WSU151 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The current look is a step up from the drab blandness of the 2007 rebrand, but they're still held back by one of the most hideous color combinations in sports. Change the black to green and vegas gold to athletic gold, and they'd have a far more attractive (and duck-like) palette.Black, orange, and gold isn't the worst combo. The San Francisco Giants make it work really well, IMO.I think the black, orange, and gold was just so bland compared to eggplant and jade. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Noire Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I don't get the "webbed D" love. It'd be okay as a shoulder patch, but as a main logo, it sucks.I really like the webbed foot D. I think the choice to go for something that represents the team name without being an actual duck was a really good one. Those actual duck logos look so dated already. That D has staying power in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The Giants make it work because they're black and orange with tiny hints of gold. The Ducks were black, beige, silver, and white with hints of orange, which looked as uncompelling as can be, and now have big blocks of orange and beige touching, which looks weird. Dark green and orange would have been the best color scheme for them. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The orange and beige thankfully don't touch anywhere on the new set. That being said, they're still a mess. The shoulder yokes are obtrusive and unnecessary, same with the thin orange piping. The cuffs and side panels are already orange, there's no need for another orange outline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatic Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The Giants make it work because they're black and orange with tiny hints of gold. The Ducks were black, beige, silver, and white with hints of orange, which looked as uncompelling as can be, and now have big blocks of orange and beige touching, which looks weird.Dark green and orange would have been the best color scheme for them.The orange and beige thankfully don't touch anywhere on the new set. That being said, they're still a mess. The shoulder yokes are obtrusive and unnecessary, same with the thin orange piping. The cuffs and side panels are already orange, there's no need for another orange outline.Its obviously not utilized in the best way, but the colour scheme itself looks great imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Last night I was watching the Ducks and thinking what a shame it is they cram the duck mask into that oval so it's tiny. That logo was good enough to be the primary on its own for 13 years, but now they're afraid to fully commit to it as a secondary. Whimps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Make the Sticks orange & Triangle Gold and you've got a winner. I also don't get why the logo needs to be crammed in that stupid shoulder yoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I'd go with the standalone D on the shoulders (though still the primary logo for graphics and stuff) and keep the script on the front. No recolors of old logos. If the idea was a clean break from the Disney stuff, then commit. Also, the oblongdel was a terrible, terrible idea. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still MIGHTY Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Really the only thing I'd like them to do currently is remove the phantom yoke on the home (or get rid of the yokes altogether) then add an orange alternate (which I have no doubts is in the pipeline somewhere).The shoulder patch I can take or leave. I like having it because it's what I grew up with and I obviously love the Mighty Ducks, but it's not necessary. I actually wouldn't mind them reusing the "OC" shoulder logo from the Stadium Series jersey in some capacity. | ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Scorcho Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Their current set is an upgrade on the horrible script, but still an enormous downgrade on their classic Mighty Ducks look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStoicPaisano Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I really like the bottom right logo: The basics of it would make a nice alternate for Oregon. My fave out of these is Bttom Center, but that logo needs something else to it.Like...tire treads?The Akron RubberDucks logo looks quite similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajmccall Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 “The initial design explorations covered all of the style approaches we had discussed as a way to ‘get it out of our system.’ It became clear that the owners and management didn’t want an angry duck, an animated duck, an aggressive duck, or an ornithologically correct duck — no matter the illustrative style,“ Frederick saidThis quote gives me cold sweats as a designer. This is a very nice way of saying they were probably very difficult to work with. They sound like the dreaded client that is both EXTREMELY particular about what they don't want, and have ZERO idea what they do want. This leads to this many completely different versions that go in every different direction. Not to say that this isn't totally abnormal, and I'm sure FanBrandz got well compensated.But this is generally how something that is, from the designers' perspective one of their worse concepts, gets picked. The color scheme and choice of a thin script I'm sure were not the design team's favorite, but ultimately you need to satisfy the client. I can respect not wanting an angry duck in 2005. But not having an illustrated duck anywhere in your redesign in just plain dumb. Sure, you write the checks. But you should also be able to listen to reason. Store 1 Store 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin W. Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Why does everyone keep calling it a 2007 rebrand? They wore the new uniforms and logos starting in 2006. Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (CHL - 2018 Orr Cup Champions) Chicago Rivermen (UBA/WBL - 2014, 2015, 2017 Intercontinental Cup Champions) King's Own Hexham FC (BIP - 2022 Saint's Cup Champions) Portland Explorers (EFL - Elite Bowl XIX Champions) Real San Diego (UPL) Red Bull Seattle (ULL - 2018, 2019, 2020 Gait Cup Champions) Vancouver Huskies (CL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonFromMiami Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Why does everyone keep calling it a 2007 rebrand? They wore the new uniforms and logos starting in 2006.Maybe true, but we are not so anal on this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Why does everyone keep calling it a 2007 rebrand? They wore the new uniforms and logos starting in 2006.Because it was a design for the 2006-07 season, and with three months in 2006 and five+ in 2007, including the championship, it's an acceptable shorthand to refer to the 2006-07 season as "2007." ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabig Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 No, the rebrand itself happened in 2006. So it is a 2006 rebrand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandMooreArt Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 “The initial design explorations covered all of the style approaches we had discussed as a way to ‘get it out of our system.’ It became clear that the owners and management didn’t want an angry duck, an animated duck, an aggressive duck, or an ornithologically correct duck — no matter the illustrative style,“ Frederick saidThis quote gives me cold sweats as a designer. This is a very nice way of saying they were probably very difficult to work with. They sound like the dreaded client that is both EXTREMELY particular about what they don't want, and have ZERO idea what they do want. This leads to this many completely different versions that go in every different direction. Not to say that this isn't totally abnormal, and I'm sure FanBrandz got well compensated.But this is generally how something that is, from the designers' perspective one of their worse concepts, gets picked. The color scheme and choice of a thin script I'm sure were not the design team's favorite, but ultimately you need to satisfy the client. I can respect not wanting an angry duck in 2005. But not having an illustrated duck anywhere in your redesign in just plain dumb. Sure, you write the checks. But you should also be able to listen to reason. i have not talked with the FanBrandz guys about the project, but that is what i have heard from other sources on the rebrand. i give the team credit that the concept direction was good: "a duck identity without an actual duck". i like the suggestive imagery idea and a D-foot isn't too bad. but definitely a "i'll know it when i see it" kind of thing. i know Reebok had a similar experience with the design of the jerseys. some clients you can sell a good idea/direction to and make them see the value and reasoning behind it. others just want you to execute their idea. even if they dont have one . GRAPHIC ARTIST BEHANCE / MEDIUM / DRIBBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I disagree that the concept is good. If you're going to have an identity based around a duck, putting your foot down and refusing to have a logo that depicts the most prominent features of the actual animal is idiotic. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I wish they kept the diagonal, eggplant and jade, jerseys as is. All they needed to do was change the name to "Anaheim Ducks" and give them a more contemporary wordmark. Everything else was perfect. Its astounding how much effort was put into these re-brand only to end up with the mediocre result they did in 07. Making the standalone "D" the primary crest is a huge step in the right direction but the jumbled striping puts it just above lateral move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 No, the rebrand itself happened in 2006. So it is a 2006 rebrand.I read this book just to put an end to this debate, and I conclude that he is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.