Robert Koehler’s review of the new film “Fired Up,” published in Variety, says it’s just “a sad, cheapo bid to be the ‘Bring It On’ of the ’00s.”
One problem, Bob: “Bring It On,” released in August 2000, is already the “Bring It On” of the ’00s.
Robert Koehler’s review of the new film “Fired Up,” published in Variety, says it’s just “a sad, cheapo bid to be the ‘Bring It On’ of the ’00s.”
One problem, Bob: “Bring It On,” released in August 2000, is already the “Bring It On” of the ’00s.
That reminds me of Rolling Stone Magazine’s list of the greatest albums of the ’80s. The Clash’s “London Calling” topped of the list even though it came out in 1979. (These big-name magazines, eh?)
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rstone.html#80%27s
How long before someone points out that there was no year 0 so the new decade didn’t start until 2001? Because that’s how long it will be before I point out that no matter whether it’s been a round number of years since the current calendar started, you can’t tell me that 2000 was in the 1990s and not the 2000s. (Unless I accidentally point that out in this particular comment right here.)
Jeff, while you know I admire your pedantry, it is misplaced in this instance. Koehler didn’t say “of the decade” (in which case someone could make the argument you shot down); he said “of the ’00s.” No one would claim the year 2000 was not part of the ’00s.
ohhhhh snap!
Oh, if only that were true, Eric. Here’s an example. Jayson Stark is a baseball columnist for ESPN.com. He recently started a discussion on his blog about some of the best and worst baseball feats of the current decade. Here is how he started the discussion:
Now, it’s very clear that Jayson Start is referring to the same decade that Koehler is referring to, no? Well, here are some of the comments that people posted:
So Eric, while you know I admire your faith in the inherent intelligence of mankind, it is misplaced in this instance.
I still prefer the Naughties.
“Naughties”
Awesome.
Good point, Jeff. I shouldn’t have said no one would make that mistake, for surely the opposite is true — there is no such thing as an idea so stupid that no one will believe it.
I do see a slight distinction, however, in that Jayson Start made the mistake of using the word “decade” at the beginning of his piece, thus activating the part of some people’s brains that makes them post stupid things on the Internet without bothering to read the rest of the paragraph. Of course, I used it in the headline of this post, so perhaps you were right that the same part of stupid people’s brains might be activated here, too. I’d like to think none of my readers are that dumb, but … I’ll … just … let this sentence trail off….
I think the question is more of “What do you call the decade?” which begs the question “Is 1990 the last year of the 80s?”. For example, we often call the 19th century the eighteen hundreds, despite the fact that 1900 is in the 19th century but not eighteen hundred and something. So would you call the 199th decade the 80s? Even if 1990 is the last year of the 199th decade?
By Jeff’s logic, either 1990 was part of the 80s, or this current decade is only nine years long and 2000 belongs to no decade. To clarify, the year 2000 was part of the twentieth century, but is still part of this current decade. It could not have been part of the 90s. Next year will be the first year of the twenty-tens decade (or two-thousand-tens, or twenty-teens, or whatever other variation thereof will become used the most). The dividing line between decades and centuries don’t occur in the same place.
By Jeff’s logic, either 1990 was part of the 80s, or this current decade is only nine years long and 2000 belongs to no decade.
Another Eric, I am certain you have misunderstood Jeff if you think his logic implied either of those things. Could you cite which part of his comment you got that from so we’ll know which part you misunderstood?
Whome, since we don’t number the decades like we do the centuries, what you said doesn’t matter. But to answer the question, the first decade A.D. comprised the years 1-10, the second decade A.D. was 11-20, etc., so the 199th decade was 1981-1990.
We should just pretend there was a year zero, where nothing happened for a whole year. That would make it a tad easier to line up decades and centuries.
Now as for referring to the 1900s as the 18th century, we just need to learn English to remember that.
Ugh. I meant 1800s as the 19th century. I guess I need to learn English.
I feel like I should make some really pompous sounding comment, but I think maybe I’ll have a bowl of cereal instead. Here’s to the naughties.
I say we throw out the old calendars and create a new one with a year zero, which is the beginning of decade zero, which is the beginning of century zero, etc.
Then we make it a crime punishable by death to use the old calendars.
I’ll expect everyone to be on board real soon now.
To flog this dead horse, I think you can say “the eighties” as in “the decade that started in 1980 and ended at the end of 1989” just because “decade” can mean any period of ten years. In other words, we shouldn’t equate “the eighties” with the “the 199th decade.” Who cares about what sequential decade it is anyway? I’ll accept that the year 2000 is part of the 20th century, but calling it part of the 90’s makes as much sense as calling Hawaii part of the contiguous US. I love you, Hawaii, but contiguous you are not.
So yeah, Bob, “Bring it On” has it covered. Maybe this movie can be the second “Bring it On” of the 00’s. Except I think there are already like seven.
Take that, dead horse!