Page 1 of 6

Top 12 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:05 pm
by LoathedVermin72
Didn’t get too many responses for the first post, so I thought I’d try something more recent to see if it might be more accessible.

To be clear, 2000s refers to 2000-2009.

1. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
2. Lost in Translation
3. Bronson
4. There Will Be Blood
5. Punch-Drunk Love
6. The Devil’s Rejects
7. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
8. The Room
9. Broken Flowers
10. Ocean’s Eleven
11. A History of Violence
12. Innocence

Honorable Mention: The Matador

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:08 pm
by Alex
i'm gonna avoid this thread for a few days, and then read the whole thing like it's christmas morning. i can't wait.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:11 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:12 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
Technically the LOTR trilogy is three movies so you have to take two off your list. Look it up.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:13 pm
by Kaius
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.
That's really stupid.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:15 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
Kaius wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.
That's really stupid.
Not if you think about it. A decade = ten years. our "A.D." years didn't begin at zero, they began at year one. therefore, ten years would have been years 1 - 10, so on and so forth...

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:19 pm
by Kaius
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Kaius wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.
That's really stupid.
Not if you think about it. A decade = ten years. our "A.D." years didn't begin at zero, they began at year one. therefore, ten years would have been years 1 - 10, so on and so forth...
Ok, so I have an irrational hatred for it.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:19 pm
by LoathedVermin72
Ruddo don't make me come over there

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:22 pm
by McParadigm
Are we going by production time? We should.

If a movie was written, developed, and filmed during the 1998-2000 period, but was released in 2001, is it really fair to allow that to be considered one of the best films of the 2001-2010 era?

And wait...what if the production time straddles the cutoff?

I think we need to elect a governance committee before we try to decide anything further.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:25 pm
by LoathedVermin72
Really, in the scope of the crushing indifference of the universe, the human construct of labeling time is so meaningless that we should probably abandon this thread altogether.

Amirite?

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:29 pm
by McParadigm
We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars.

Then we got jobs.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 6:31 pm
by LoathedVermin72
It's a small exhaust port, right below the main port.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:28 pm
by ABNorman
Spoiler: show
Image

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:33 pm
by Norah
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Kaius wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.
That's really stupid.
Not if you think about it. A decade = ten years. our "A.D." years didn't begin at zero, they began at year one. therefore, ten years would have been years 1 - 10, so on and so forth...
Yup, just like we weren't ringing in a new millennium on new year's eve 1999.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:35 pm
by @SkitchP
cutuphalfdead wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Kaius wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.
That's really stupid.
Not if you think about it. A decade = ten years. our "A.D." years didn't begin at zero, they began at year one. therefore, ten years would have been years 1 - 10, so on and so forth...
Yup, just like we weren't ringing in a new millennium on new year's eve 1999.

We ring a new millennium every minute of our being Chud, some just choose to set arbitrary end points.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:35 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
cutuphalfdead wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Kaius wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Technically a decade starts with the year "1". So 2001 would be the first year of the decade and 2010 the last. Look it up.
That's really stupid.
Not if you think about it. A decade = ten years. our "A.D." years didn't begin at zero, they began at year one. therefore, ten years would have been years 1 - 10, so on and so forth...
Yup, just like we weren't ringing in a new millennium on new year's eve 1999.
I knew you would have my back on this, Pete.

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:37 pm
by Jorge
Wow, is this stupid argument really back

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:37 pm
by Jorge
Did I somehow get transported back in time to the late nineties?

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:38 pm
by Alex
theplatypus wrote:Did I somehow get transported back in time to the late nineties?
you're on a pearl jam message board, so yeah, kind of

Re: Top 10 of the Decade: The 2000s

Posted: Tue November 18, 2014 7:39 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
theplatypus wrote:Wow, is this stupid argument really back
Hey Jorge