The 2003 U2 calendar isn't as as good as 2002

[Angel]

That's all.



Don't you all agree? Of course you do.

 

[HelloAngel]

Unfortunately, I do agree. Luckily it was given to me as a present.

Either way, I can stay up date on what day it is and see a nice picture of U2 while I'm at it.

 

[martha]

I agree also. Fortunately, I got mine for half price a few days ago at B&N.

 

[ryancoke]

It's terrible.

 

[BAW]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it sucks...it looks like it was thrown together at the last minute

 

[dsmith2904]

I wasn't going to get it because a bunch of black and white pictures of the stage and crowds seemed like a total letdown after all those beautiful pics we got last year. But my brother got it for me for Christmas and there are a few hot Edge pics, so it's not a total loss. I do like that it's set up the same way as the 2002 calendar, I've really gotten used to reading across to the days of the week rather than up and down.

 

[Bonochick]

I didn't get the 2002 or 2003 calendar.

 

[oktobergirl]

I had the 2002 one. I went to B&N to get it yesterday for 50% off but they didn't have it. It sounds like a blessing anyway, because I ended up with the 365 days in Ireland calendar , which totally ROCKS!

 

[wertsie]

So maybe it's not quite as good as the 2002 one (that one kicked ass!). But nevertheless, it will be gracing my wall this year.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Yeah it does stink. Last year was gorgeous and this year.. I'm actually giving it away, I can't really find room for it in my room and it's not any new picture I haven't seen or don't have on my computer.

 

[*BOOMCHAA!*]

I never saw the 2002, therefore I am not disappointed.
I don't know any better

 

[Sicy]

Hmm.. I havent got it yet. For some reason I thought there were different ones. Or is that just different ones of the cover only?

 

[wertsie]

Hmm.. I havent got it yet. For some reason I thought there were different ones. Or is that just different ones of the cover only?

As far as I know, the "official" one is the one with the heart stage on the cover. I have I think 4 2003 U2 calendars! The rest are unofficial.

 

[Sicy]

But are the pictures inside different?

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

yeah the 2003 one is not good at all. i have it hanging up at work, but i think i am going to take it down and bring it home and replace it with a different one. it looks sloppy and is just uninteresting.

 

[Tech]

I agree, I don't like 2003 as much as last year!!!

 

[joyfulgirl]

So you're all saying that my first-ever U2 calendar currently on order will suck?

Where is my damn calendar anyway? I don't have a calendar in my house yet. What's today again? Who am I? Where am I?

 

[Lemon Meringue]

I really liked most of the pictures last year. I used the calendar at work and since the actual calendar part was funky I decided not to get one this year. (Too confusing for my little brain.) Now that I know the pictures suck, I'm glad I opted for a calendar with cute little puppy dogs on it instead.

Hmm... that reminds me. I still need a weekly planner. Maybe I can get one on sale.

 

[Kariann]

Didn't like this year's as well either but it's better than the crappy freebie I am using at work. The U2 calendar stays at home since a great many things have been mysteriously disappering from my desk!

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

I don't think it's very good either. I was really disappointed when I saw that the only picture of Larry was of him behind the drum kit and so blurry that you can hardley tell that it's him.

 

[tiny dancer]

I was going to order the 2003 calender, but now after reading your posts I think not. I have the 2002 one from last year and the pictures in it are really cool.

 

[U2SJ]

Well I must agree too, not as good as last year, but I still have it in my cubicle at work, I have always had a U2 calendar there, it is the only thing that keeps me sane throughout the workday (especially since they banned me from the internet because of U2 internet abuse)
I just don't understand with all the many beautiful U2 pictures out there, how they ended up putting blurry, crappy pics in the calendar

 

[Sicy]

maybe I wont buy it then

 

[wertsie]

I really liked most of the pictures last year. I used the calendar at work and since the actual calendar part was funky I decided not to get one this year. (Too confusing for my little brain.) Now that I know the pictures suck, I'm glad I opted for a calendar with cute little puppy dogs on it instead.

Hmm... that reminds me. I still need a weekly planner. Maybe I can get one on sale.

It was so funny last year...My roommates would ask me what the date would be like two weeks ahead and I'd go to my U2 calendar and they'd kind of laugh at me because it was so weird! But I like the challenge, I guess...or...something...

PS. I think I bought every U2 calendar I could find (except one, I think) for 2003...I cut the pictures out of the other ones and put them on my wall.

 

[anitram]

Eh, I'm a big fan of b&w photography, so I'm not too bothered by it.

 

[madonna's child]

The layout confuzzles me.

 

[dizzy]

I didn't get the 2003 calendar. Got a Paris datebook instead.

 

[Zoobrandenopa]

I agree with everyone too!! last years was better. With all the great "Elevation" tour shots on the net , it could have been really great.

U2 fans unite for a better calander 2004!!

 

[Giant Lemon]

Yeah, I agree that the 2003 calendar isn't as good as 2002. I got it as a gift, though, so I might as well use it instead of paying for a different one.

 

[Liesje]

I guess it depends on the perspective - I've never owned a U2 calendar before this, and just by virtue of it being a U2 calendar, that's good enough for me! I've had mine left on May for various reasons (the Bono bite, the month college is out....) now I supposed I'll have to actually use it....