What is Digg?104 Comments
- bigrobert327, on 10/11/2007, -1/+87way better
- Sigurdhsson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44The goatse one still wins.
- TJacques, on 10/11/2007, -4/+41I liked the Goatse one better...
- djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Not necessarily "the best we can do" but certainly leaps and bounds better than its seizure-inspiring predecessor!
- Rooster99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+34The original is disgusting! I just read off the BBC website that it took them a WHOLE YEAR to come up with that garbage! What a joke!
I think the new one is pretty clever though! How he managed to incorperate the actual '2012' numbers into the spelling of 'London' is pretty cool! And Ill bet that it took him a lot less than a year to come up with it. - RobertJoseph17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29Do you seriously not see the 2012? It's not like it's invisible or anything.
- elvenseven, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6906/bbcgoatsewb1.jpg
- dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22I'd want to see the rings incorporated alittle more, but the 2012 played into London is a nice touch, makes you look at the logo, then revisit the curves after you realize the "hidden" part.
- pissflaps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14The designer left the rings square due to the fact that London doesn't cut corners.
- affanjam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13WTF is Zoizdon
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18Yeah!
No wannabe gay greek letters.
Also, the not-so-subtle London in it is nice. - lensman00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I like this rendition of the Olympic Rings in light of the whole logo fiasco:
"We Know What We're Doing"
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43009000/jpg/_43009893_paul_day_416.jpg - Pilot85, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11you know they were probably given a year to make the original logo, but totally spent the time drinking and smoking weed. Then 2 days before they were supposed to have it done, they were like, "oh, *****, what're we gonna do?" "I know, let's make a big seizure causing logo that looks like the 80's threw up all over it! Awesome!"
The new one is clever. - insomniacal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Agreed -- I like this one much more. I don't even _get_ the one they chose. Are those fake Korean symbols or something? Not very inspired, just dopey looking angles like the old "surfer" fonts from the 80's. At least blending "London" and "2012" shows ingenuity.
Is it too late for them to say, "Yeah, we screwed up" and change their minds? - Sultana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Very nice. Simplicity is always the way to go. This designer was clever with incorporating the year into "London" It looks more professional and easier on the eyes.
I did look through the gallery, and there's a pretty funny one with the official logo broken up as a person in a dance pose. Then there's a pic next to it of Ricky Gervais from the office in the same pose: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43007000/jpg/_43007281_graham_coe416.jpg - idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7That's why he said one OR two billion.
Gotcha :D - COinOR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8not intended to be blogspam: http://www.shakewellbeforeuse.com/images/london_sh1t.jpg
seriously, some of the other logos in the galleries were pretty impressive, more so than the chosen one. - syphern, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6haha you got smacked the ***** out!
- seanmanseanman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Looks like Zordon
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah us Brits are dumb. Fortunately it's hereditary so you yanks are pretty much screwed anyway ;).
- rhys18383, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Apparently, the original one cost £400,000 to develop and people have had epileptic fits after watching it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/6722763.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6724245.stm
Well worth the money! - tidu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Boomerang legs running underwater?
- djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I think it deserves more credit that you assert, but thumbs up for referencing a great story.
- slapded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5clearly photoshopped
- calvmari, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Haha! Money down the drain: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43010000/jpg/_43010117_andrew_robinson416.jpg
- TjLAXattack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I saw that one too... kinda agree. It may need a little more color to fly with the tradition. But that would be nice for print that way too. I was surprised at how few from the gallery used the London underground logo factored in. Probably trademark/copyright issues.
Either that, or I am just an idiot and don't know anything about this kind of stuff. - thefungus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The more people that have to approve a design lengthens the entire process and in my opinion creates a watered down image. If the original took a year to finalize, I could imagine the poor designer was probably ready to shoot himself at the end. It would have been nice to see some of the starting concepts.
- RealmDown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The previous one looked like he was holding her hair back.
This one is way better. - techweenie1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I personally like #7 from the "See our shortlist link by Simon Hamblett:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43009000/jpg/_43009997_simon_hamblett_220.jpg - Dracker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It really looks like 2012don more than it looks like London, at first glance. It's not just curves for the sake of being curves.
- zydeco, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Coudal Partners' blog has a really well thought out article defending the logo:
http://coudal.com/olympics.php
One excerpt:
"It's simple: When we hear "my kid could have done that!" we think "success." Some of the greatest logos of all time involve two lines (the Christian cross) or three lines and a circle (Mercedes). Your kid COULD have done that, but she didn't. Nor did she design the graphics standards manual that goes with it. So give it a rest. Or send us her resume."
And something less people think about:
"It's reproducible. Aside from the word "London" going chunky when sloppily rendered for the web (notably on the BBC reproduction that ended up on every site critiquing the logo), it's good to see a logo that's so easily printable, broadcastable, embroiderable and moldable (think of how horrible those 9-color rainbow brushstroke logos look when they're process-printed out-of-register with a 100 line screen on a McDonalds Cup!). It even looks pretty great in black and white." - idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It looks like a guy with a backwards "D:" face and sonic hair doing ballet in fancy pants.
- winmywii, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's better, but what is Zo12don?
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ah. We decriminalise cannabis and create a wacky Olympics logo at roughly the same time. I do not consider this to be a coincidence.
//edit - ah pilot85 got there before me. Ctrl+r is my friend.// - bar10dr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's Lisa Simpson alright...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/wc85/brit_games.gif - i208khonsu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I really don't think it's any better than the current one. It's still a little uneasy and wtf-ish.
- lazyrussian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3you can't see the 2012 in the LON?
Apologies for the dupe comment - I didn't see it - glasnostic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Turns out that even after all the public outcry against the official logo, they are sticking with it and not changing a thing. Sounds like the London Olympic Committee is taking a play from “George W. Bush’s 101 ways ignore popular demand and ruin your already tarnished public image”.
- OpticalLiam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What was wrong with the logo they used when they were a 'candidate city'? Much better than the current one.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/e/e4/London-2012-logo.svg.png - sk8ordiemofo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It dosen't cause seizures, I'm not complaining.
- TjLAXattack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2supposed to look like a running man? not trying to be funny... i just don't see it. (the original) kinda looks like a guy kneeling on the right, facing left, or working at a computer. i do like the original because the olympics just aren't as cool as they used to be, or maybe i'm just growing older and it is still cool for younger kids.
my artsy logo: YAGSI |/| ( ) ( | |/| ( ) _| - MBX1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think this one is boring and too timid, conservative. There are so many better ways to design a logo. The official one is messy and too wild but this one is not very special.
- MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thank god I'm in Canada then - where the dumb French rule all.
- TjLAXattack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@zydeco
Interesting article.. good find. But this is one quote that's a little ridiculous:
"It cost £400,000. That's probably a bargain for an incredibly high-profile complete graphic identity system for an international company/event designed by experienced professionals. Anyone valuing the importance of design should give that argument a rest, too. We wouldn't have taken the job for a shilling less."
I understand where they're coming from (worked for a design firm that created the napster logo - though i was a lowly intern), but this whole thing is SO overpriced. - sshuit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Ok here's my opinion on the Official Logo :
Colour scheme, Does nothing to suggest to me that it has anything to do with the olympics. They have chosen garish shades of pink, orange etc. That seem more suited to a new X-TREEM flavour of Gatorade or Red Bull.
Its obviously been designed to look something futuristic and perhaps graffitti-esque but the shapes do not flow from one character to the next and end up looking disjointed. It might work better as 4 characters in a row rather than 2 on top of the other two. The london in smaller hellenic style script is too small and does nothing to suggest London England. The presence of the 5 olympic rings within the upper right 0 is sloppy and since it is a horizontally biased shape it doesn't end up reinforcing the hole in the 0 they are looking for. You could easily miss the entire 2012 if you weren't looking for it. The 12 looks painfully like a upper case "R".
I have to step back, look at the alternate logos submitted and wonder to myself. If this is what they decided on, how bad are the ones they rejected ?
*shudder to think*
- Daniel591992, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's 2012don
- Mejogid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"but thumbs up for referencing a great story."
Not really, he just copied it from a featured comment on a previous BBC story about the logo. - tmpoirier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That logo is so much better.
- leowatson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Seriously, the logo looks like it was done by someone on LSD in those 'tests' they used to do.
- wideawakewesley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's crap, looks just like all the dross every other country has churned out. Give me the pink spiky version anyday!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
