Soblito

Minnesota Timberwolves

426 posts in this topic

The more I see it I cringe at the green booger on the nose (highlight). It could've been grey or white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a shame that the first nike era NBA redesign is in Seattle Seahawks colors but I like the design of the wolf here

Share this post


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

Kinda reminds me of this logo

qhg3htfltgn5jfx54nfpnfugt.gif

Can we stop comparing canine logos to other canine logos. Yes certain ones will look similar because the are howling dogs facing right. There are only so many ways to draw it.

15 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I got such a huge Dallas Mavericks vibe from all of this.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KouPilot said:

it is a shame that the first nike era NBA redesign is in Seattle Seahawks colors but I like the design of the wolf here

Nike is taking over the uniform designs, but this logo is not designed by Nike. This is all Rare Designs. The owner of Rare did work for Nike at one time, but since then his firm has designed for several NBA teams (New Orleans, Memphis, Charlotte, Atlanta, Sacramento). We can't blame Nike for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Berlin Wall said:

I don't know. I got such a huge Dallas Mavericks vibe from all of this.

Stylistically they have shared many elements over the years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, KouPilot said:

it is a shame that the first nike era NBA redesign is in Seattle Seahawks colors but I like the design of the wolf here

Reminds me of the Hasselbeck era color-way specifically. Fine by me if they wanna take the mantle of double blue and light green. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Funkatron101 said:

Stylistically they have shared many elements over the years. 

It seems like the Wolves are always following the Mavs.  They came in with the same color scheme and then went to drab black/blue not long after the Mavs did. 

This is about as un-Mavs as they've been (uniforms pending, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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. 

 

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. 

 

 

Thanks, Brandon, this was exactly the response I was asking for. I'll have to disagree with you drastically, though.

 

For one, as a sports fan and a player on a basketball team, I am firmly of the opinion that "angry" logos are the way to go in sports. That's why I prefer 2000's logo style to the current trend. Secondly, as a graphic designer myself, and pretty darn good at drawing (not to brag), I can tell very well that the current primary wolf is drawn rather well. Especially, considering that wolves are not usually depicted facing forward and growling at the same time, this one succeeds at it brilliantly, and I have always appreciated the way it has been executed so accurately. The dramatic lightning with the other side of the face being covered in shadow with the blue highlights has always worked for me, so I don't see any problem there at all. Comparing it to the UCONN husky, I don't see any difference in quality - on the contrary - the wolf is executed more skillfully. So, your comment about "someone who can draw and someone who can't" just doesn't apply here at all. If there's something to point out, the teeth are drawn too subtly, otherwise your comments might apply to the original KG era logo, but not this updated one.

 

What comes to the wordmark, I like how it's been cleaned-up and simplified from the original logo. This new logo, on the other hand, has jumped on the simple mono-weight font trend, which I think will pass by even quicker. Not to say it doesn't work there, though.

 

Edit: Talking about bad drawn logos, the Phoenix Coyotes logo, now that's just plain awful.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would look so much better without light blue. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this logo. If I didn't have a rule to never own jerseys or merchandise of non-favorite teams, I'd definitely grab a cap or shirt with this logo.

Share this post


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

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.

It's a combination of the randomness of the symbolism and the marketing talk that pushes it over the top.

If the rationale was just "there's a lot of people in Minnesota with Scandinavian ancestry so we made the workmark resemble runes" then ok, I can dig it.

To claim that a specific letter is representative of a rune that references the history of wolves and the state of Minnesota though? That's not me "taking it too far." That's the team, not me, assigning meaning. My problem is that the meaning is, well, meaningless. If you're going to insist there's a meaning there? You better make sure it's accurate. Otherwise you just look stupid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly kinda like it. I've seen some of y'all improve on it, but depending on how they work with the rest of their branding, I think it's a top look in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The secondary with the full wolf head not breaking through the bottom is so much better looking. They should have used that and arched Minnesota along the top and Timberwolves along the bottom. Then sprinkle in a few trees like the old secondary and it would be perfect.

 

2dtq5x4.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

This would look so much better without light blue. 

 

I think the light blue is an awesome part of it...NBA Seahawks would have been too bland.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

It seems like the Wolves are always following the Mavs.  They came in with the same color scheme and then went to drab black/blue not long after the Mavs did. 

This is about as un-Mavs as they've been (uniforms pending, of course).

 

The funny thing is though, that even this logo is pretty Mavs-like.  Animal head in front of a blue basketball, less green than they've ever used in a primary logo, major emphasis on blue and gray, city name arched over the basketball (which they've never done before), an overall drab, boring, and lifeless look and colors, AND now they even have a star prominently featured in their logo.  I would go so far as to say this might be the closest they've ever looked to the Mavs, and that is saying a lot.

 

All of that being said, the Mavs definitely need, and have needed for years, a complete overhaul way more than the Wolves did.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Mavs-Wolves connection is being brought up, I guess it is worth mentioning that since the Wolves chose to go navy/lime instead of royal/kelly, it leaves that color combo open for the Mavs to use.  I don't mind the double blue Mavs as much as many here do, but I think if anyone in the league should be royal/kelly, it should be them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not a homerun but it's a single with nobody on, cant wait to see the jersey to score a run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what it is, but the logo seems to whimsical.  There isn't enough rigidity.  I think maybe the green star is what is causing that.  That being said, I like the star, its a nice touch, I love that its worked into the seems of the ball, like the Wizards Washington Monument logo.  I love lime green coming back into the set... although I think there is still way too much blue.  And I think they missed an opportunity when they didn't hide any pine tree in the neck of the wolf.

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