NHL 2017-18

[Chromatic]

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

If you're talking about the Bruins, it's a B for Boston with spokes because Boston is nicknamed "The Hub of the Universe." We've known this for years, come on.

No, I was talking about the Flyers logo you mentioned you said an 8 year old would find obvious, but I think confusing my description for Boston’s logo helps my point that you can arbitrarily deconstruct any logo and say it’s just some shapes and semiotically meaningless.

[Morgan33]

Funny how nobody s on the Bruins for not depicting a bear on their primary logo...  It's perfectly fine for them to use a letter that pays homage to the city instead of the namesake but when the Canucks do the exact same thing with the Orca it's seen as some affront to sports branding.

[IceCap]

16 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Maybe this is where some of the disagreement comes from. I know it will probably never be forgiven for its corporate origin, but I think it's a pretty good representation of First Nations art. It has a little grimace (mostly from the lack of real eyes, I think), but it's not far off. IMO of course, but it's definitely the best logo they've ever had.

 

*pictures removed for space*

 

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.

 

 

[daniel75]

2 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Opinion: The orca is a great logo.

 

Fact: The orca was inspired by the former Orca Bay S&E ownership. 

And almost no one is aware of this.

[Chromatic]

1 minute ago, Morgo said:

Funny how nobody s on the Bruins for not depicting a bear on their primary logo...  It's perfectly fine for them to use a letter that pays homage to the city instead of the namesake but when the Canucks do the exact same thing with the Orca it's seen as some affront to sports branding.

My issue with the Orca (design wise aside) is not that it doesn’t literally depict a Canuck, it’s that it embodies an entirely separate thing. It’s essentially misrepresenting it. To use your Bruins example, I don’t think the spoked B misrepresents the Bruins, but if they made a lobster their logo because Boston is in New England, then it would be.

[henburg]

The stick in the rink logo is lame. It hardly reads as a "C" like it is supposed to, and the scale of the stick and the rink is so distorted that the meaning is barely there anyways. The orca, while not perfect, is miles better. 

[IceCap]

On 6/11/2018 at 9:21 PM, Morgo said:

I find it ironic that the Orca is considered "too 90's" by the same people advocating the use of full-bodied-Johnny.  He's the Canucks version of the Islander's Fisherman.

 

Context is important.

 

Johnny Canuck is based off of a logo that predates the NHL version of the Canucks. Yes, the modern version is an updated version of that, but it's still recognisably the Johnny Canuck logo. It honours the team's history, and the original is probably the logo the NHL iteration should have gone with from the get-go.

 

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.

 

So yes. You can find superficial similarities, but you're being wilfully disingenuous when you ignore the context that each logo exists in. Chromatic is right. It's really easy to say "if you like X you must like Y!" but it doesn't always work like that.

 

16 minutes ago, daniel75 said:

And almost no one is aware of this.

You keep saying this, but the separate people who are bringing it up in this thread proves you're not entirely correct about that

 

[VancouverFan69]

1 hour ago, insert name said:

Johnny Canuck looks like an AHL logo.

 

Johnny Canuck is no different from this old-school classic.

 

The Penguins have a penguin.

The Canucks are named after Johnny Canuck.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Simple is effective and I think forming a C with a rink and hockey stick is a hell of a lot more clever than an H inside a C.  It's bold, has historical precedence and looks great on their current template, which should never change again.  I don't get the hate.

\

 

Update the modified Stick In Rink to the original design but maintaining the white 'C' and it's a timeless classic.

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Funny how nobody s on the Bruins for not depicting a bear on their primary logo...  It's perfectly fine for them to use a letter that pays homage to the city instead of the namesake but when the Canucks do the exact same thing with the Orca it's seen as some affront to sports branding.

Well Chromatic explained how they're different, so I'll just add to that rather than repeat what he said.

 

The Bruins' logo uses a B. Sure, it could represent "Bruins," but it probably represents "Boston." Which is fine. 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.

 

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

[daniel75]

19 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Context is important.

 

Johnny Canuck is based off of a logo that predates the NHL version of the Canucks. Yes, the modern version is an updated version of that, but it's still recognisably the Johnny Canuck logo. It honours the team's history, and the original is probably the logo the NHL iteration should have gone with from the get-go.

 

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.

 

So yes. You can find superficial similarities, but you're being wilfully disingenuous when you ignore the context that each logo exists in. Chromatic is right. It's really easy to say "if you like X you must like Y!" but it doesn't always work like that.

 

You keep saying this, but the separate people who are bringing it up in this thread proves you're not entirely correct about that

 

So your telling me most people are aware of this, cmon man. And to be fair I said most not all. 

[Prince Harry]

If the Canucks wanted to make some sort of a compromise between the SiR and orca logos, they could add a puck to the right of the stick in SiR logo. 

 

The result would be the SiR logo but with the added element that it kind of looks like a whale’s head at the same time. 

 

It wouldn’t really be anatomically correct, but it would be funny.

 

I’m not sure how much that would step on the toes of the Whalers legacy, but the Canucks have had the orca logo for about 20 years now.

[Chromatic]

2 minutes ago, Prince Harry said:

If the Canucks wanted to make some sort of a compromise between the SiR and orca logos, they could add a puck to the right of the stick in SiR logo. 

 

The result would be the SiR logo but with the added element that it kind of looks like a whale’s head at the same time. 

 

It wouldn’t really be anatomically correct, but it would be funny.

 

I’m not sure how much that would step on the toes of the Whalers legacy, but the Canucks have had the orca logo for about 20 years now.

I would not want to even attempt to try and mimic the greatest sports logo in history.

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.

[SFGiants58]

13 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

So yes. You can find superficial similarities, but you're being wilfully disingenuous when you ignore the context that each logo exists in. Chromatic is right. It's really easy to say "if you like X you must like Y!" but it doesn't always work like that.

 

I call that the “Fighting Irish” fallacy, for MOD EDIT reasons.

 

Besides, using Native American-style artwork without consulting Native American groups or designers can get kind of iffy (profiteering off of an oppressed people without their consent). It’s why I’m glad the Seahawks overhauled their look to make the homage less obvious. The Orca is just a mess of a logo and is a total non-starter for me.

 

Johnny could be simplified a little and tweaked to be a royal/kelly/white design (no navy and silver), with a decent backing/enclosing shape (like the Senators or Penguins). That’s the best option. Both SiR logos should be condemned to a dumpster, in favor of a stylized “VC” logo. It was a mistake of a logo.

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, daniel75 said:

So your telling me most people are aware of this, cmon man.

Honestly? I don't know. I know that people in Vancouver would have been aware of Orca Bay S&E back in 1998, when the orca logo was introduced. Ownership changes are a huge deal in sports. People would have known the name of the new group coming in, and it would have raised some eyebrows when the new logo reflected the new owners.

 

I have no idea if that sentiment has stuck around in Vancouver or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it has. Regardless, multiple people in this thread have brought it up, and you yourself know about it to be able to dismiss it. So I'm not confident saying "most people" are ignorant about it. They may be, but it's not so clear cut.

[daniel75]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Honestly? I don't know. I know that people in Vancouver would have been aware of Orca Bay S&E back in 1998, when the orca logo was introduced. Ownership changes are a huge deal in sports. People would have known the name of the new group coming in, and it would have raised some eyebrows when the new logo reflected the new owners.

 

I have no idea if that sentiment has stuck around in Vancouver or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it has. Regardless, multiple people in this thread have brought it up, and you yourself know about it to be able to dismiss it. So I'm not confident saying "most people" are ignorant about it. They may be, but it's not so clear cut.

Well of course there is a few people in this thread that are aware. Of all places this would be the place to find them, and in Vancouver obviously. However outside of that i’d bet that 90% of the population has no clue. Also before today I had no clue myself.

[IceCap]

Just now, daniel75 said:

Well of course there is a few people in this thread that are aware. Of all places this would be the place to find them, and in Vancouver obviously. However outside of that i’d bet that 90% of the population has no clue. Also before today I had no clue myself.

Well if people in Vancouver know? That's what ultimately matters.

I'm just saying you've got nothing to base that "90% of the population" claim off of.

[Chromatic]

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.

[daniel75]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well if people in Vancouver know? That's what ultimately matters.

I'm just saying you've got nothing to base that "90% of the population" claim off of.

My point is most people are unaware, not sure how you can argue that. But whatever agree to disagree I guess.

[IceCap]

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

[daniel75]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

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

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