Vancouver Canucks Unveil Four New Uniforms

[andrewharrington]

31 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

When that happens it’s typically less of a conscious choice and more of a “lost in translation/telephone game” type of thing.

[aild87]

1 hour ago, VancouverFan69 said:

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.

 

So am I wrong to assume that Johnny Canuck could be a black Canadian then? 

 

7 hours 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. 

 

I don't think the white is a team color argument holds any water. White is a neutral that every team in the league wears.

 

Vancouver's team colors are green and blue, maybe if we were talking Toronto or Detroit that would sway me, since blue and white, and red and white are all they have. But in the palette of Vancouver the "third most important team color" is also the least important team color if you want to even call it that in the first place.

 

If they intend Johnny to be anything other than Caucasian they could have used a different color to represent his flesh. The Blackhawks use a non team color (several in fact) and nobody bats an eye.

[El Diablo]

I like the new Canuck set. It's probably my favorite of the ones they've had.

[SFGiants58]

6 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?

 

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

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.

 

I've got to agree with @DastardlyRidleylash here. A simple-minded country boy isn't exactly desirable, even in a "laughing at ourselves" way. Heck, go to Port Coquitlam and see what a "simple-minded country boy" can do (On the Farm is an excellent read on a gross miscarriage of justice). He'd be more appropriate for a region of the country that has less of a "hubs for arts, culture and media in Canada" nature to it. Somewhere in Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba might be more appropriate. There, it's a bit more OK to adopt a tongue-in-cheek symbol of Canadian national pride. 

 

Also, having the city that has doubled for damn-near every major metropolitan area in the world claim a national symbol just rubs me the wrong way. Nobody would get behind a Los Angeles team with Uncle Sam or a bald eagle as the logo, so why should it be different for Canada? Vancouver's status as an "international" city (due to its coastal nature and proximity to the United States/membership in Cascadia) contradicts the use of Canadian national symbols.

 

TL;DR: I'm cool with a better-rendered Johnny, but I don't mind the Orca as much. If the team sees no reason to use Johnny based on their market research and current branding angle, I see little reason to dispute it. This isn't #bringbackthebrown, where a vocal minority grew to find a way to resolve a similarly-difficult branding situation.

[Chromatic]

Johnny Canuck has had many iterations and depictions across time. He hasn’t always been a “simple country” boy, nor is that the most well known depiction of him. He’s been everything from a pilot to a Captain America-esque superhero. And in the case of the Canucks, a lumberjack, which ties in extraordinarily well to B.C., as the timber industry was as important to the growth of Vancouver as oil was to Edmonton or steel to Pittsburgh, and remains a significant industry to this day.

 

Also as an aside, I don’t look at Johnny Canuck and think “what a dumbass”, I see a hard working logger, great for a sports team. Saying he must be stupid reeks of pretension and haughtiness, and makes no sense. Does that apply to Steelers, Oilers, Mariners, etc? And in any case the lowliest perceived profession still requires a higher degree of intelligence than any animal nickname or inanimate object.

[El Diablo]

The orca, if you look closely, also forms the letter "c" AND a hockey stick! It works on multiple levels! 

[ebod39]

So by the logic I'm reading on here, you can't use an Orca because the team name is CANUCKS. 

Which would mean you cannot use an eagle for CAPITALS?  

 

 

[Chromatic]

1 minute ago, ebod39 said:

So by the logic I'm reading on here, you can't use an Orca because the team name is CANUCKS. 

Which would mean you cannot use an eagle for CAPITALS?  

 

 

Eagles and Capitals are pretty tied together symbolically. Canucks and Orcas aren’t. It’s more akin to the New England Patriots using a lobster as a logo.

[OnWis97]

I think it’s definitely an improvement but I have always thought the primary logo needs a little green.  I think that would make the jersey better.

[ebod39]

17 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

Eagles and Capitals are pretty tied together symbolically. Canucks and Orcas aren’t. It’s more akin to the New England Patriots using a lobster as a logo.

What if the Patriots used an Eagle?  That would work.

Logos/mascots don't always have to be the literal image of the name. Granted if you name your team the Bears, yeh you should use a bear.

But Patriot, Canuck, Yankee etc... there's room for interpretation

 

I think an Orca is fine for the Canucks. I understand that it's leftover from corporate ownership, but the concept of animal and not person is still a solid one.

Since Canuck is a slang term for a Canadian, it's open to using an animal thats native to the area or Canada in general.

They could've used a Beaver or a Loon and IMO it would make sense. Those might not be the best choices, but they're not out of line. 

They could very well use a person too, Johnny Canuck, but they don't want to. They have their reasons, whether you like them or not.

[Brian in Boston]

4 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

The reaction seems pretty mixed. Some are loving the new one, and some prefer the old.

And some - myself included - think that both versions of the "stick-in-rink" logo are mediocrities. At best, they're... adequate. The very definitions of "meh". 

[Morgan33]

3 hours ago, aild87 said:

I don't think the white is a team color argument holds any water. White is a neutral that every team in the league wears.

 

Vancouver's team colors are green and blue, maybe if we were talking Toronto or Detroit that would sway me, since blue and white, and red and white are all they have. But in the palette of Vancouver the "third most important team color" is also the least important team color if you want to even call it that in the first place.

White is not only a team colour but one that is completely necessary for contrast.  That is why until recently the Canucks had branding rule that said green and blue couldn't touch.
 

Quote

If they intend Johnny to be anything other than Caucasian they could have used a different color to represent his flesh. The Blackhawks use a non team color (several in fact) and nobody bats an eye.

 

Perhaps they didn't want to muddy their identity by adding a sixth colour to pander to people who obsess about race all day...

[Ridleylash]

Andrew makes a very good point; the Canucks do a loooot of market research. If Johnny were nearly as overwhelmingly popular with Canucks fans as some on this board think, they'd have definitely noted it and began phasing Johnny in and phasing out the Orca. This new jersey set would have been the perfect time to phase Johnny in as the primary if they saw he was so overwhelmingly popular.

 

But they didn't, they simply took off the wordmark and made the primary logo larger. That, to me, indicates Johnny Canuck isn't as overwhelmingly hugely desired by the fanbase at large as some people make him out to be.

[Gothamite]

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I've got to agree with @DastardlyRidleylash here. A simple-minded country boy isn't exactly desirable, even in a "laughing at ourselves" way.

 

How wonderful, then, that the symbolism has evolved since its origin.

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

White is not only a team colour but one that is completely necessary for contrast.  That is why until recently the Canucks had branding rule that said green and blue couldn't touch.

 

Interesting.   At the risk of digressing, I’m fascinated by those rules.  NYCFC has a similar one; their colors are sky blue, navy, and orange, but the sky blue and orange are never allowed to touch.  They have to be bordered with navy.  This is the first time I’ve seen them break this rule in years: 

 

 

But the Canucks seem to have tossed that out the window for their 3rd.  And frankly, I think the sweater is dragged way down by the white collar they insisting on keeping. 

 

Edit: looks like they threw that rule out the window in 2008. 

 

[monkeypower]

If they really wanted an animal to represent “Canuck”, they really should have picked a beaver, moose or goose. I would even accept polar/non-polar bear.

 

But they weren’t named Beaver Bay Sports and Entertainment...

[Bayne]

 

7 hours ago, Chromatic said:

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.

 

12 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

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.

[Gobbi]

This guy portrays Johnny Canuck on the scoreboard at Rogers Arena. His name is Adam MacKay Smith. He is white. 

 

[Morgan33]

35 minutes ago, Gobbi said:

This guy portrays Johnny Canuck on the scoreboard at Rogers Arena. His name is Adam MacKay Smith. He is white.

 

And?

[Bayne]

5 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

And?

 

And that means the Canucks choose to portray him as white.