Soblito

Minnesota Timberwolves

426 posts in this topic

It's not a bad logo, but IMO this is (at best) a lateral move from the previous howling wolf logo. I preferred the trees in the background to the North Star. 

 

The coyotes tweet is ridiculous. It's clearly the same wolf as before, just refined to give it less detail. it's most apparent on the ear, the teeth and the mouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hettinger_rl said:

Why not just go with something like this:

Mock2a.png.aba9aa3c123f454415d72a22793df759.png

 

It would still work in a similar way but also gives the timber aspect.

 

Instant winner. A lot better.

 

As a follow-up to my original opinion on the new logo, I also don't like the use of double blue that both also happen to be rather dark. It makes the logo murky as a whole.

 

What comes to the letter A without the crossbar, you guys arguing about it are taking it too far. Most probably, what happened there, was that the designers just took inspiration from the runes and created a similar shape that slightly resembles it. No more, no less, and doesn't have to be. Design is not science. The marketing talk, however, might have taken the rationale there where it doesn't belong.

Also, as I find myself being in the absolute minority, who love the current primary and the forward-facing wolf, I'd like to hear from you, what makes it so bad in your opinion? If I had to choose between the current wolf face and the new logo, or the current secondary, for that matter, I'd choose the first-mentioned ten times out of ten.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one whose glad the T-Wolves didn't have trees in their logo? The current secondary and the new logo modified look at too busy to me. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, truepg said:

 

Instant winner. A lot better.

 

As a follow-up to my original opinion on the new logo, I also don't like the use of double blue that both also happen to be rather dark. It makes the logo murky as a whole.

 

What comes to the letter A without the crossbar, you guys arguing about it are taking it too far. Most probably, what happened there, was that the designers just took inspiration from the runes and created a similar shape that slightly resembles it. No more, no less, and doesn't have to be. Design is not science. The marketing talk, however, might have taken the rationale there where it doesn't belong.

Also, as I find myself being in the absolute minority, who love the current primary and the forward-facing wolf, I'd like to hear from you, what makes it so bad in your opinion? If I had to choose between the current wolf face and the new logo, or the current secondary, for that matter, I'd choose the first-mentioned ten times out of ten.
 

I thought that too, but the "Lake Blue" (the lighter tint) is the same blue that they currently use. Although it is still rather dark, I played with lighter blues and it just didn't work as well to give that night sky feeling. This is why I used a light wolf instead to brighten the logo.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, truepg said:


Also, as I find myself being in the absolute minority, who love the current primary and the forward-facing wolf, I'd like to hear from you, what makes it so bad in your opinion? 
 

 

at this point it seems strange to criticize the concept when we're talking about one of the logos being a roundel. but, the "angry mascot over angry wordmark" idea is probably the most cliche in sports identity history. (maybe an interlocking monogram). it is at least out of style; very 90s type of design. the new one isn't timeless, but at least its not that and its certainly better constructed. if trends change, the new logo can be pulled apart and repurposed forever while the old logo was never any good to begin with. 

 

before i go on, don't take that as you can't like it. there's plenty of bad design/music/movies i like too, but i wont call them good. this isn't an attack on your opinion or you, i am just giving a straight answer in regards to the logo

 

the old primary's wolf is the biggest problem, its not well drawn. even when you're working in a heavily illustrated, almost cartoonish style, the colors there dont feel life like or believable. there's too much contrast and it feels as if every element is calling out for attention based on color and proportion. the wolf, trees, wordmark. . . nothing really falls into the background. the new logo does an excellent job of avoiding all of those issues.

 

its incredibly complex. not just in rendering, but there's too many ideas going on here. yea thats the NBA's thing, but thats not something to overlook. its always made a better t-shirt than logo, which is why you see the wolf head alone in a lot of applications. and to compare it to a similar logo, look at the UCONN husky. thats the difference between someone who can draw and someone who can't. 

 

i like the direction of the type, but it seems lazily put together. its an interesting mix of teeth and fur, but it looks like it was a font that was created, then the name typed out as it is. this would have been a great opportunity for a lettering approach, where each letter is meant to fit beside or together with the next. the letters all crash into each other oddly and the stroke around it makes it all worse

 

im sure thats all much more than you asked for, but thats my run down. if it were a clever idea i could overlook some execution issues. if it were executed well i could overlook a cliche idea. my hunch is because everyone has lived with that logo for a while and this one is so new, it will just take some time to get used to the switch. one day i think a lot of people will look back and laugh at how bad many 90s-early 2000s logos were. 

 

13 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

at this point it seems strange to criticize the concept when we're talking about one of the logos being a roundel. but, the "angry mascot over angry wordmark" idea is probably the most cliche in sports identity history. (maybe an interlocking monogram). it is at least out of style; very 90s type of design. the new one isn't timeless, but at least its not that and its certainly better constructed. if trends change, the new logo can be pulled apart and repurposed forever while the old logo was never any good to begin with. 

Yes!  I am glad it's kind of going away in college football helmets too 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better look at the partial logo. 

IMG_0099.PNG

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sguse1 said:

Better look at the partial logo. 

IMG_0099.PNG

Kinda reminds me of this logo

qhg3htfltgn5jfx54nfpnfugt.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the new logos are really good.  I was fond of the old logo, but it was very 90s.  The lighter blue (which is the current blue, apparently) really adds to the set.  Hopefully the uniforms live up to expecations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sguse1 said:

Better look at the partial logo. 

IMG_0099.PNG

Horrible.  I think the can is completely unnecessary.  Sloppy work all-around.

12 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume the uniforms will have wordmarks similar to this-

 

 

8.png

22.png

Untitled-1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good look at the full wordmark:

IMG_3466.PNG.b7dfa4432648af45317e53b9f0b9ca8b.PNG

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bowld said:

Assume the uniforms will have wordmarks similar to this-

 

 

8.png

22.png

Untitled-1.png

Please excuse my ignorance of it has already been mentioned, but will the unis have both blues or will it be just the moonlight blue, aurora green, and moonlight gray?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do NBA teams have to have a white uniform? I don't know and was just wondering because I think the TWolves could pull off a grey uniform  to wear against dark, navy blue on the road and the light blue alt.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this be the number font or is this just a generic tee?

 

TWOLVES_TOWNS_NAVY_POSSESION_NN_TEE_BACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do NBA teams have to have a white uniform? I don't know and was just wondering because I think the TWolves could pull off a grey uniform  to wear against dark, navy blue on the road and the light blue alt.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bowld said:

Could this be the number font or is this just a generic tee?

 

TWOLVES_TOWNS_NAVY_POSSESION_NN_TEE_BACK

Just a generic tee. Almost all of the shirts, sweatshirts, etc. on the site right now are generic because they aren't able to show the more official Nike merchandise until they officially take over from Adidas this summer. I wouldn't read into any of the shirts and stuff all that much. Other than seeing all of the possible logo applications and the official wordmark and such, the apparel on the site right now isn't all that indicative of what we can expect to see on the uniforms.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that the wolf's face appears to be . . . wait for it . . . wolf grey.

 

 

 

 

 

*DUCKS*

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now