Vancouver Canucks Unveil Four New Uniforms

[Morgan33]

1 hour ago, aild87 said:

If Johnny Canuck is anything other than Caucasian they should have picked a better skin color in the logo than pure cocaine white.

 

He's white because white is a team colour, the third most important one.  Not because they were specifically making him Caucasian. 

[Bayne]

32 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

While those logos may not literally depict the name, they’re not misrepresenting it like the Orca.

 

Why because the Orca is an animal? So suddenly the team name HAS to be the thing, coz the thing I see is an Orca! So it's the Orcas, right!? That's such a rudimentary, base level rationale lol. We just had a full on discussion about this earlier anyway. 

[Bayne]

4 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

He's white because white is a team colour, the third most important one.  Not because they were specifically making him Caucasian. 

 

Yeah but, come on. He's caucasian. You and I and everyone knows it.

[uniformity]

On 6/8/2019 at 6:35 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

Would you happen to serve that pre-ashamed pizza you presumably regurgitated?

 

 

Speaking of Vancouver, that pizza looks like the floor of the house/trailer/various kill rooms on the Pickton junkyard/homestead/place Vancouver PD should have investigated earlier. 

They were complicit.

[IceCap]

6 minutes ago, Bayne said:

 

Yeah but, come on. He's caucasian. You and I and everyone knows it.

Most lumberjacks at the time of the logo’s creation were

[Morgan33]

3 minutes ago, Bayne said:

 

Yeah but, come on. He's caucasian. You and I and everyone knows it.

 

Well, anyone can grow a beard, wear a toque and a flannel shirt...  I think most people would agree that bringing in a 6th colour to accurately depict skin-tone would make the logo look like hot garbage.

[Bayne]

5 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

Well, anyone can grow a beard, wear a toque and a flannel shirt...  I think most people would agree that bringing in a 6th colour to accurately depict skin-tone would make the logo look like hot garbage.

 

Yeah, not disagreeing with that, obviously. But to retroactively try and conclude that he was never supposed to be a caucasian male is a bit naive. That's all I'm trying to say.

[SFGiants58]

15 minutes ago, uniformity said:

They were complicit.

 

I've looked into it and I'd agree to an extent. A bunch of the cops and judges were likely part of the Piggy Palace Good Times Society, happily overlooking Willie's crimes because as far as they were aware, he was killing the right people. But let's change the topic from anti-sex worker cops and towards Johnny Canuck. 

 

Like I've said before, I'd be all for a better rendering of Johnny Canuck. One with better line weights, a consistent perspective, and a three-color design (kelly/royal/white) would be ideal. It doesn't even have to be a full-body rendering, just something to get the lumberjack mascot across with minimal fuss.

[Guy with Machete]

mod edit

[Ridleylash]

On 6/16/2019 at 4:18 AM, Chromatic said:

While those logos may not literally depict the name, they’re not misrepresenting it like the Orca.

I don't see how an orca is "misrepresenting" the name Canuck. It's a slang term for "Canadian" that can apply to all sorts of logos and identities, as this franchise has proven time and time again. An orca is as Canadian as a lumberjack, speaking as one myself, so it's not "misrepresenting" the name.

 

Port city + iconic marine fauna of the area is a pretty obvious connection, just as obvious as Johnny's. Plus which is more intimidating as a primary logo; a massive whale that can easily and effortlessly rip you limb from limb or a guy in a touque skating around with a hockey stick who's main claim to fame is being a famous comic character? Teams like Toronto, Boston and Montréal can get away with that sort of unintimidating and basic logo design.

 

The Canucks cannot and should not even try to be that. They're not a heritage franchise with a long and proud identity, they're a confused mishmash of all sorts of wacky identities that is as far from "heritage" as you can possibly get. You've got this franchise using blue, red, yellow, green, white, navy, maroon, black all used as main colors throughout the years and some people think this is a heritage franchise?

 

Also, funnily enough, Johnny Canuck, the very symbol Canuck fans keep parading as this amazingly awesome primary logo...was a character depicted as simple-minded and being unintelligent. Is an unintelligent person really the best symbol for Vancouver, one of the biggest hubs for arts, culture and media in Canada?

[O.C.D]

17 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

It’s possible they don’t feel a middle-age white male cartoon stereotype properly represents a progressive, diverse west-coast metropolis, but I could be wrong.

It's hard not to be nostalgic for a time when this flavor of cultural critique wasn't so mainstream. IMO it's an added impediment to art. Johnny Canuck is a great logo. It's got great history attached to the identity. The name of the team makes more sense when Johnny Canuck is incorporated. His existence and perpetuation isn't derogatory. His physical traits shouldn't be listed off as if they're inflammatory or self-refuting

[Bayne]

1 hour ago, O.C.D said:

It's hard not to be nostalgic for a time when this flavor of cultural critique wasn't so mainstream. IMO it's an added impediment to art. Johnny Canuck is a great logo. It's got great history attached to the identity. The name of the team makes more sense when Johnny Canuck is incorporated. His existence and perpetuation isn't derogatory. His physical traits shouldn't be listed off as if they're inflammatory or self-refuting

 

I personally don't have a problem with Johnny Canuck being assigned as the primary identity for the Canucks, despite my vocal opposition to the suggestion. I agree with you about the unfortunate politically correct climate we exist in right now, but without wanting to get deleted by mods, that's just how it is right now. I do however have a problem with the logo, and that's my reason for not supporting the idea. It's not a "great logo" (the Johnny Canuck we have now would never make it into any Top 10 NHL logos list) and I don't think it would serve as a shrewd choice for branding the team, considering the franchise's already muddled history and the highly socially aware political movement that is 2019.

[Gothamite]

7 hours ago, Bayne said:

^LOL, so fixated on your Johnny Canuck agenda.

 

These conversations are a whole lot less contentious if we can leave the personal stuff out.

[Gothamite]

4 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Also, funnily enough, Johnny Canuck, the very symbol Canuck fans keep parading as this amazingly awesome primary logo...was a character depicted as simple-minded and being unintelligent. Is an unintelligent person really the best symbol for Vancouver, one of the biggest hubs for arts, culture and media in Canada?

 

Yes. Because he was created as a symbol of all of Canada.  They portrayed themselves as simple, good-hearted, maybe a bit naive, being played and bossed around by the more “sophisticated” world powers like America.  And unlike the United States, Canadians don’t have much of a problem laughing at themselves, which is hardly a bad thing.

 

The perfect logo personification of the US would be an overly-aggressive “kewl!” eagle with snarling teeth.  And fangs. And claws.  If our neighbors to the north can get behind a gentle, good-hearted, country boy as their national embodiment, I don’t see that as a detriment.

[VancouverFan69]

6 hours ago, aild87 said:

If Johnny Canuck is anything other than Caucasian they should have picked a better skin color in the logo than pure cocaine white.

Johnny Canuck's skin colour is a basic white, meaning he could be of any particular ethnic background, not Caucasian flesh-coloured like the Boston Celtics' leprechaun.

[andrewharrington]

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Unfortunately, it’s the team that is contradicting him here.   And they’re the ones who will write the history when all is said and done. 

 

Every project has romantic tales cooked up at marketing meetings. Every project also has a truth from behind the scenes. I’ve watched this place collectively throw up in its proverbial mouth at the puffy marketing story in every team press release for the better part of a decade, and now all of a sudden it’s gospel?

 

16 hours ago, Pharos04 said:

It also isn’t a direct reference as the “waves” start of light and then become waves at the bottom. If meant to emulate the flag or arms as posted, one would think it would’ve started at the top of the numbers rather than halfway down.

if the intent was to reference the flag or arms, actually reference the flag and not start halfway down.

 

there is a massive disconnect between your corporate-speak as to the meaning and the Canucks’ corporate speak which comes off as the official meaning behind the design and that’s what people will be referring to

 

“I created a graphic for the numbers that’s inspired by the waves in the Vancouver flag and coat of arms” is not corporate speak. Nothing in that statement is exaggerated, nor is it a retrofit story used to justify a design choice.

 

As far as the design itself, why does it have to be so literal? It’s very much an “inspired by” situation, as I’d rather not go the Calgary Flames/NBA draft hat route on a set of numbers.

 

Wavy lines of uniform width didn’t translate well to the technique and footprint of the numbers and they didn’t give me the look I wanted. Making a gradient with the wavy lines created a better graphic that’s more than just a flag. Is it the waves meeting the shore? Is it the fog settling into the harbor? Is it the snowy mountains in the distance fading into the hills and forests in the foreground? That’s up to the viewer, but the wavy lines that create the larger graphic were pulled from those civic symbols.

 

As far as the disconnect goes. There’s no good solution. We design identities and uniforms. Marketing departments don’t just sit around waiting for designers to Provide all their content. They have other stuff to do, and we definitely don’t impede on what the teams’ marketing departments are doing unless they ask for content. There simply aren’t enough hours in the day.

 

14 hours ago, Bayne said:

 

I don't see how making the C chunkier in order to make it more obvious does not in effect make it more elementary. I would argue that it makes it much more so, and robs it of not only its original, more delicate aesthetic but also of its subtlety. Having to spell it out for people who didn't "see it" and sacrifice the uniform lines it had, seems like a bit of a compromise.

 

I will probably grow to accept it much more than I am right now, but I don't think I'll ever appreciate it quite as much in its new form. Thanks for your explanation though.

 

 

 

Maybe I didn’t communicate that well. I think the chunkier C *does* make it more elementary. 

 

I just don’t see it as a bad thing because I think it has always been a very elementary logo in a delicate logo’s clothing. I appreciate delicate design when it works, but I actually think the delicate parts of the older models detracted from the bold, simplistic concept behind the rink logo. There will be disagreement, but that was my point of view on it. The reaction seems pretty mixed. Some are loving the new one, and some prefer the old.

 

8 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

First off, quit it with the race-card playing. How do you know that Johnny Canuck is Caucasian? He could be Native Canadian for all we know. 

 

A logo is supposed to represent the club name and/or sport and the ENTIRE fan base. Not to cater to a particular demographic or so-called progressive special interest groups. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not political or environmental unless that particular logo represents the club name.

 

Speaking of being a West coast metropolis, Johnny Canuck can be marketed in a number of diverse ways. When the Sedins were having their Art Ross and Hart Trophy success, Johnny Canuck versions of the twins were on shirts as well as yellow and blue Swedish shirts with 3 JC V-heads wearing the Swedish Crown, aka. The Three Crowns, Sweden's national symbol. Other international festivities and holidays celebrated by the Canucks can use Johnny Canuck in different forms. That's called uniting the fan base.

 

The question was why wouldn’t they want to use Johnny Canuck? Maybe they just think he’s too silly. Maybe they don’t like that he’s essentially a political cartoon. Maybe they dont like that he’s a generalized stereotype. Maybe they see him as “minor league” since he came from the WHL club. Maybe they don’t like that he represents an industry that threatened the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest for decades. Who knows? There are a dozen reasons why they *might* not want to tread those waters. My original example was on the extreme side, but certainly realistic given the context of the era. No team wants to be perceived like “Tone Deaf” Dan Snyder when it comes to potentially sensitive social issues.

 

Would *I* have a problem with Johnny Canuck? No. Would I, as a team, try to understand and respect how the fans felt about the subject? Of course. Vancouver is definitely in the top tier of teams when it comes to fan research, so if they’re reluctant to use Johnny in a starring role, I’ve got to think they have a reason for it.

[SFGiants58]

5 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

The question was why wouldn’t they want to use Johnny Canuck? Maybe they just think he’s too silly. Maybe they don’t like that he’s essentially a political cartoon. Maybe they dont like that he’s a generalized stereotype. Maybe they see him as “minor league” since he came from the WHL club. Maybe they don’t like that he represents an industry that threatened the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest for decades. Who knows? There are a dozen reasons why they *might* not want to tread those waters. My original example was on the extreme side, but certainly realistic given the context of the era. No team wants to be perceived like “Tone Deaf” Dan Snyder.

 

Would *I* have a problem with Johnny Canuck? No. Would I, as a team, try to understand and respect how the fans felt about the subject? Of course. Vancouver is definitely in the top tier of teams when it comes to fan research, so if they’re reluctant to use Johnny in a starring role, I’ve got to think they have a reason for it.

 

That’s ultimately where I stand. Some of us here want Johnny Canuck, but I take it that it’s a minority opinion. We have to remember that our opinions on the boards don’t necessarily reflect what the Canucks’ fans think. Market research won’t always back up the consensus of the CCSLC.

 

This isn’t the Brewers’ ball-in-glove, the Padres in brown/yellow, or the Rams in royal blue/yellow. There’s no clear fan preference that contradicts what the team wants (AFAIK). The fans at large could reject Johnny Canuck for all we know. Maybe it’s for the reasons that @andrewharrington mentioned, I’m not sure.

 

Johnny hasn’t been on a uniform since the early 1960s. Entire generations have gone by since its heyday. If that has any bearing on its current use, I’m not sure.

[Chromatic]

7 hours ago, Bayne said:

 

Why because the Orca is an animal? So suddenly the team name HAS to be the thing, coz the thing I see is an Orca! So it's the Orcas, right!? That's such a rudimentary, base level rationale lol. We just had a full on discussion about this earlier anyway. 

No because the Orca is an entirely separate motif with zero connection to any part of a ‘Canucks’ identity. It’s completely out of left field. Nobody looks at a skate or rink and thinks ‘Oh, a Canuck is a boot with a knife on the bottom’.  People look at the Orca and think a Canuck is a whale. Should the Seahawks use an Orca as their logo? They’re endemic to the Seattle area as well, so it makes as much sense.

[andrewharrington]

11 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That’s ultimately where I stand. Some of us here want Johnny Canuck, but I take it that it’s a minority opinion. We have to remember that our opinions on the boards don’t necessarily reflect what the Canucks’ fans think. Market research won’t always back up the consensus of the CCSLC.

 

This isn’t the Brewers’ ball-in-glove, the Padres in brown/yellow, or the Rams in royal blue/yellow. There’s no clear fan preference that contradicts what the team wants (AFAIK). The fans at large could reject Johnny Canuck for all we know. Maybe it’s for the reasons that @andrewharrington mentioned, I’m not sure.

 

Johnny hasn’t been on a uniform since the early 1960s. Entire generations have gone by since its heyday. If that has any bearing on its current use, I’m not sure.

 

Having no fan consensus is probably the only thing you can count on when you’ve had a different identity every decade.

[Gothamite]

31 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Every project has romantic tales cooked up at marketing meetings. Every project also has a truth from behind the scenes. I’ve watched this place collectively throw up in its proverbial mouth at the puffy marketing story in every team press release for the better part of a decade, and now all of a sudden it’s gospel?

 

I still think it’s all silly.  But when we’re discussing those stories, the team is the one that decides what the silly symbolism means.  Province of the client, unfortunately.

 

Quote

“I created a graphic for the numbers that’s inspired by the waves in the Vancouver flag and coat of arms” is not corporate speak. Nothing in that statement is exaggerated, nor is it a retrofit story used to justify a design choice.

 

And that’s awesome.  I love that story, it’s much better.  Which is why it’s a shame that the Canucks chose not to incorporate it into the official meaning.  I wonder why they made that choice?