Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, phutmasterflex said:

In regards to your NY logo comment: Believe me, if we had the Internet in 1962 when the Mets' NY logo was first introduced, we'd have a similar reaction. And if we had the Internet in 1967, we'd accuse them too. But those have been established for so long, which means our reaction to it now isn't the same as to the Chargers. 

 

 ... That seems to be an argument IN FAVOR of the new logo.  I think most baseball fans agree that both the Mets and Yankees NY logos look great and peacefully coexist without any problems or confusion.  So there's no reason that interlocking LA's for two different teams can't coexist.

 

I think the LA Charges "LA" logo is fine, and I think I might even go ahead and say that it looks good, or even great.  It's not boring, but it's not over-the-top.  It has just the right amount of stuff "going on."  In an era of overly-bland and generic looks, this LA logo at least brings some energy and is relevant to the identity of the team, unlike another LA team that rebranded a few years ago.  It's also easily recognizable - NO ONE is going to mistake one LA logo for the other LA logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fine logo, but it was very gauche for the new team in town to drop a white-on-blue interlocking LA logo on their very first day. To me, it felt like them revealing themselves as the new guys that don't know how to fit in. In powder blue and yellow? Doesn't look like the Dodgers at all. But in blue and white? It's close enough to the Dodgers to raise an eyebrow, but it's different enough that it's not a completely obvious takeoff/parody. It's the uncanny valley of logo similarity. To me it feels like they were completely unaware of a historic franchise's iconic logo in their new hometown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DG_Now said:

 

I think the new LA bolt logo is brilliant, but I think you'd have to be intentionally blind to think it's anything other than an homage to the Dodgers logo.

 

You say only the color says Dodgers to you, and it doesn't to go from there to the interlocking letters -- including the bottom of the L serving as the crossbar of the A in both -- to see a pretty clear connection.

 

That connection doesn't make it bad, mind you, but it's pretty obviously (to me at least) an intentional take on the Dodgers. And I love it in large part because of that reason.

I agree with this.

 

The problem is that people don't seem to understand what the difference is between homage and plagiarism.

 

Even if you warp the Dodger logo to roughly the same shear angle there's no way you can call this a ripoff.

dodgersitalic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 3wide.com said:

Am I the only one who doesn't think the new Chargers Logo looks remotely like the Dodgers Logo?

 

* Not even close to the same font, at all

* Italicized

 

pasted_image_at_2017_01_12_12_30_pm_360.

Yea, the L and the A touch near the center, and may even be interlocking. But so what? So do the NY in all new york sports teams. They use different fonts, do people regularly accuse them of being identical logos? They even use the same style, unlike the chargers and the dodgers.

 

Sorry, but the only thing that says "dodgers" to me about this logo is the color, otherwise, they really aren't that similar at all. If people are complaining that they copied the letters L A, sorry, i mean, I guess they could have gone with "SD" but yea.

 

I think it is similar in at least the same way Iowa and Southern Miss logos were. And Southern Miss lost that battle. Maybe logos and lettering rules are different. I still say the Cubs shouldn't let the Avs use that C from the Colorado flag in any shade of red without a fight.

 

Different colors and the L moved up to create a larger lightning bolt as Gothamite did earlier in the thread would help quite a bit. First impressions, though...

eaglehawkeye.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree somewhat.  In this case I don't see an issue with the extra outlines, even if the powder doesn't contrast that much with the yellow.  Of course a single outline would be better (if an outline is needed, which I don't think it is.)

 

I may have missed it in the 100 pages of people posting their "improvement" ideas that aren't really improvements, but what do you think are the "bad qualities"?  I'm struggling to come up with many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the odd angles of the L and A, where the three vertical lines are all askew, is a huge problem.  Outlines emphasize that.   Most LA logos find a way to give those three lines some harmony, whether it's creating vertical lines for the A to match the L, or by mirroring the two legs of the A at the same angle to give it some balance: 

 

LA_Logos.png

 

This is just wonky and awkward. 

 

The bolt is too spindly, and outlines emphasize that as well.  

 

The L and A are also too close together, and the outlines scream that out loud - look how the outermost outline entirely fills the empty space because there just isn't enough of it. 

 

I also think the perspective is off, where the bottom of the letters angle upwards to follow a point but the tops don't.  That doesn't  seem to be affected by the outlines. 

 

I liked this logo at first on my phone, but the more I saw of it, the more its flaws jumped out at me.  I'm not bothered at all by the "Dodgers!" thing, but I even setting that aside it's a deeply flawed logo to my eye.  Good in concept, poorly executed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Extra outlines make it worse, emphasizing all its bad qualities. 

 

Agreed. Also, of the reasons I never liked the Chargers cramming a powder blue outline onto the bolts was that it made the gold appear a little bit greener. Doing so to the "LA" is no different to the gold here, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I think the odd angles of the L and A, where the three vertical lines are all askew, is a huge problem.  Outlines emphasize that.   Most LA logos find a way to give those three lines some harmony, whether it's creating vertical lines for the A to match the L, or by mirroring the two legs of the A at the same angle to give it some balance: 

 

LA_Logos.png

 

This is just wonky and awkward. 

 

The bolt is too spindly, and outlines emphasize that as well.  

 

The L and A are also too close together, and the outlines scream that out loud - look how the outermost outline entirely fills the empty space because there just isn't enough of it. 

 

I also think the perspective is off, where the bottom of the letters angle upwards to follow a point but the tops don't.  That doesn't  seem to be affected by the outlines. 

 

I liked this logo at first on my phone, but the more I saw of it, the more its flaws jumped out at me.  I'm not bothered at all by the "Dodgers!" thing, but I even setting that aside it's a deeply flawed logo to my eye.  Good in concept, poorly executed. 

 

I think that the only italicized version you posted looks odd because they adjust the slant of the vertical bars of the A to match the L, which makes it worse because if you un-italicized it, the A would be straight vertial on one side but slanted on the other (the LA Express.)

 

As for the top and bottom, I just don't see that.  I get what you're saying about the bottom, but I don't see anything wrong with the top (except that I'm not sure the A should be serifed on the right if the L isn't.)

 

I can see why some would say that they are too close, but I think that minimizing negative space works better for things like Twitter avatars and smaller applications.  It also keeps it just around as tall as it is wide. 

 

I may have left the serifs off all together, though I'd have to see that to decide.  Other than that, I think I'm applying the same level of scrutiny that I do to other logos, and usually I can point out even the most minimal flaw, but I just don't see it in this case.  To each their own, I guess.

 

EDIT: actually, the only ones that you posted that I find pleasing are the Dodgers, R1C5, R2C4, and the CHargers.  My like of R2C4 is based more around the colors and wing rather than the styling of the letters.  The Kings, Angels, and R2C1 are especially terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The horizontal bolts are a major problem with the jersey.  Downgrade from the over-the-shoulder versions that matched the helmet. 

Except they didn't match the helmet. They went halfway across the shoulder, then mirrored their way back down the other side. You can see it in this picture:

 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IceCap locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.