Minnesota Timberwolves

[VDizzle12]

 

So I'm assuming if this is the jersey font, both the home and away will say "wolves" on them like from 89-96. I have a hard time seeing them fitting "Minnesota" on the away jersey with that thick/wide lettering. I'm never really a fan of teams that don't have the city name on either jersey.

[Funkatron101]

39 minutes ago, Mockba said:

This isn't bad, but there's one thing I keep thinking might make it work a little better.

 

 

A slight rotation to let the A without the crossbar point straight up--or, if you will, north.  The wolf also feels like it's at a more natural angle.

How about an over rotation? Interesting how different the "emotion" is in rotating the logo. 

[IceCap]

13 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

i like it. if thats where they started, i think its a fine execution. obviously you're not going to make a typeface out of those symbols, so taking note of the angles, tall straight lines, and monoweight of them i think they made a really nice font out of it all. very nice way to take something old and form a new idea

It's the superficial nature of it that bugs me. The closest rune to that sans-crossbar A means "wild ox" and the rune that looks almost exactly like the M means "two horses."

As I said before. It's the visual equivalent of a guy using words he doesn't understand in an attempt to sound smart. Yeah, the designer obviously knows what Scandinavian runes look like, but the actual meaning is completely lost. The similarities are superficial and random.

 

[CS85]

6 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

superficial and random.

 

 

 

"Hmm, I like it.  When can you start?"
- Phil Knight

 

[WSU151]

30 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

It's the superficial nature of it that bugs me. The closest rune to that sans-crossbar A means "wild ox" and the rune that looks almost exactly like the M means "two horses."

As I said before. It's the visual equivalent of a guy using words he doesn't understand in an attempt to sound smart. Yeah, the designer obviously knows what Scandinavian runes look like, but the actual meaning is completely lost. The similarities are superficial and random.

 

 

So this is probably more coincidence than anything...but in the Greek alphabet, "alpha" comes from the Phoenician "aleph", which was attributed to the ox.  

 

Given that a wolfpack is known for its alpha male...and that the rune used for wild ox looks similar to an A and was used in place of the A...maybe the designers were secretly brilliant.

 

eh? 

[IceCap]

Just now, WSU151 said:

 

So this is probably more coincidence than anything...but in the Greek alphabet, "alpha" comes from the Phoenician "aleph", which was attributed to the ox.  

 

Given that a wolfpack is known for its alpha male...and that the rune used for wild ox looks similar to an A and was used in place of the A...maybe the designers were secretly brilliant.

 

eh? 

I'm not even sure they even knew it meant "ox," so I'm gonna say "no"

 

"ICONIC SPIKES OF HUSKY STADIUM!"

[lbj273]

48 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i almost like this. but in this context, A points/represents north, so what does that say about the V? it has to become a pointer as well and i think theres too much negative connotation. if you allow the A to just be an A and the entire alphabet to be rune inspired, you don't have to worry about it. it is kind of visually pleasing to see the A point due north, but the meaning doesn't work for the team name– especially when spelled out horizontally. 

If you make the star the wolf's eye the v would be pointing to the north star

[BrianLion]

1 hour ago, Funkatron101 said:

How about an over rotation? Interesting how different the "emotion" is in rotating the logo. 

 

He looks like he's sneezing.  

[Sguse1]

Found this partial logo is being used on chrome browser. 

[Utilis]

I'm waiting to see the entire identity before I formulate much of an opinion on it, but the outgoing logo shrank poorly and has needed to go for a while. There's a reason the official site just uses the head.

[jgiff17]

I personally think they should have modernized the original logo and brought back those colors. They keep the darkish scale of blues and greens...doesn't really give a youthful spark the video was pointing towards. The dude in the video is even rockin an old wolves jacket. 

[mattharveysc]

So, I'm actually digging the new Timberwolves logo. 

After looking at the new logo and the current secondary logo and comparing the two; there are things that work well with both logos.

I do like the updated and simplified colors in the new version, the nod to the "north star". It took me some time to get use to altered angled font, but it works.

Overall, I like the new version more.

 

With that sad, I do miss the trees from the last version.

I almost feel that adding trees into the new logo would have added too much detail into the overall look.

I tried coming up with my own concept where I added the trees into the new version, to see what it would look like.

(I redrew the logo the best I could, and tried finding the font closest to the new Timberwolves font. I hope it looks ok.)

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[Utilis]

Those trees look kind of awkwardly incorporated to me?

[Funkatron101]

32 minutes ago, mattharveysc said:

So, I'm actually digging the new Timberwolves logo. 

After looking at the new logo and the current secondary logo and comparing the two; there are things that work well with both logos.

I do like the updated and simplified colors in the new version, the nod to the "north star". It took me some time to get use to altered angled font, but it works.

Overall, I like the new version more.

 

With that sad, I do miss the trees from the last version.

I almost feel that adding trees into the new logo would have added too much detail into the overall look.

I tried coming up with my own concept where I added the trees into the new version, to see what it would look like.

(I redrew the logo the best I could, and tried finding the font closest to the new Timberwolves font. I hope it looks ok.)

 

Thoughts?

 

 

It's a little forced. Incorporating them in the background seems more logical. 

 

[Old School Fool]

Got bored and did this quick idea in NBA 2K17.

 

 

The logo looks great with the in game presentation too.

 

[UnclearInitial]

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

[truepg]

16 hours ago, hettinger_rl said:

Why not just go with something like this:

 

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.
 

[~Bear]

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. 

[hettinger_rl]

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.

[BrandMooreArt]

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.