Jump to content

NHL 2018-19


ldconcepts

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, AndrewG70 said:

I bet you’re relishing in your wit.

 

I bet he’s wishing he coulda squeezed a better joke out of it.

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, be a sport, pepper.

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ark said:

Gritty is certified awesome.

 

Usually no one cares when a team introduces a new mascot, but the hockey world can't stop talking about Gritty. 

 

I can't help but wonder if Gritty might mark a turning point in team mascots.

 

While mascots, in theory, exist in order to appeal to children, the reality is that they always seem to walk the line between cute and terrifying. The response to Gritty seems to suggest that embracing the terror, and playing up the psychotic muppet aspects of mascots generates far more buzz than trying to play it safe and appeal to kids. 

 

Come to think of it, the Bruins arguably started exploring this idea with their Hockey Rules series of commercials from a few years back. Gritty just represents an evolution of the concept into an on-ice mascot. 

 

So the question is...where do we go from here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

I can't help but wonder if Gritty might mark a turning point in team mascots.

 

While mascots, in theory, exist in order to appeal to children, the reality is that they always seem to walk the line between cute and terrifying. The response to Gritty seems to suggest that embracing the terror, and playing up the psychotic muppet aspects of mascots generates far more buzz than trying to play it safe and appeal to kids. 

 

Come to think of it, the Bruins arguably started exploring this idea with their Hockey Rules series of commercials from a few years back. Gritty just represents an evolution of the concept into an on-ice mascot. 

 

So the question is...where do we go from here?

I hope it stays a Philadelphia thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thaumatrope said:

Come to think of it, the Bruins arguably started exploring this idea with their Hockey Rules series of commercials from a few years back. Gritty just represents an evolution of the concept into an on-ice mascot. 

 

The spots with the bear were funny on their own. This is just the Twitter/Reddit/Deadspin complex jerking itself off. Tell me I'm wrong.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

The spots with the bear were funny on their own. This is just the Twitter/Reddit/Deadspin complex jerking itself off. Tell me I'm wrong.

 

I don't know if I fully agree with that. Yes, there is no small degree of circle-jerkery taking place on the platforms you've mentioned, but they're also far more connected to the mainstream than they were just a few short years ago. The fact that I've seen Gritty discussed on digg suggests that he's not only transcended the hockey community, but the sports community as a whole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.