Bmac

NHL 2017-18

Recommended Posts

Just now, daniel75 said:

My point is most people are unaware, not sure how you can argue that.

I argued it by pointing out that people in Vancouver would have known who owned the Vancouver Canucks :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

I argued it by pointing out that people in Vancouver would have known who owned the Vancouver Canucks :D

J.C. In Vancouver perhaps, but that isn’t most of the population in North America. And that was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

Most people in Vancouver at least are aware of Orca Bay, but the critique there is not so much that the logo was too corporate, though that is commonly heard. What you usually hear is that when Orca Bay got the team and changed the logo it kicked off the most painful era in team history. Messier, Keenan etc.

 

I remember going to games in 2006 when the Canucks wore their throwback stick in rinks not as alternates, but as second home and away jerseys. They were so popular everyone was sure they’d be returned to fulltime home and away jerseys once the Reebok change over happened.

 

I have zero proof of this so I won’t try to claim it as fact, but I’m convinced keeping the orca and adding the “Vancouver” script was a ploy to sell merch during the upcoming olympics. It’s definitely a more “tourist friendly” logo for lack of a better term.  Yes I’m aware of the historical precedence of the script, but imo it explains the copy pasted look a lot better.

 

I also remember that at the time of the unveiling, one of the local sportscasters suggested that the addition of the Vancouver script was all about the Olympics and that once they were done, the script would be removed.  So much for that.  I don't know about keeping the Orca to sell merch just for the Olympics, but keeping the Orca and reintroducing Johnny Canuck, along with the stick in rink logo, certainly allowed the Canucks to sell more stuff overall to actual fans and not just the tourists. 

 

Share this post


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

Johnny Canuck is based off of a logo that predates the NHL version of the Canucks.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

It honours the team's history.


Huh?  How does a logo the team hasn't used in its 47 years in the NHL "honour the teams history?"
 

Quote

the original is probably the logo the NHL iteration should have gone with from the get-go


Well they didn't so that point is moot.  Just like they didn't go with a red, white and blue colour scheme.
 

Quote

The Islanders' fisherman logo replaced a logo that represented a dynasty. It had no historical connection to the Islanders, or previous Long Island hockey teams. It was an entirely new creation conjured up to take advantage of marketing trends at the expense of an identity that was associated with four Stanley Cups.

 

Not arguing that but it doesn't change the fact that both logos are rendered in the typical cartoonish, 90's aesthetic.  It also doesn't change the fact that full-bodied-Johnny would be a horrible fit on their classic striping, even more so than the Orca and script.
 

Quote

You're being wilfully disingenuous when you ignore the context that each logo exists in

 

? How?  When did I ever bring up the four stanley cups?  I simply compared the manner in which the logos rendered.  10 Stanley cups each wouldn't change the fact that both logos are dated, minor league and not primary material.
 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Monogram logos should represent the city and not the team name.

Well here we have the Canucks, using a C. They chose the wrong part of their name to base a monogram off of.


The Orca does represent the city (and the west coast in general) with it's Haida art style.  Hence the "C" being a better choice for the letter.
 

Quote

Now you may go on about the Montreal Canadiens using a C, but remember. The Habs' official name as a club is "le Club de hockey Canadien" or "Canadien Hockey Club." So their use of a CH monogram is actually on point :P

 


A Canuck and a Canadien are both fairly ambiguous namesakes that don't require literal representations.  On both the Orca and the "CH" they are represented by a letter and I see nothing wrong with that.

I'd also like to point out that the Canadiens logo has no letter representing Montreal.  According to your logic, that makes it a bad monogram logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Morgo said:

I'd also like to point out that the Canadiens logo has no letter representing Montreal.  According to your logic, that makes it a bad monogram logo.

That's impressive on your part because you quoted the part of my post where I explained that, only to miss the point entirely. See below.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Now you may go on about the Montreal Canadiens using a C, but remember. The Habs' official name as a club is "le Club de hockey Canadien" or "Canadien Hockey Club." So their use of a CH monogram is actually on point :P

The Canadiens' official name as a club doesn't include the word "Montreal."

 

27 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Huh?  How does a logo the team hasn't used in its 47 years in the NHL "honour the teams history?"

Come on now. He hasn't been used in 47 years, but people know what Johnny Canuck is, and he remains a visible part of the Canucks brand. Don't try to sell me on the idea everyone forgot about him, because that's ludicrous.

 

27 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Not arguing that but it doesn't change the fact that both logos are rendered in the typical cartoonish, 90's aesthetic. 

And my point is that this comparison is superficial at best.

Johnny Canuck reflects an earlier part of the team's history that has endured. The Islanders' fisherman logo was an attempt to cash in on 90s design trends. The context of both is why you cannot compare them. At all.

 

And you know what? I don't even know what the Islanders have to do with the Canucks. How the hell did the Islanders' fisherman logo even enter this discussion? Oh. That's right. You brought it up, because you wanted to try another version of the "you like X? You MUST like Y!" argument you love to break out whenever you want to make a misplaced point about 90s hockey logos.

Seriously. In no way should any New York Islanders logo ever enter the discussion regarding the Canucks' identity, but you felt the need to shove it in because you wanted to have another argument about 90s NHL aesthetics.

 

52 minutes ago, daniel75 said:

J.C. In Vancouver perhaps, but that isn’t most of the population in North America. And that was my point.

Invoke JC all you want. My point is that when it comes to the Canucks' logo? Vancouver means more than the rest of North America.

Share this post


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

hartford_whalers_1980-1992_a.png

For real though, I always found it a little weird that they’d use the prey animal of their namesake, and that he’d be so darn jolly about getting skewered.

 

When society began to frown upon whaling, the Whalers shifted from being whale hunters to whale enthusiasts. It was not unlike ProLogo's declaration that he was not a professional designer but rather simply in favor of logos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

That's impressive on your part because you quoted the part of my post where I explained that, only to miss the point entirely. See below.

 

The Canadiens' official name as a club doesn't include the word "Montreal."

 

You're mistaking missing the point with not thinking it was strong enough to address.  They can call the team "le Club de hockey Canadien" but to 99.9% of the world they're the Montreal Canadiens. 
 

Quote

Come on now. He hasn't been used in 47 years, but people know what Johnny Canuck is, and he remains a visible part of the Canucks brand. Don't try to sell me on the idea everyone forgot about him, because that's ludicrous.


You love putting words in peoples mouths.  Where did I say people have forgot about him?  I'm saying he hasn't been used as a primary or even secondary logo in the entire duration of the franchise and is therefore not a good representation of their history.  If being a visible part of a brand is only serving as a helmet logo for an alternate, sure.
 

Quote

And my point is that this comparison is superficial.


Of course the comparison is superficial, I was talking about the VISUAL way in which they were rendered.  I wasn't talking about their relation to history or how many Stanley Cups they have or haven't been associated with. 
 

Quote

Seriously. In no way should any New York Islanders logo ever enter the discussion regarding the Canucks' identity, but you felt the need to shove it in because you wanted to have another argument about 90s NHL aesthetics. 


They are both cartoon-ish, over-the-top, ultra-literal representations of their respective team's namesakes that are simply too detailed to serve as an effective primary logo.  That is the common thread which warrants the comparison, period.
 

Quote

Johnny Canuck reflects an earlier part of the team's history that has endured.


Yeah, enough to serve as the helmet logo on an alternate...  Which Canucks uniform is he on now?  Oh that's right, none.
 

Quote

And you know what? I don't even know what the Islanders have to do with the Canucks. How the hell did the Islanders' fisherman logo even enter this discussion? Oh. That's right. You brought it up, because you wanted to try another version of the "you like X? You MUST like Y!" argument you love to break out whenever you want to make a misplaced point about 90s hockey logos.


The guy who mistakes the Haida Art style for jumping on the 90's bandwagon wants to talk about misplaced points about 90's logos?  That's hilarious.

 

Share this post


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

 


Huh?  How does a logo the team hasn't used in its 47 years in the NHL "honour the teams history?"
 


The Orca does represent the city (and the west coast in general) with it's Haida art style.  Hence the "C" being a better choice for the letter.
 


A Canuck and a Canadien are both fairly ambiguous namesakes that don't require literal representations.  On both the Orca and the "CH" they are represented by a letter and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

51 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

You're mistaking missing the point with not thinking it was strong enough to address.  They can call the team "le Club de hockey Canadien" but to 99.9% of the world they're the Montreal Canadiens. 
 


You love putting words in peoples mouths.  Where did I say people have forgot about him?  I'm saying he hasn't been used as a primary or even secondary logo in the entire duration of the franchise and is therefore not a good representation of their history.  If being a visible part of a brand is only serving as a helmet logo for an alternate, sure.

 

 

Morgo, I cannot get my head around you constantly dismissing the Canucks' 25-year pre-NHL history. The biggest mistake the Canucks have made with their identity other than replacing the Stick In Rink uniforms with the highly controversial Flying V outfits was not embracing Johnny Canuck from Day 1. Even as a primary shoulder patch. I became a diehard Canucks fan when I was 10. Never heard of JC until I was 24. That's when I listened to Don Cherry on Coach's Corner talk about his Vancouver playing days in the old WHL. He pointed out JC and that the Canucks should embrace the iconic lumberjack as the main logo. Even with the SIR as the primary, JC should be on the shoulders. A buddy of mine and I have gone to several NHL games in the US while wearing either our green JC fashion jerseys or our blue custom-made JC jerseys. The amount of compliments we both get are countless. People would ask what team. After we confess ourselves as Canucks fans from Vancouver, they would respond with,  "Thought a Canuck was a killer whale or a fish". We would then educate them on the history of both JC and the orca. Many sports fans are history buffs and they have fondly taken to our JC jerseys. 

 

Furthermore, Vancouver is known for the North Shore mountains and surrounding waters a lot more than Haida art.

Share this post


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

You're mistaking missing the point with not thinking it was strong enough to address.  They can call the team "le Club de hockey Canadien" but to 99.9% of the world they're the Montreal Canadiens.

 

Don't French-language publications refer to the team as "Le Canadien," singular, rather frequently? Weird little quirk, but it would follow as an abbreviation from the full French name (not to mention being of a kind with The Oil, The Whale, and The Isle.) Anyway, whatever 99.9% of the world thinks, the percentage that speaks French is probably more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, Morgo vs. Ice_Cap might be my favorite board rivalry. It’s more even than the one-sided beatdowns dfwabel handed Tank, more intense than the BFiB-related mud-slinging McCarthy vs. McCall (my favorite McCall vs. everyone variant), and less dangerous than ICS vs. those on “borrowed time.”

 

I’m just hoping the Canucks do something that’ll look good on their template. Maybe it’s Johnny, I’m not sure.

Share this post


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

The guy who mistakes the Haida Art style for jumping on the 90's bandwagon wants to talk about misplaced points about 90's logos?  That's hilarious.

Haida art doesn’t have nearly as many snarling orcas as you seem to think it does ;) 

 

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

They are both cartoon-ish, over-the-top, ultra-literal representations of their respective team's namesakes that are simply too detailed to serve as an effective primary logo.  That is the common thread which warrants the comparison, period.

See, no. 

You dragged the unrelated fisherman into this to do two things you love doing. 

 

You love to play the “if you like X you must like Y!” game and you love to create arguments related to 90s NHL logos. 

 

So I’m going to do something I have refrained from doing in all previous back and forths we’ve had. 

As a mod? You will both stay on topic and you will take a less confrontational tone in both this and all future conversations on these boards. 

 

Thank you for your expected cooperation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Redacted.

Edited by Morgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

" and the lumbar industry has deep historic roots in BC."

It's a very supportive industry

Share this post


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

Eh, I can't agree with that.

The influences are certainly obvious, but look at the orca logo compared to that Northwest First Nations art. The orcas in the art are nearly smiling, while the logo has a distinct grimace. It's First Nations-inpsired, yes, but put through a filter of 90s design cliches.

I feel much the same way about the current Seahawks logo too. The current logo is unnecessarily aggressive when compared to the original which more closely matched the Native art style it was based off of.

 

 

I think we've just run into an intractable difference of opinion. I readily admit that the orca and the new Seahawks logo have a little bit of attitude, I think it's all pretty restrained. It's especially true with the Seahawks, since birds of prey usually have resting bitch face to varying degrees. The 70s seahawk just feels incredibly stale to me. The grimace on the orca is a slight downturn of the mouth; it could have easily been some rage-filled cartoon logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't hate the orca logo. It's colour scheme when it debuted was really nice; the white & blue variant they use now is a little more bland - I think that concept someone posted with green trim inside the C is far nicer - but it's still a fine look. Yeah, there's the nod to their former ownership, but that doesn't bother me quite as much as it probably should. Honestly it feels subtle enough (and still ties into the region anyways) that I personally just don't care about that - the "VANCOUVER" that arcs over it is the bigger problem IMO anyways. :P

Having said that, I think I'd still prefer them finally going with Johnny Canuck in some form, him being their actual namesake and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

And you know what? I don't even know what the Islanders have to do with the Canucks.

 

There was that Stanley Cup the Islanders won against them back in '82, the only one of their four won on the road at that. ?

 

I'll see myself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, tp49 said:

There was that Stanley Cup the Islanders won against them back in '82, the only one of their four won on the road at that. ?

 

I'll see myself out.

Both teams never looked better.

 

*mic drop*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

McCarthy vs. McCall (my favorite McCall vs. everyone variant)

 

I'm the board's perfect warrior. I'm the board's perfect knight. 

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