2012 London Olympic Logo (Rant)
 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2012_logos.PNG

London 2012

That logo, Which I could recreate in less than 10 minutes on MSPaint

Anyone know how much it cost?

FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS!

£400,000

For what? A quick 10 minute job I'd be happy accepting a fiver for?

Can somebody tell me why this cost £400,000?

No need, I already know the answer.
That's why.. Because it's aimed at young children.

Let me tell you this, Sebastian Coe, Olympics owners, and whoever charged £400,000 for that friggin' logo. If anything, the olympics is not going to reach out to the children. It's difficult to reach out to young people? OF COURSE IT [more censorship] IS! Why? Because you're spending £400,000 on absolute BOLLOCKS!

This logo doesn't look like something that'll bring us all together. If anything it looks like a broken window or something. If that logo has any intended purpose, it's to split us apart.

Look at the 'Bidding' Logo..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2-logo.svg.png
Simple, Effective, and stands for sticking together a damnsite more than this new one does,

Can I just make one more point?

Even if the logo WAS decent.. A logo can't inspire people. A logo CAN NOT make people want to get involved.

What does?

THE IDEAS BEHIND IT BEING REINFORCED POSITIVELY!

How about this.. Instead of paying some DIMWIT £400,000 for a 10 minute MSPaint job.. SPEND £400,000 ON FRIGGIN SCHOOLS AND HELP KIDS THAT WAY, MORONS!

Now I don't work in the public sector.. But when we can't ****ing fund schools, or the NHS, but we CAN fund this?

Leaves only one question.
"What the heck are you playing at, Government!?"

sorry for my language, i tried to censor it as much as i could... but that really felt good getting out

The logo is somewhat reminiscent of a really messed up jigsaw puzzle. It's definatly funky looking. But yes they did spend a tad much on the darned thing and they'll probably spend even more on the mascot.

What were they trying for anyways?? Is the Pangea look in in 2012??? I liked the logo they had in the Doctor Who ep last season that was set during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. They could have used that! :ohwell:

Sides....they'll make more money from the Olympics and probably break even on the first day of the games. So they'll get the money back and then some.

But it seems that lots of people don't like it (is it supposed to be a Celtic design?). So yay..controversy in the 2012 Olympics already. :lol:

http://www.centredaily.com/living/story/127293.html

I like it. Particularly the purple one on the left hand side. Would I pay 400000 pounds for it. Hells no! But it's not that bad, IMO

This is like two weeks old.

But yeah, the logo is crap. I liked the Goatse one that someone sent in.

That logo sucks. Whoever drew it should be dragged out into the street and shot.

My oh my. Aren't we a little violent?

Celtic? really? doesn't look celtic to me at all! It doesn't seem reminiscent of knotwork or even Viking (not the right term, I'm sure) styles. How odd.

It is awesomely uninspiring.

Celtic design? I think it's supposed to look swanky and modern. What matters is that the Olympics themselves go well and everything is built on time. That's right, after all the stick the British press especially gave to Athens there's a serious concern that London's bid may be overly ambitious to finish on time (and guess who gets the Olympics should London fail...). I agree that they should have stuck with the bidding logo and 400 thousand is ridiculous, but they had to design a logo 5 years in advance. Who knows what trends and styles will be popular then? I'm just waiting to see what the mascots look like, I wouldn't mind being one at one of the stadiums!

First time I saw it I was like "What is it.....oh its...and....yeah........right"

I like the 'Bidding' Logo seems more traditional.

Roughly, how many bananas is that in US currency?

I agree whole heartedly with that comment. I'd also like to add, how much were people paid to do the cheaply "teen girls squad" ripoff Wintergreen gum commercials, and those anti-drug ads with the stupid dog saying "you disappoint me?" And while we're on the subject, how come people idolize Jackson Pollack and thye don't think animation or comic book art is art?

I can tell you the answer... the world is insultingly unfair. Some guy can poop on a canvas and call it Jesus for shock value and get into a museum, while someone who paints beautiful landscapes can barely live in a crap appartment. Same thing there. It's basically all luck of the draw.

$800,000

I think the entire world is outraged at the logo, the UK particularly (obviously). I'm optimistic that it'll change.

Looks like Stevie Wonder put together a puzzle.

ZING! Haha sadly it looks as if that is what happened here.:lol:

Did you actually work out the math on that? I mean, I saw your reply and laughed. And I don't mean that in a bad way. Cause I was wondering if anyone was gonna answer that question and I thought about doing the math and then laughed at myself because well, I hate math.

I agree about the rest of the world. I mean, a kiddie logo to get kids involved? I dunno, cause there are plenty of kids out there that what to make it to the Olympics and try their best and then some and still don't make it. So I guess in the long run what they're really gonna do is disappoint A LOT of kids.

Are you serious? Is this not true of any situation? By your logic people should never try do anything because they'll be disappointed if they fail. If more people thought like that we'd be living in a very different world...

And Rosealangelo's estimate is pretty damn accurate, I believe it's something like $1.98 to the pound?

My question is: Why design the logo so soon? We've got five years--- would it have killed them to wait and come up with something far more appealing and actually worth £400,000?

All it would take is two seconds to Google "currency converter."

thats the crappiest logo ever
the best was everything from 1984 LA ....

Yea, but I'm just a negative person all around. I try not to be but I just can't help it. All I was saying was that there are kids that are already pushing for the Olympics without having kid friendly logos.


Yea... but if you asked Goon he'd tell you how damn lazy I am. :lol:

actully that's a line Garfield the cat used to say all the time and quite a funny one at that.:lol:
And I don't see what all the fuss is about I like the logos it's very retro 80's looking though something a little more future or modern would be better but I do agree on the fact that those logos are not worth that much money that's out of hand I do much better work and I don't even think I'll ever make that much money on one job in my life time lol of course I'm not greedy either.:lol:

The logo is not just supposed to be "kid-friendly", it is supposed to be universally appealing (which it has incidentally failed to achieve). I think you have misunderstood what this logo is actually meant to represent and be. It is simple meant to be a recognisable image representing the games which will be printed on all sorts of merchandise and in stadiums and will be used in advertising campaigns. Its primary concern is not to recruit volunteers. They haven't even started taking volunteers yet, I'm sure that they will use an advertising campaign rather than the logo to atract volunteers if they need to (Sidney, Athens (and probably Beijing) all almost immediately filled their volunteer positions. It is likely that the same will happen in London.

Edit: the reason that they need to get the logo and mascots (which should be unveiled soon) in order now is that they need to be finalised for the closing ceremony in Beijing where they will be present. Furthermore as soon as Beijing is over, they will start making London 2012 merchandise.

Ah. Thank you, Dinny. I was beginning to think no one would answer my question.

The reason I used the words "kid-friendly" is because of the quote that Tony had. The logo is aimed at young people... i.e. kids. "Young people" doesn't mean kids only but it also doesn't mean only people in their 20's either. And yes, you're right. That logo did fail to be universally appealing.

The one they had for the bid was good
Should kept that one

No.

:|

Seriously, the thing looks like crap. Burn the idiots who passed this thing, I say. BURN THEM WITH FIRE! :evil:

Wanna know what I think? They're gonna keep this. That's pretty much how it works. But don't feel bad artists out there. As I said, it's all luck of the draw... ever hear of a little book called Maisy?

http://brennerworld.blogware.com/BlogEntries/Maisy.gif

Who here couldn't just poop the damn thing out in five seconds? And it has a TV show and a multimillion dollar merchandising farce. And it's not even poorly drawn in a clever way like Dumb Bunnies or something.

I mean, things like that make me wanna hang up my pencil and shatter the bones in my Right (Drawing) hand so I'll never draw again, even if I wanted to.

So just let the retarded hack artist have his bottle for coming up with something so clever it could have taken an entire special needs Kindergarden class a whole hour to come up with. That's why there's the term "starving artist" you know...

I agree.

Now that is funny.:lol:

Sorry to bump this, and for potentially being dense: If London isn't ready, Athens gets the Olympics? How does that work? At what point in time would the IOC decide to do that? I mean, it couldn't be a last-minute thing, that'd be chaotic. Do they review the sites a few months before the games begin?

This has never actually happened before, but in the event that an Olympic city cannot organise their Olympics then I believe the IOC has two choices. One is to hold back the games (which could be crazy) and the other is to give the games to a city that is ready. As Athens held the Olympics in 2004 and is in the same continent as London anyway, it would be an incredibly likely destination. As you said it is not a last-minute decision. After the international media uproar surrounding Athens, the IOC inspected the Olympic sites many months before the actual Olympics and found that everything was actually on schedule. Had they found that there was no way anything would be finished, then they would have been forced to act.

The sites are actually continually reviewed by the IOC over the four year period after the preceding games, I believe. Anyway even if London's bid is overly ambitious, they could easily cut out some of the needlessly luxurious parts of the Olympic village or something.