The 2012 logo shouldn't represent Britain - the bid wasn't based around Britain, it was based around the World - and therefore a symbol of the empire wouldn't do the games any favours.
Brekkie Boy posted:
Two questions -
If this logo hadn't cost £400,000+ would there be such an outcry?
And vice versa, if this logo had been to everyones liking, would anyone care about the £400,000 price tag?
These two statements are possibly the most level-headed arguments about this damn logo so far, for or against.
If this logo hadn't cost £400,000+ would there be such an outcry?
And vice versa, if this logo had been to everyones liking, would anyone care about the £400,000 price tag?
I think for most people, it's not the money (not that the £400,000 just went on a logo of course).
If it was a classic bit of branding then people wouldn't mind how much it cost. But then it could have cost a 10th of what it did and still be universially despised.
It's more the fact that that thing is representing us as a city/nation and it could have been so much better. For me the main problem is that it's one heck of a wasted opportunity, it could have been done so much better.
A very valid point was made that while there are talks in Parliament for a "Britain Day" to promote british identity, this 2012 logo makes no attempt to symbolize that in any way whatsoever.
Anything concerned with this pathetic "Britain Day" idea can never be considered a "valid point". Why this pointless search for a "British Identity" that doesn't exist - that's the point of multi-cultural Britain is it not?
That's a result of multi-cultural Britain indeed, a loss of identity. However, I was merely using this as an example of the contrast, while some believe there is a lack of pride (hence the reference to the proposed day), this logo refuses to show an ounce of pride in the aspect of London getting to host the games - even down to the diddy lowercase text for the word 'london' itself which to me comes across as almost apologetic. Culture does not have to come into it as far as inspiration for the logo is concerned.
In terms of physical proportions, the year 2012 has been given drastically more 'weight' (and purpose) within the logo compared to either 'london' or the rings which I feel is too imbalanced, especially considering said date is then practically unreadable for some - and open to interpretation!
Quote:
The 2012 logo shouldn't represent Britain - the bid wasn't based around Britain, it was based around the World - and therefore a symbol of the empire wouldn't do the games any favours.
I understand completely that the bid was based around the World - my point was made with the view that, rather than the bid's idea being the sole requisite of the logo, this being for the London Olympics could have included a link of some form, however subtle (or London-specific - if the logo was solid, a nod towards the London Eye or Houses of Parliament for example, I would have had no complaints about).
Such a feature is by no means the top priority with regards to improving the logo (anybody who thinks it is so has probably lost sight of the core problem), the
main
thing is that the design itself is changed to something that isn't so hideous, as the vast majority currently seem to think it is!
I'd be interested to see how the BBC would incorporate this logo into their olympic presentation..i.e. astons etc. Obviously there's generic BBC Sport branding now but would we be in for a right old colourfest if there wasn't?
Not really. It was pointless, but was at least a bit classy.
But that was a pre-"Candidate City" logo, and quite rightly done on the back of a fag-packet. Ours is permanent, took a year to create (10 seconds to ruin) and cost £400K.....go figure which you laugh at more!
(Give you a guess...........there is a loud snigger in Madrid now!)
PS: I thought it was awful of Madrid to use yellow and red for their logo as people might've thought it was the national flag of Spain. How anti-modern and un-narcissistic of them!
The newer Madrid logo was much better than all the other candidate city logos, bar the London candidate city logo. This excuse for a logo is sick. It's not a world thing, all other logos had something to do with the location in their logos why shouldn't we. We need a landmark in the logo, Big Ben or Tower Bridge (not a newish one like the Eye). But at least they didn't spend 5million on rubbish like UKTV Gold!
GM
nodnirG kraM
martinDTanderson posted:
why weren't Londoners given a choice?
Well it includes all the UK so why wasn't the whole country given a choice?
I don't really like the logo, but don't think it's awful either. The main problems are, IMO:
the square design, it would look much better in a line (try it on Paint or something)
the bottom 2 is illegable (sp?) because it's being decapitated by the 0
the colours are awful, especially the pink and orange
the font is pretty bad as well
The Paralymics logo is even worse, as it has all four colours in it (in random patterns on top of the pink) and the words 'paralymic games' are slanted in the bottom 2!
Update: We have received many comments that reflect the tenor of negative comments found elsewhere on the web. Rather than act as an echo chamber we have published a selection here that say something a little different.
How far can they go before admitting they were wrong
If this logo hadn't cost £400,000+ would there be such an outcry?
