without LEGO Star Wars sets, Big Bang Theory, and Fast and Furious movie sequels…Would they be the 2010s to you?


No. None of them actually sound like they came from the 2010s. All of them came from the 2000s, and even then nobody would associate them with the current decade. Except for the Big Bang Theory.

G4 My Little Pony, iPads, and Check It era Cartoon Network, to name a few.


Most of that was kid culture, but more important pop culture of the early 2010's debuted or became very popular by 2009. Barack Obama being president, Glee and Modern Family premiering, Breaking Bad being around by then, Facebook taking over in popularity over Myspace, the electropop era of music taking over including the artists of that era forming their own identity, IMAX 3-D movies like Avatar, etc.

No. None of them actually sound like they came from the 2010s. All of them came from the 2000s, and even then nobody would associate them with the current decade. Except for the Big Bang Theory.


Just ignore him. He's going to believe whatever he wants to believe. We can all respectfully agree to disagree.

No. None of them actually sound like they came from the 2010s. All of them came from the 2000s, and even then nobody would associate them with the current decade. Except for the Big Bang Theory.


Would you say that Big Bang Theory debuted in the 2000s to be a part of the 2010s since the general public associates it with this time?

I consider TBBT to be more of a 2010s show, cause almost nobody knew it existed or watched it in the 00s. :P

Would you say that Big Bang Theory debuted in the 2000s to be a part of the 2010s since the general public associates it with this time?


I pretty much don't give a sh*t about The Big Bang Theory being part of the 2010s. It's not even one of the biggest shows of the decade compared to The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Steven Universe, or even House of Cards. This decade would be really different if they didn't exist.

Oh my god, TBBT is definitely early '10s. People never failed to shout BAZINGA whenever I told them I was majoring in Physics in 2011/2012  >:(

Show aired in 2007, but I don't think I heard of until 2009.

Oh my god, TBBT is definitely early '10s. People never failed to shout BAZINGA whenever I told them I was majoring in Physics in 2011/2012  >:(

Show aired in 2007, but I don't think I heard of until 2009.


I didn't even heard of The Big Bang Theory until 2012. I never really watched most of CBS' shows, so I never really gave a crap about the show until it aired on TBS.

Edit: By the way, TBS is the Turner Broadcasting Service, which is an American basic cable network.

Oh my god, TBBT is definitely early '10s. People never failed to shout BAZINGA whenever I told them I was majoring in Physics in 2011/2012  >:(

Show aired in 2007, but I don't think I heard of until 2009.


It's late 2000s too. I knew about it in 2008.

I pretty much don't give a sh*t about The Big Bang Theory being part of the 2010s. It's not even one of the biggest shows of the decade compared to The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Steven Universe, or even House of Cards. This decade would be really different if they didn't exist.


Game of Thrones, Steven Universe, and House of Cards were not even around in 2010. I fail to see how '10 is culturally a year of the 2010s.

Game of Thrones, Steven Universe, and House of Cards were not even around in 2010. I fail to see how '10 is culturally a year of the 2010s.


and those have defined the MID 2010's, NOT EARLY 2010's like the other stuff we mentioned before.

Most of that was kid culture, but more important pop culture of the early 2010's debuted or became very popular by 2009. Barack Obama being president, Glee and Modern Family premiering, Breaking Bad being around by then, Facebook taking over in popularity over Myspace, the electropop era of music taking over including the artists of that era forming their own identity, IMAX 3-D movies like Avatar, etc.


People were not wearing Heisenberg shirts until 2011.  8)

and those have defined the MID 2010's, NOT EARLY 2010's like the other stuff we mentioned before.


Who's saying they defined the early 2010s?

Game of Thrones, Steven Universe, and House of Cards were not even around in 2010. I fail to see how '10 is culturally a year of the 2010s.


Look dude, 2010 was basically like a cultural year for the 2010s. I could remember many stuff that changed everyone's lives during 2010. Especially with iPads and so many brand new cartoons that changed the animation industry. It was quite different compared to 2009, where it was still like the 2000s for some people.

and those have defined the MID 2010's, NOT EARLY 2010's like the other stuff we mentioned before.


Well, Game of Thrones also defined the early 2010s, since it was pretty popular by 2011-2013. Hell, I could even remember seeing one of The Simpsons' couch gags, which parodied Game of Thrones in early 2012.

Look dude, 2010 was basically like a cultural year for the 2010s. I could remember many stuff that changed everyone's lives during 2010. Especially with iPads and so many brand new cartoons that changed the animation industry. It was quite different compared to 2009, where it was still like the 2000s for some people.


New technology is introduced in every year of each time. That does not make 2010 any more different from the two years that came before it, in my opinion.

People were not wearing Heisenberg shirts until 2011.  8)


Just because people were wearing shirts from the show, that doesn't mean it was really popular by then. It was pretty popular before 2011, especially when it was one of AMC's big hits at the time. In fact, they were well known with their shows that debuted from the late 2000s and on.

Most of that was kid culture, but more important pop culture of the early 2010's debuted or became very popular by 2009. Barack Obama being president, Glee and Modern Family premiering, Breaking Bad being around by then, Facebook taking over in popularity over Myspace, the electropop era of music taking over including the artists of that era forming their own identity, IMAX 3-D movies like Avatar, etc.


THIS! ALL THIS!

New technology is introduced in every year of each time. That does not make 2010 any more different from the two years that came before it, in my opinion.


Then what makes 2011 a quintessential year for this decade?

Just ignore him. He's going to believe whatever he wants to believe. We can all respectfully agree to disagree.


Well, I don't know if he's f*cking with everybody. Pretty much anything he believes just seems ridiculous, especially when he makes these charts that are questionable.

Then what makes 2011 a quintessential year for this decade?


Just to name a few highlights:

- Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Adele, and Rihanna all went to number one on the charts in that year.

- '10s/early 2020s shows (I.e. Live with Kelly) premiering on TV.

- Kim Kardashian making huge headlines.

- Angry Birds/The Walking Dead/Adventure Time/Big Bang Theory/Breaking Bad merchandise being in stores and on-line.

Just to name a few highlights:

- Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Adele, and Rihanna all went to number one on the charts in that year.

- '10s/early 2020s shows (I.e. Live with Kelly) premiering on TV.

- Kim Kardashian making huge headlines.

- Angry Birds/The Walking Dead/Adventure Time/Big Bang Theory/Breaking Bad merchandise being in stores and on-line.


Well, that makes sense. But I don't know how something like 2011 could be quintessential for the 2010s. That's like saying Bill Clinton's quintessential year as president was 2001. What did he do for those 19 days that made him significant for American politics at the time? Nothing. Pretty much anything from 2011 was still primitive for the decade, so it's no big surprise about it.

Just to name a few highlights:

- Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Adele, and Rihanna all went to number one on the charts in that year.

- '10s/early 2020s shows (I.e. Live with Kelly) premiering on TV.

- Kim Kardashian making huge headlines.

- Angry Birds/The Walking Dead/Adventure Time/Big Bang Theory/Breaking Bad merchandise being in stores and on-line.


Well, 2011 could be the quintessential year for EARLY 2010's culture (go back to my other post this is what I mean by early 2010's culture), but when it comes to the CORE 2010's and what has defined the 2010's decade so far, then no. Most of what you mentioned were already popular by late 2009 or 2010 too, not just 2011. Really everything that was relevant from late 2009-mid 2012 defined the early 2010's with late 2010-2011 being the quintessential period for early 2010's culture. 2013-present has been the main/core 2010's culture, with stuff like Steven Universe or House of Cards like you mentioned before. Understand the difference between early 2010's culture and mid 2010's culture now?

Well, 2011 could be the quintessential year for EARLY 2010's culture (go back to my other post this is what I mean by early 2010's culture), but when it comes to the CORE 2010's and what has defined the 2010's decade so far, then no. Most of what you mentioned were already popular by late 2009 or 2010 too, not just 2011. Really everything that was relevant from late 2009-mid 2012 defined the early 2010's with late 2010-2011 being the quintessential period for early 2010's culture. 2013-present has been the main/core 2010's culture, with stuff like Steven Universe or House of Cards like you mentioned before. Understand the difference between early 2010's culture and mid 2010's culture now?


I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you on those points. 2013 was the last year mid '10s culture was being introduced. That sets it apart from the '14 to present period for me.

I don't agree with all his posts but I am happy to have The Early 90's Guy around. I don't think the dude is f*cking with people rather than just expressing his own opinion and you've gotta give him credit for at least being more polite this time around. Plus, I'd rather people say the 90's started in '90 than '89 or whatever, although, that opinion isn't really an offensive one such as saying the 00's started in '99. 8-P

;)


I think YouTube/Facebook commentators consider 2000-2005 "early 2000s" because it makes that time period seem bigger and better than just 2000-2003.

Also, people born in 2000 probably want to jump on the "early 2000s" bandwagon, so they use 2000-2005 because it gives them one year of solid memories in the so-called "early" 2000s (that year being 2005).

To be fair, every generation wants to bandwagon on a previous generation that they narrowly missed out on. My parents are Gen X and they grew up on the Beatles and the 60s/early 70s-era Rolling Stones, for example. Despite being born in '65, my mom despises most 80s music and loves 60s/70s music. :P


Those kids are so lame. ::)

Also, I noticed you guys did charts a few posts back.

January 1st, 2000 to December 31th 2002, are the true early 00's (you know, if I don't include 1998 and 1999) ;D.

No, the real early 00s were January 1, 2000 until December 13, 2003 - when Saddam was captured. ;D

After Saddam was captured, the early 2000s started to die out, and in late 2006, when Saddam was executed, any remaining traces of the early 00s vanished altogether (remember the "Everything changed in late 2006" thread). ;D


Yeah, but I don't wanna say anything good about 2006. :P

No, the real early 00s were January 1, 2000 until December 13, 2003 - when Saddam was captured. ;D

After Saddam was captured, the early 2000s started to die out, and in late 2006, when Saddam was executed, any remaining traces of the early 00s vanished altogether (remember the "Everything changed in late 2006" thread). ;D


THE TRUTH COMES OUT

"Truth"

Yeah, but I don't wanna say anything good about 2006. :P

But early-mid 2006 (plus 2004 and 2005) had more scant traces of the early 00s in it than late 2006! You can't deny that! ;D

As I said before, it's like the Y2K era was at first the life of the party, then around 2003-2004, a bunch of lame real 00s fratboys stole the Y2Kers' thunder. However, there were still a few Y2K guys who stayed at the party in the background (i.e. Malcolm in the Middle), up until late 2006-2007 where the remaining Y2K guys left the party altogether.

But early-mid 2006 (plus 2004 and 2005) had more traces of the early 00s in it than late 2006! You can't deny that! ;D

As I said before, it's like the Y2K era was at first the life of the party, then around 2003-2004, a bunch of lame real 00s fratboys stole the Y2Kers' thunder. However, there were still a few Y2K guys who stayed at the party in the background (i.e. Malcolm in the Middle), up until late 2006-2007 where the remaining Y2K guys left the party altogether.


So, would a real 00's frat boy be a scene kid?

No, the real early 00s were January 1, 2000 until December 13, 2003 - when Saddam was captured. ;D

After Saddam was captured, the early 2000s started to die out, and in late 2006, when Saddam was executed, any remaining traces of the early 00s vanished altogether (remember the "Everything changed in late 2006" thread). ;D


Jan 2000 to Dec 2003 is the real early 2000s? Hey something I can agree with.  I prefer to see it that way anyways.

We've had this trivial conversation several times before. All you really know, first, is that The Early 90s Guy only associates culture with the first period it existed since day 1, not when it was at its most popular; and second that these are the past few cultural decades in his eyes:

1970s: 1969-1977, 1969 is the decade's quintessential year
1980s: 1978-1989, 1978 is the decade's quintessential year
Early 90s: 1990-1992, 1990 is the 90s' quintessential year and the zenith of all popular culture
Mid-90s: 1993-1995
Late 90s: 1996-1998
2000s: 1999-2010, 1999 is the decade's quintessential year
2010s: 2011-present, 2011 is the decade's quintessential year


I felt like his charts over previous decades just seem out of whack.

Jan 2000 to Dec 2003 is the real early 2000s? Hey something I can agree with.  I prefer to see it that way anyways.


To be perfectly honest, I really agree with having January 2000 to December 2003 as the real early 2000s. Even before and after 9/11, it still felt the same to most people. Especially when I could remember 2002 and 2003 when I was little, it looked like what most early 2000s kids saw it as.

The really strange part of The Early 90s Guy's logic is the way he believes decades are always defined by their first cultural year and that the rest of the decade is insignificant except to get to the start of the following decade. Otherwise, I can actually understand where he is coming from with his boundary perspectives, especially when they're broken down. For example, he still distinguishes the end of the chronological 70s fron the early 80s even though he still considers the former period "80s;" the same thing applies with the core Y2K era versus the early 2000s.

The really strange part of The Early 90s Guy's logic is the way he believes decades are always defined by their first cultural year and that the rest of the decade is insignificant except to get to the start of the following decade. Otherwise, I can actually understand where he is coming from with his boundary perspectives, especially when they're broken down. For example, he still distinguishes the end of the chronological 70s fron the early 80s even though he still considers the former period "80s;" the same thing applies with the core Y2K era versus the early 2000s.


The only positive I could get from The Early 90s Guy is that he uses the late portion of a previous decade, and considers it as a new one. I could get that, because he thinks stuff like The Simpsons defined the 90s. While it did premiere in late 1989, it was more definitive with the 90s. Same thing with The Sopranos. Although it did premiere in early 1999, it was most likely to be a 2000s show. But with him saying that 1978 (which IMO was really 70s) started the cultural 80s doesn't really make that sense.

The only positive I could get from The Early 90s Guy is that he uses the late portion of a previous decade, and considers it as a new one. I could get that, because he thinks stuff like The Simpsons defined the 90s. While it did premiere in late 1989, it was more definitive with the 90s. Same thing with The Sopranos. Although it did premiere in early 1999, it was most likely to be a 2000s show. But with him saying that 1978 (which IMO was really 70s) started the cultural 80s doesn't really make that sense.


There was actually a lot of stuff from 1978 that laid the core foundations of the 80s. You had tv shows like Diff'rent Strokes and Dallas making their premieres, new wave was just starting to become more integral to rock thanks to Blondie's Parallel Lines and the debuts of the Cars and the Police, video games surged in popularity with the release of Space Invaders, and Star Wars was showing its impact on new media at the time. 1978 was still the height of disco, blow dried hair, bell-bottoms, stagflation, etc., but I can sort of see why The Early 90s Guy associated the year with the 80s, just going by his mode of thinking.

So, would a real 00's frat boy be a scene kid?

Hey Jordan, this may annoy you, but it seems that women find scene guys attractive. :P

There was actually a lot of stuff from 1978 that laid the core foundations of the 80s. You had tv shows like Diff'rent Strokes and Dallas making their premieres, new wave was just starting to become more integral to rock thanks to Blondie's Parallel Lines and the debuts of the Cars and the Police, video games surged in popularity with the release of Space Invaders, and Star Wars was showing its impact on new media at the time. 1978 was still the height of disco, blow dried hair, bell-bottoms, stagflation, etc., but I can sort of see why The Early 90s Guy associated the year with the 80s, just going by his mode of thinking.


I could get that, but I wouldn't say that it was the quintessential year for the cultural 80s. If I had a chance to say what the quintessential year, it would be 1984 or 1985, not 1978.

The only positive I could get from The Early 90s Guy is that he uses the late portion of a previous decade, and considers it as a new one. I could get that, because he thinks stuff like The Simpsons defined the 90s. While it did premiere in late 1989, it was more definitive with the 90s. Same thing with The Sopranos. Although it did premiere in early 1999, it was most likely to be a 2000s show. But with him saying that 1978 (which IMO was really 70s) started the cultural 80s doesn't really make that sense.


The Simpsons premiered in 1990, not '89. The Christmas Special does not count as an episode of the actual series. The Simpsons are a '90s to present show.

I disagree. The Christmas special was included on the season 1 DVD boxset, has a production code tied to the rest of season 1 (7G08), and is included on the show's official episode guide on the FOX website.

I'd say it's officially a part of the series, not just a stand-alone special.


At the time, The FOX Network treated it like a stand-alone special. The commercial for the series premiere even aired during the ad break, if I remember correctly.

The Simpsons premiered in 1990, not '89. The Christmas Special does not count as an episode of the actual series. The Simpsons are a '90s to present show.


Then how come it's well known as the series premiere of The Simpsons? If you ask anybody, especially die-hard Simpsons fans, they'll know that the Christmas special in 1989 was one of the episodes.

But with him saying that 1978 (which IMO was really 70s) started the cultural 80s doesn't really make that sense.


What were the '80s to you, if you do not mind me asking?

What were the '80s to you, if you do not mind me asking?


To me, the 80s were like 1981-1991 culturally. It started with the huge decline of disco in the early 80s, while it ended with the 16-bit console era going on high gear. I don't really see 1978-1980 as full 80s years, considering that they were very 70s to most people.

Then how come it's well known as the series premiere of The Simpsons?


The special ran for 30 minutes on the night of December 17th, 1989.

If you ask anybody, especially die-hard Simpsons fans, they'll know that the Christmas special in 1989 was one of the episodes.


Sadly, I cannot agree with them. The actual episodes have the opening sequences in them.

The special ran for 30 minutes on the night of December 17th, 1989.


So does any other episode of The Simpsons.


Sadly, I cannot agree with them. The actual episodes have the opening sequences in them.


Just because the Christmas special didn't have the actual opening, along with a couch gag, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be counted as a chronological episode for The Simpsons.

Just because the Christmas special didn't have the actual opening, along with a couch gag, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be counted as a chronological episode for The Simpsons.


Well then, why was it regarded as a Christmas Special in '89?

Well then, why was t regarded as a Christmas Special in '89?


Because it was advertised as a Christmas special in 1989. The reason why it was counted as a series premiere because like Zelek mentioned, it had a production code like Season 1, and it was even considered as an episode by Fox.

Because it was advertised as a Christmas special in 1989. The reason why it was counted as a series premiere because like Zelek mentioned, it had a production code like Season 1, and it was even considered as an episode by Fox.


ZTQA0qW-loA

The commercial for the first show promo appears at the 5:27 mark.

"The Simpsons are getting their own series premiering Sunday January 14th on Fox."

ZTQA0qW-loA

The commercial for the first show promo appears at the 5:27 mark.

"The Simpsons are getting their own series premiering Sunday January 14th on Fox."


Dude, nobody really accepted that the second episode of Season 1 was considered to be the true series premiere. Many sources on the Internet clearly see the Christmas special aired in 1989 as the actual series premiere. I don't know why would you even argue with this? It's pretty much like common sense, especially towards the network that created The Simpsons. I could get for the fact that you have such questionable information about decades (because culturally, it doesn't make a lot of sense). However, for something so minor as thinking the second episode of The Simpsons' first season is the actual series premiere is really ridiculous. I dealt with many people like you, but I don't know if you're serious with this. It's just a damn show.

Let's get back on-topic: what were the early 2000s?


1999-2001: A time that felt "very '90s" to most people despite the fact that no one was wearing '90s clothes (i.e. - jean jackets, fanny packs, snapback hats), watching '90s TV shows (i.e.-Seinfeld, Murphy Brown,  Married with Children), or going to the theater to see sequels to movies like Lethal Weapon anymore.

Dude, nobody really accepted that the second episode of Season 1 was considered to be the true series premiere. Many sources on the Internet clearly see the Christmas special aired in 1989 as the actual series premiere. I don't know why would you even argue with this? It's pretty much like common sense, especially towards the network that created The Simpsons. I could get for the fact that you have such questionable information about decades (because culturally, it doesn't make a lot of sense). However, for something so minor as thinking the second episode of The Simpsons' first season is the actual series premiere is really ridiculous. I dealt with many people like you, but I don't know if you're serious with this. It's just a damn show.



Nowadays, the general public views Bart the Genius as the "second episode" of The Simpsons. It was not always that way. From '89 to some point in the '90s or the early '00s, it was referred to as the Christmas Special.

A time that felt "very '90s" to most people despite the fact that no one was wearing '90s clothes (i.e. - jean jackets, fanny packs, snapback hats), watching '90s TV shows (i.e.-Seinfeld, Murphy Brown,  Married with Children), or going to the theater to see sequels to movies like Lethal Weapon anymore.


To be fair, the early 2000s felt barely 90s. Even when I compare it to the late 90s, I feel like it's more related to the mid 2000s. Even in New York City, it doesn't really feel like the 90s, except for a few things. Here's what the NYPD cars looked like before and after 2000.

Pre-2000:
http://rentapolicecar.com/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox/public/cars/photo-4.jpg?itok=k7E19Kmy

Post-2000:
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/cee008_71ea18778ee905733c92f08022c60018.png_srz_555_276_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_png_srz

Even with political stuff like 9/11, it didn't really change except for terrorism paranoia, airport security, and our country going to war with the Middle East. People were still using stuff like VCRs and dial-up Internet until mid-late 2006.

Nowadays, the general public views Bart the Genius as the "second episode" of The Simpsons. It was not always that way. From '89 to some point in the '90s or the early '00s, it was referred to as the Christmas Special.


Maybe it was because people didn't really care for the fact that it was an actual episode for the series. It's not like anybody had an encyclopedia for The Simpsons and easily say that it was the series premiere. It's just that "Bart the Genius" didn't felt anything like an actual series premiere. That's why I think the Christmas special was the true first episode.

To be fair, the early 2000s felt barely 90s. Even when I compare it to the late 90s, I feel like it's more related to the mid 2000s. Even in New York City, it doesn't really feel like the 90s, except for a few things. Here's what the NYPD cars looked like before and after 2000.

Pre-2000:
http://rentapolicecar.com/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox/public/cars/photo-4.jpg?itok=k7E19Kmy

Post-2000:
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/cee008_71ea18778ee905733c92f08022c60018.png_srz_555_276_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_png_srz

Even with political stuff like 9/11, it didn't really change except for terrorism paranoia, airport security, and our country going to war with the Middle East. People were still using stuff like VCRs and dial-up Internet until mid-late 2006.


Well from a pop cultural standpoint barely anything changed. Things changed politically, but not culturally. If there was any change pop culturally then it certainly wasn't a huge one.

Well from a pop cultural standpoint barely anything changed. Things changed politically, but not culturally. If there was any change pop culturally then it certainly wasn't a huge one.


This!

If there was anything, it didn't felt like 9/11 was like the turning point of the 21st century. In my opinion, it was George W. Bush's inauguration on January 20, 2001 that started mainly everything for what the 2000s stood for. Just like how Ronald Reagan's inauguration was the start of the 80s.

This!

If there was anything, it didn't felt like 9/11 was like the turning point of the 21st century. In my opinion, it was George W. Bush's inauguration on January 20, 2001 that started mainly everything for what the 2000s stood for. Just like how Ronald Reagan's inauguration was the start of the 80s.


Yeah, presidency can in fact give a turning point. The Bush year different from the Clinton years. The Obama years were different from the Bush years. When the next president comes in 2017 you can bet that things will change which will make the late '10s different from the early-mid '10s.  As mentioned in previous posts I usually just prefer to call the early 2000s Jan 2000- Dec 2003. Never liked splitting them if we're mainly talking about pop culture.

Yeah, presidency can in fact give a turning point. The Bush years were different from the Clinton years. The Obama years were different from the Bush years. When the next president comes in 2017 you can bet that things will change which will make the late '10s different from the early-mid '10s.  As mentioned in previous posts I usually just prefer to call the early 2000s Jan 2000- Dec 2003. Never liked splitting them if we're mainly talking about pop culture.


January 2000 to December 2003 just felt the same, which I could agree on. Although, there were a lot of things that differed from one year from another, but it was still the same pop culturally.

It's just that "Bart the Genius" didn't felt anything like an actual series premiere. That's why I think the Christmas special was the true first episode.


Some Enchanted Evening was actually the first ever episode produced, but it aired as the season finale due to some noteworthy animation problems.

Some Enchanted Evening was actually the first ever episode produced, but it aired as the season finale due to some noteworthy animation problems.


I meant the first episode aired on Fox.

The first one although I say it's better to split them into two halves considering putting them into thirds doesn't actually come out equally as some people believe.


I split them in two halves also.

The Y2K era (part 1 of the early '00s): 1999-2001
Part 2 of the early '00s: 2002-2004

January 2000 to December 2003 just felt the same, which I could agree on. Although, there were a lot of things that differed from one year from another, but it was still the same pop culturally.


2000/2001 was N64 era and 2002/2003 was Gamecube era lol.

2000/2001 was N64 era and 2002/2003 was Gamecube era lol.


Aside from video games, most things felt the same.

I split them in two halves also.

The Y2K era (part 1 of the early '00s): 1999-2001
Part 2 of the early '00s: 2002-2004
I can see what you mean, but I was talking about the decade as a whole. Like 2000-04 and 2005-09.

As for the era, I see 2000-01 as part 1 and 2002-03 as part 2, but it's close as your view.

1. Technically, one could say the Simpsons truly started in 1987 and they wouldn't be wrong under a certain point of view. Regardless, if the Christmas special of the Simpsons is considered the true debut, then Frog Baseball from 1992 is Beavis and Butthead's debut (yet, everyone cites 1993). Overall I'm gonna have to take Early 90's Dude's side because pilots are usually just a test run for audiences and don't always mean a green light for a series.

2. The latest starting point I will put the beginnings of the early 00s (if I'm not using 1998 or Jan 1st, 2000 to start off the time period) is at March 10th 2000 when the dot com bubble burst. The absolute latest I will go. I don't like splitting up 2000, 2001 or 2002. They all felt the same to me. Whatever. 

1. Technically, one could say the Simpsons truly started in 1987 and they wouldn't be wrong under a certain point of view. Regardless, if the Christmas special of the Simpsons is considered the true debut, then Frog Baseball from 1992 is Beavis and Butthead's debut (yet, everyone cites 1993). Overall I'm gonna have to take Early 90's Dude's side because pilots are usually just a test run for audiences and don't always mean a green light for a series.


But what if it continues on from the series? I know that The Simpsons don't usually have that much continuity, but I'm just wondering if some pilots were continued from some shows.


2. The latest starting point I will put the beginnings of the early 00s (if I'm not using 1998 or Jan 1st, 2000 to start off the time period) is at March 10th 2000 when the dot com bubble burst. The absolute latest I will go. I don't like splitting up 2000, 2001 or 2002. They all felt the same to me. Whatever.


Meh. I have no problems with that.  :P

I can see what you mean, but I was talking about the decade as a whole. Like 2000-04 and 2005-09.


I'm probably the only person alive who is not a fan of the word "decade", but if I were, that's how I would divide that time, also.

The difference is that Frog Baseball was a short on Liquid Television, before the producers even knew a Beavis and Butt-head show would be greenlit.

The Simpsons Christmas Special was made at a time when the show had already been greenlit, and they had already produced seven other episodes before it, but decided to air this one first because the others had rougher animation. Also, the holiday season was fast approaching, and this seemed like the most fitting series premiere they could have.


Huh, alright. Considering that, then the Christmas Special would be a fair starting point for the debut.


But what if it continues on from the series? I know that The Simpsons don't usually have that much continuity, but I'm just wondering if some pilots were continued from some shows.



Considering what Zelek told me, putting the Christmas Special as the true debut makes more sense. Some pilots, however, are usually just test runs and don't always mean a clear go for a TV show which is why they're usually not considered the true first episodes.

The difference is that Frog Baseball was a short on Liquid Television, before the producers even knew a Beavis and Butt-head show would be greenlit.

The Simpsons Christmas Special was made at a time when the show had already been greenlit, and they had already produced seven other episodes before it, but decided to air this one first because the others had rougher animation. Also, the holiday season was fast approaching, and this seemed like the most fitting series premiere they could have.


Would you say Valentine's Day Massacre was the series premiere to Pete and Pete?

Huh, alright. Considering that, then the Christmas Special would be a fair starting point for the debut.


Considering what Zelek told me, putting the Christmas Special as the true debut makes more sense. Some pilots, however, are usually just test runs and don't always mean a clear go for a TV show which is why they're usually not considered the true first episodes.


The Early 90s Guy feels it was the intro sequence with the Danny Elfman theme that really sent shockwaves around the world, not the first time the Simpsons had their very own half-hour slot on Fox.

I just think it's hilarious, though, that The Early 90s Guy excludes Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire as a true part of the series, yet by calling it a "'90s to present show," he does count all of the post-classic episodes as The Simpsons, which means things like an extravagant promotion for Lady Gaga and a talking bar rag are somehow more representative of the show's spirit than a struggling working class family that finds joy in the most awkward and unexpected of situation by adopting a dog that just came dead last in a race. Not to mention, there was already another "Christmas special" of The Simpsons just 6 years after Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, Marge Be Not Proud. You would think that The Early 90s Guy would at least say The Simpsons ceased to be The Simpsons in 1999, since it was literally about the time he marks the start of the 2000s that the show had completely fallen out of its golden age.

So to recap, this is not The Simpsons:

https://matthewpury.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/7g08_035.jpg

However, these are The Simpsons:

http://popcrush.com/files/2012/05/GagaSimpsons.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sSG7jFRUOSE/TyhCXaGvydI/AAAAAAAAA48/s9GSSDCgUc8/s1600/vlcsnap-2012-01-31-19h26m23s46.png

Would you say Valentine's Day Massacre was the series premiere to Pete and Pete?


Well to be in check, there were four other specials that premiered after Valentine's Day Massacre. So, it wasn't really the series premiere to the show. Although, it was really part of the series, I do think that the first episode for Season 1 counts as the series premiere. That's a huge difference right there. Especially on The Simpsons. The holiday special was literally the first episode aired from Season 1, so that counts. Something like Pete and Pete, where it had five exclusive specials, don't really count.

Well to be in check, there were four other specials that premiered after Valentine's Day Massacre. So, it wasn't really the series premiere to the show. Although, it was really part of the series, I do think that the first episode for Season 1 counts as the series premiere. That's a huge difference right there. Especially on The Simpsons. The holiday special was literally the first episode aired from Season 1, so that counts. Something like Pete and Pete, where it had five exclusive specials, don't really count.


Since when are series premiere episodes referred to as TV specials in commercials?  ???

pKJtXkVU0Mw

Since when are pilots referred to as TV specials in commercials?  ???

pKJtXkVU0Mw


I didn't say that The Simpsons holiday special was a pilot, especially when it wasn't even the first episode to be produced by Fox.

I didn't say that The Simpsons holiday special was a pilot, especially when it wasn't even the first episode to be produced by Fox.



I corrected it.

Maybe it was because people didn't really care for the fact that it was an actual episode for the series. It's not like anybody had an encyclopedia for The Simpsons and easily say that it was the series premiere. It's just that "Bart the Genius" didn't felt anything like an actual series premiere. That's why I think the Christmas special was the true first episode.



I see where you are coming from. The Christmas Special felt more like a series premiere than "Bart the Genius", but "Bart the Genius" is still the series' first regular episode.

Not to mention, there was already another "Christmas special" of The Simpsons just 6 years after Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, Marge Be Not Proud.


"Marge Be Not Proud" was not promoted as a TV special, though.

For UK viewers, the first Simpsons episode was "There's No Disgrace Like Home". :P

1. Technically, one could say the Simpsons truly started in 1987 and they wouldn't be wrong under a certain point of view. Regardless, if the Christmas special of the Simpsons is considered the true debut, then Frog Baseball from 1992 is Beavis and Butthead's debut (yet, everyone cites 1993). Overall I'm gonna have to take Early 90's Dude's side because pilots are usually just a test run for audiences and don't always mean a green light for a series.

2. The latest starting point I will put the beginnings of the early 00s (if I'm not using 1998 or Jan 1st, 2000 to start off the time period) is at March 10th 2000 when the dot com bubble burst. The absolute latest I will go. I don't like splitting up 2000, 2001 or 2002. They all felt the same to me. Whatever.


1998/1999 is expansion pack early 2000s ;D

1998/1999 is expansion pack early 2000s ;D


Don't forget the second half of 1997! :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7aBTqnnx74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcyJPTTn9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmze7jPiHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQRzrnH6_HY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJb5RvAs4BI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QUq72fla3o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_HS8H1Fb6s

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f1aekAGzoSg/UBLlFgpw13I/AAAAAAAAD5w/KYhmgDuMLaQ/s1600/images.jpg

http://2.images.southparkstudios.com/default/image.jpg?quality=0.8

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Green_Day_-_Nimrod_cover.jpg

1998/1999 is expansion pack early 2000s ;D


Haha, yes!


Don't forget the second half of 1997! :P


I can agree because around late 1997 when I started high school, it definitely started feeling less and less like the 90's for me.

Haha, yes!

I can agree because around late 1997 when I started high school, it definitely started feeling less and less like the 90's for me.


Most stuff that was at its height in late 1997 still felt distinctly 90s and declined around 1999, but the millennial-targeted urban, soft and non-grunge-inspired (but still thickly-produced) adult contemporary, and millennial-targeted TV shows essentially made late '97 the first period of time that can be considered Y2K era, separate from the mid-late-1996 to early 1999 Spice Girls, Puff Daddy, shiny suit, pop-ska, Clueless TV show, No Limit, Pretender, disaster movie late 90s.

I see where you are coming from. The Christmas Special felt more like a series premiere than "Bart the Genius", but "Bart the Genius" is still the series' first regular episode.


If you're talking about the first episode with the well-known opening sequence, then that's right. But the christmas special was still the first episode by many fans.

But the christmas special was still the first episode by many fans.


Fans, not the network itself in '89.

Fans, not the network itself in '89.


Even the network considers it as the first episode.

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/episodes

Even the network considers it as the first episode.

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/episodes


Right, nowadays (after the show was sold into syndication) they do.

In '89, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire was a Christmas television special.

Here's an excerpt from an article written by Howard Rosenberg in '89:

"They're the Simpson bunch, the more-than-a-little-strange family coming your way in an animated Sunday sitcom premiering Jan. 14 on Fox. You can get an advance look at "The Simpsons" when Fox airs the family's Christmas special, "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire," at 8:30 p.m. Sunday on Channels 11 and 6."

- Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-16/entertainment/ca-29_1_simpson-family)

Right, nowadays (after the show was sold into syndication) they do.

In '89, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire was a Christmas television special.

Here's an excerpt from an article written by Howard Rosenberg in '89:

"They're the Simpson bunch, the more-than-a-little-strange family coming your way in an animated Sunday sitcom premiering Jan. 14 on Fox. You can get an advance look at "The Simpsons" when Fox airs the family's Christmas special, "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire," at 8:30 p.m. Sunday on Channels 11 and 6."

- Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-16/entertainment/ca-29_1_simpson-family)


The show was already greenlit by the time it aired the Christmas special. So, why does it matter so much for people back in December 1989 to not call it as a full episode? That's like saying Daria's two TV movies (Is It Fall Yet? and Is It College Yet?) are not part of the canon series, despite being part of their seasons.

^ Technically,  "The Christmas Special" is not a full episode of the series. It is even titled on the screen as "The Simpsons Christmas Special".

^ Technically, it is not a full episode of the series.


Yeah, but they were still part of Seasons 4 and 5. Especially when Is It Fall Yet and Is It College Yet are season/series finales.

2000 to 2003, early

2004 to 2006, mid

2007 to 2009, late

It's the best I can do. I don't know why the early section is separated into 4 years...doesn't make sense to me. Oh well.

Numerically 2000-mid 2003.
Culturally, 2000-mid 2001 were the VERY early 00s. and Late 2001-2003 were the regular early 2000s.

Locking the post if you guys don't shut the heck up about The Simpsons.

So, about those Simpsons... ::)

Early 2000s adult cartoons...

I remember accidentally watching the Oblongs.  :(

I watched those quite a bit! Clone High and Home Movies were both really trippy cartoons, the Undergrads was pretty cool and one that I could really relate to as I was a late teen when it came out, Mission Hill was funny sometimes but kinda boring, Harvey Birdman and Aqua Teen Hunger Force were funny as hell and... I dunno. I might be missing some because there were so many. They were all so weird, too. Ah, the early 00's, how I miss them.

So, about those Simpsons... ::)
lol

lol


This thread is already unlocked? Huh. I guess we could finally shut the hell up about The Simpsons now.

Inb4 The Early 90s Guy thinks that I believe that the '89 Christmas special was actually the first episode, even though that's true.

2000-2001: early 00s part 1
2002-2003: early 00s part 2