 |
 |
 |
 |
| January | February | March | April |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
| May | June | July | August |
|
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
| September | October | November | December |
The 2000 Calendar is now available for sale at your local bookstore! I'll run you about 13 bucks. But you can get the preview for free. Click on an image to check out the month's image.
|
|
|
|
| January | February | March | April |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
| May | June | July | August |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
| September | October | November | December |
I like the calendar. The collages are very nicely done. Actually I'm jealous because it's so bloody hard these days to get decent images to use for collages. September's image won't have me cringing. My main beef with the 2001 calendar was that image of Gary Shandling and Tea Leoni in that coffin from "Hollywood A.D." Yuck! September 2002 is looking much better. (Why September? Because my birthday's in September. Why have an ugly view during your month?) On the other hand, August is looking very good for 2002. In addition the pictures aren't, well, grainy. The 2001 calendar had that rough film look to it. The 2002 calendar does not have this issue.
My complain is about the collages. I like making collages. In '99 I used my X-Files Desk Calendar and the '99 wall calendar to make some of them. (Okay so I used magazines, pilfered pictures from other sites ect.) The point is I like using the calendars for image sources. The past couple of years they've been using collages. I think it's to keep people from obtaining images for use on web pages and the like. (Some of us can still get screen captures but let's face it, that's work.) I guess I'm just wishing for the days when one could get a single image to use as you wished. The collages aren't unattractive they just kinda take the fun out of it.
All and all it's a definite must buy. What are you going to do waste money on a Backstreet Boys calendar?
 |
 |