king_mahalo

Vancouver Canucks Unveil Four New Uniforms

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

The team was named after a common slang term for "Canadian", and Johnny was made to be a visual representation of that term. Orcas are Canadian fauna and culturally prominent in the PNW, just as a lumberjack is a Canadian occupation with a strong foothold in BC. They're not specifically the "Vancouver Lumberjacks" or "Vancouver Timber Kings" or something that would make Johnny the obvious best choice...but nor are they the "Vancouver Seawolves" or "Vancouver Orcas" that'd make the Orca the obvious choice.

 

Time for a history lesson, my friend:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

The team was named after a common slang term for "Canadian", and Johnny was made to be a visual representation of that term. Orcas are Canadian fauna and culturally prominent in the PNW, just as a lumberjack is a Canadian occupation with a strong foothold in BC. They're not specifically the "Vancouver Lumberjacks" or "Vancouver Timber Kings" or something that would make Johnny the obvious best choice...but nor are they the "Vancouver Seawolves" or "Vancouver Orcas" that'd make the Orca the obvious choice.

 

They're the "Vancouver Canadians", essentially. Anything commonly tied to Canada can work with a name like that; be that an orca, a lumberjack or anything else. I could suggest them become a completely beaver-themed team and could anybody call that an unfitting thing? After all, beavers are one of this country's most famous symbols, so a team named the "Canadians" would totally fit having a beaver identity as much as a lumberjack identity, an orca identity, a flying skate identity or a stick-in-rink identity.

 

That's the issue with this team; the name is so vague that everybody has their own idea of what is "best" for their identity. I think the orca works, VancouverFan is a huge Johnny Canuck proponent, there's flying skate proponents, SiR proponents and even a few Flying V supporters here and there, and these identities are all so disparate that nobody can seem to universally agree on anything, even the team's colors.

 

You see people who want them to go back to the West Coast Express look, you see people who want the 90's scheme, there's people who want the 80's scheme, the 70's scheme...essentially nobody can seem to agree on one basic set that fits the majority because so many people want so many different looks for the same team. This team's identity is a complete goddamn mess already, I don't think it's wise from a marketing or branding perspective to mess with it yet again.

 

No, but they're a franchise with an already-extensive identity crisis that seriously does not need more division in the fanbase as to what the hell their identity is supposed to be. The absolute worst thing a brand can do is change constantly. They have a set which merges the old and current, they've got a distinct and recognizable brand that works. They shouldn't change again unless there's a good reason to beyond "some fans want Johnny Canuck/the Stick in Rink/the Flying Skate to be our primary logo".

 

Otherwise, it's perpetuating the same cycle of constant reinvention for reinventions' sake that got this franchise into this mess in the first place.

 

 

Thankyou for being one of the few Canucks fans who actually has common sense on this subject. I agree.

 

Edit, i dont even know if you're a canucks fan, doesnt matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 1:32 PM, DastardlyRidleylash said:

A lumberjack is no more "Canuck" then an orca.

 

Yes it is. There's a mythical Canadian lumberjack named Johnny Canuck. There's no orca named Canuck. qed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Time for a history lesson, my friend:

 

 

While I don't disagree that there are some clear historical connections with the Canadian soldier persona embodied by "Johnny Canuck", I still don't feel like it is a mandatory insignia for a team nicknamed 'Canucks' - which is essentially a term used for Canadians, so it's pretty ambiguous. Also, considering the fact that the organisation has diluted the brand to such an extent that the brand is almost characterised by inconsistency and a deluge of different incarnations, I don't see a problem with an Orca being the symbol that represents Vancouver. 

 

In my ideal world, the Canucks use the stick and rink, and always did since day one. It would be considered a elegant, clean, simple, bold, never-change-it primary jersey logo. They could have a Johnny Canuck logo as a shoulder patch (a better logo than any JC logo we've seen so far btw, especially the Fat V awkward head one we got, burn it). But I'd die a content person if the Canucks kept the logo they have right now for the rest of my life. At least it would mean we'd have had a logo long enough for it it be considered classic. And it IS a good logo - take away all the corporate connotations and negative memories of certain decisions made in the 90's... yes it's a 90's-ish logo, but it's alright. I've seen more logos that are worse than logos that are better than the Orca. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bayne said:

In my ideal world, the Canucks use the stick and rink, and always did since day one. It would be considered a elegant, clean, simple, bold, never-change-it primary jersey logo.

 

Come to my new restaurant, The Elegant Rectangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Come to my new restaurant, The Elegant Rectangle.

 

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

 

BrdPo4G.jpg

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bayne said:

which is essentially a term used for Canadians, so it's pretty ambiguous

Again, I never heard anyone try to claim that a "Canuck" could refer to an orca before people tried to justify the Canucks' logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Again, I never heard anyone try to claim that a "Canuck" could refer to an orca before people tried to justify the Canucks' logo.

 

It's not supposed to be specific. That's the beauty (imo) of the Canucks moniker, and thank god, otherwise yes, it would be maddening not to have an actual 'Canuck' as a logo. I sometimes feel like people are so desperate to want to have every teams' identity be executed in a way that is easily understandable to a 6 year old. Not every team identity needs to make as much sense as a team called the penguins who wear black yellow and white and have a full bodied penguin on their chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they don't, but it's not exactly a time-honored idiosyncrasy, like New York's team being called the Rangers because of a lame pun on an owner named Tex, or the Blackhawks not having an actual hawk that is black. What we have here is "I dunno, people seemed to like Free Willy" in the late '90s following years of "Canucks" being denoted by an ice skate made of lasers. It's much harder to swing modern designs that are a step and a half removed from making obvious sense: see the Columbus Blue Jackets debuting as Civil War soldiers who are also abstract ribbon-dancers and bees before narrowing it down to, while still not literal, a much clearer Civil War/Ohio approach. 2007 was the time for the Canucks to get it right and they didn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the orca logo there because of the company that bought them? Orca Bay was the name of the company. They just recently changed the name to Canucks entertainment, or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scrumptious Ham said:

Isn't the orca logo there because of the company that bought them? Orca Bay was the name of the company. They just recently changed the name to Canucks entertainment, or something like that.

They changed the name from “Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment” to “Canucks Sports and Entertainment” in 2008, after the original Orca Bay founders cashed out. Hardly “just recently.” 

 

15 hours ago, Bayne said:

It's not supposed to be specific. That's the beauty (imo) of the Canucks moniker...

“Beauty” isn’t the term I would use, considering the Canucks’ identity issues.

 

Regardless. “Canuck” is slang for “Canadian,” but two things.

First, that’s always been understood to apply to people and not animals and secondly? The team’s name very clearly references the pulp character Johnny Canuck. Making the name far less broad than you’re implying. 

 

The argument that “‘Canuck’ means ‘Canadian’ and orcas from Canada are Canadian!” was only ever trotted out here of all places as a VERY roundabout excuse for what was meant to be a corporate tie-in logo. I was born and raised in Canada and I had never heard the word “Canuck” used to describe Canadian wildlife prior to people attempting to defend the orca logo here.

It’s such a flawed argument in my opinion, dependent on being both overly literal and extremely pedantic to the point of ridiculousness. 

 

Stick-in-rink (the new one) or Johnny Canuck. Those are the only decent options the team has, in my opinion. Ideally they can use both, with one serving as an alternate and the other the primary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

“Beauty” isn’t the term I would use, considering the Canucks’ identity issues.

 

Regardless. “Canuck” is slang for “Canadian,” but two things.

First, that’s always been understood to apply to people and not animals and secondly? The team’s name very clearly references the pulp character Johnny Canuck. Making the name far less broad than you’re implying. 

 

The argument that “‘Canuck’ means ‘Canadian’ and orcas from Canada are Canadian!” was only ever trotted out here of all places as a VERY roundabout excuse for what was meant to be a corporate tie-in logo. I was born and raised in Canada and I had never heard the word “Canuck” used to describe Canadian wildlife prior to people attempting to defend the orca logo here.

 

The term Canuck is absolutely a slang term for people which is why it can refer to the players themselves and if the players on the ice are the "Canucks" in question, they can use a collegiate "C" with Orca imagery to represent the area.  Bayne is absolutely right about the fact they don't need to represent their namesake with a literal, (and in Johnny's case) cartoon representation of a Canuck.

 

Buy yeah, an Orca should never be referred to as a Canuck.  That's just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Bayne is absolutely right about the fact they don't need to represent their namesake with a literal, (and in Johnny's case) cartoon representation of a Canuck.

First off, what’s wrong with a cartoon? The Penguins’ logo is absolutely delightful. We need more whimsy in sports anyway. 

 

Secondly? The team doesn’t need a literal depiction of their namesake, but that’s what the team thought in 1970. And they’ve had identity problems from the get-go. I contend that had they gone with Johnny from day one? The Canucks’ identity wouldn’t have been as aimless as it ended up being. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

First off, what’s wrong with a cartoon? The Penguins’ logo is absolutely delightful. We need more whimsy in sports anyway. 

 

Secondly? The team doesn’t need a literal depiction of their namesake, but that’s what the team thought in 1970. And they’ve had identity problems from the get-go. I contend that had they gone with Johnny from day one? The Canucks’ identity wouldn’t have been as aimless as it ended up being. 

 

 

I'd suggest tweaking Johnny a bit. Maybe touch up some of the linework on the face, adjust the angle, give him a backing shape (the "V" of the Vancouver Millionaires), etc. As is, he's not ideal.

 

The local minor-league team had a good base for a "serious" design:

 

Customize%20CHL%20WHL%20Vancouver%20Giants%20Blank%20Alternate%20Jersey%20Black-800x800.jpg

Refine it a little in royal/kelly and you'd have something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 10:23 PM, Chromatic said:

No we don't. You might see a pod on a rare occasion if you're taking the ferry or going on a whale watching tour, but its not like they're splashing around False Creek on a daily basis. The extremely rare time they're anywhere in the harbour its considered newsworthy. On top of that, just because they're a 'local animal' doesn't mean they make sense as a mascot for a team called the 'Canucks'. Bears and coyotes and ducks are local too. Doesn't make any more sense to have them as a logo. Pigeons are local to New York, it would be pretty silly to see a pigeon as a Rangers logo. Louisiana is known for Gators, but that doesn't make any sense for the Saints to have one for a logo, even coiled into an 'S'.

 

 

It's literally several times a year. Not sure why people are having difficulty understanding the sentence. The frequency is a "a year" not "every day" or "every week"

 

Also, about the above in regards to Grizzlies, they were literally extirpated in the lower mainland a long time ago. It was a worse name for a Vancouver team than "canuck" ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The orca refers to the Pacific Northwest, the area the team plays in and represents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ark said:

The orca refers to the Pacific Northwest, the area the team plays in and represents. 

And? Plenty of teams don’t reference local wildlife. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

First off, what’s wrong with a cartoon? The Penguins’ logo is absolutely delightful. We need more whimsy in sports anyway. 


Nothing wrong with a cartoon-logo and I wouldn't at all be upset if the Canucks swapped the Orca for Johnny and left everything else the same.  I'm just saying they don't need to go that route cause ultimately the Canucks are the players on the ice.  I also don't see the problem with sticking with the Orca.  It's clean, professional, looks great embroidered and one of the all-time Canuck greats had a hand in it's creation.
 

Quote

Secondly? The team doesn’t need a literal depiction of their namesake, but that’s what the team thought in 1970. And they’ve had identity problems from the get-go. I contend that had they gone with Johnny from day one? The Canucks’ identity wouldn’t have been as aimless as it ended up being.

 

 

Arguable point.  It's also arguable that ditching the logo of the past 22 years and adding another one would add to these identity problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Arguable point.  It's also arguable that ditching the logo of the past 22 years and adding another one would add to these identity problems. 

The stick-in-rink logo is nice and clean, but it’s also very uninspiring. 

It made returning to that logo after experimenting with various identities a non-starter. The team threw back to the original identity save for the logo in 2007. Why is that? Well I would argue because no one has confidence in the stick-in-rink logo to carry the brand. 

Had they gone with Johnny Canuck from the get-go? It would give the “classic” Canucks identity more character. Much like how the Penguins eventually embraced the skating penguin after experimentation of their own. Johnny Canuck is a fun logo with local character that would have been an easy go-to had the team embraced him in their early years. 

 

Instead they went with a hockey stick and rink and they’ve been trying to find themselves ever since. 

 

As for identity problems if they go to Johnny? @McCarthy already addressed the fallacy with that line of thinking.

 

8 minutes ago, Morgo said:

I'm just saying they don't need to go that route cause ultimately the Canucks are the players on the ice. 

I don’t buy that. If that’s true than no team needs to reference their name with their logo because “the players are the real Tigers/Bears/Eagles.” 

 

The team took its identity from an earlier team that drew on Johnny Canuck for their name. I don’t think expecting them to actually go with him over a laser skate, angry orca, or a hockey rink and disproportionally large stick is too out-there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.