Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[1908_Cubs]

4 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

I still can get over how gorgeous the Rams' helmets are. Regardless of your feelings on the uniforms , I think this beauty Is a home run...

I think the shade of blue is quite nice.  It's deep and vibrant.  It pops.  I like the blue.  But outside of that, I'm not entirely sure I agree.  I question the need for the segmented horn in general (I'm not sure what we gain with making it segmented over a continuous shape like previously?  Does making is segmented mean it's more modern?  Not being a pain, just asking questions outloud).  

 

I'm also not sure the new overall shape of the horn is better.  I know some of the extra curly-cue would become an issue on some of the designs of helmets today (and my guess is they eliminated it for this reason) in getting it around the ear hole, but it can also read as a crescent moon now.  The ram-horn was more clear with the added curl.

 

For me, it is an overall "meh, fine" helmet but it falls short of a home run.  What they gain in the vibrant and deep shape of blue (which, I do find myself thinking is a very nice shade) they lose on shape of the horn.  I'd agree it's the single best element of the uniform in a vacuum but it reminds me of the rest of their uniform; there's some fine changes but some of those changes hold back what could be a very nice uniform.  

[BBTV]

6 hours ago, the admiral said:

No, it's an explicit heraldry rule, and sports team identities are kind of the modern American successor to heraldry, make of that what you will.

 

Something I make with the fill tool in paint isn't a metal, and the LA Rams logo isn't heraldry - it's marketing.  The 'rule' isn't bad to use as guidance, and I'd certainly not mix real metallic colors, I don't see it applying to sports logos.

 

Also, a rule pertaining to heraldry is not a 'design' rule.  Nobody is going to poo poo a McDonald's logo that has a yellow arch on a white background because it violates heraldic rules.

 

Also, like anything, we can tie this into the world of wrestling, since belts are sorta like logos too.  Dual-plated belts are very popular, and violate every 'rule' that's getting presented here.

 

[jws008]

5 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

I still can get over how gorgeous the Rams' helmets are. Regardless of your feelings on the uniforms , I think this beauty Is a home run...

Well, that's your opinion.

 

Some of us consider this a failure, due to the segmentation, the banana and moon shapes, and the lack of a curlicue. I mean, I'll call it maybe a "cheap infield single", since the colors are pretty good.

 

It's a "home run" of a helmet for a team named the "Banana Moons", I'll grant that.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[oldschoolvikings]

6 hours ago, MDGP said:

 

Well, sure. Obviously it's not a steadfast rule outside of heraldry. Hell, half the time heraldry doesn't follow heraldry. I was just referring to the fact that OSV was claiming that people were just making it up out of nowhere.

 

 

I wasn't trying to claim that people were making it up out of nowhere. I'm aware of the standards of heraldry. I was just reacting (and maybe over reacting, honestly) to the "art school" comment, specifically. 

 

The problem (if you want to call it that) with yellow touching white (or light gray touching white, or a really pale blue touching white, etc.) is contrast. But contrast is only one of the elements of design, and if someone wants to play with a lack of contrast in a design (to make the blue elements contrast even more, possibly?) it's a perfectly reasonable idea to try out, and certainly not against some set of modern design rules. Whether it's sucsessful or not is another issue entirely.

 

 

(I was afraid my earlier post might come off as stuffy and arrogant, and this one probably isn't helping. If so, my apologies.)

[L10nheart404]

1 hour ago, jws008 said:

Well, that's your opinion.

 

Some of us consider this a failure, due to the segmentation, the banana and moon shapes, and the lack of a curlicue. I mean, I'll call it maybe a "cheap infield single", since the colors are pretty good.

 

It's a "home run" of a helmet for a team named the "Banana Moons", I'll grant that.

 

But that's just my opinion.

Yeah, I think we've established we all have opinions lol. You can't convince me it's not a beautiful helmet...segmented horn and all. But likewise, I can't convince you that's it's a home run. See, we can have two different opinions and not trash each other. At the least, it's a "ground-rule double" for me. 

[L10nheart404]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

For me, it is an overall "meh, fine" helmet but it falls short of a home run.  What they gain in the vibrant and deep shape of blue (which, I do find myself thinking is a very nice shade) they lose on shape of the horn.  I'd agree it's the single best element of the uniform in a vacuum but it reminds me of the rest of their uniform; there's some fine changes but some of those changes hold back what could be a very nice uniform

That's fair... I think the solid horn is better, but all things considered, I really don't have much of a problem with the segmented horn. When we focus on these details, it disregards the actual visual you'll see on game day. The overall presentation is much different than focusing on a line or two that minimally adds/subtracts from the total design. I get it though, the shade of blue is what really makes the helmet.

[oldschoolvikings]

I don't have as much of an issue with the segmented horn as I would've thought.  Like if the previous horn design (I almost wrote "real horn design"!) hadn't existed, I probably would actually like this.  However, the colors and finish are really really nice. It's nice to see deep gloss making a big comeback.

[TBGKon]

17 hours ago, dont care said:

Navy is more neutral and less jarring than royal blue. It’s more appealing than and better especially Since the stadium won’t be used by just the Rams, and chargers, but also the super bowl, college bowl games, and even soccer games, and concerts and other events. Navy was the better choice.

This was essentially what I was going to post.  Navy blue is more of a neutral.

 

Also, seat color doesnt matter.  There are various MLB ballparks with dark green and dark blue seats and that color is never to be seen in the home team colors.  PNC in Pittsburgh comes to mind with navy blue seats and the team in black and gold.

[1908_Cubs]

26 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

That's fair... I think the solid horn is better, but all things considered, I really don't have much of a problem with the segmented horn. When we focus on these details, it disregards the actual visual you'll see on game day. The overall presentation is much different than focusing on a line or two that minimally adds/subtracts from the total design. I get it though, the shade of blue is what really makes the helmet.

I think we'll notice it on gameday, though.  Perhaps not every moment and in motion (but at that point, you could argue no logo is really very noticeable outside of a general blob), but anything showing the sideline/up close/in the huddle and perhaps even pre-snap (with the segmentation)...the shape of the horn's going to be visible.  Both the segmentation (which is then followed up on the sleeve cap) and the lack of the extra curlicue.  

 

I understand where you're coming from, and you are definitely entitled to your opinion, and to a degree I actually agree with it (function over form), but I do think it'll be there on gameday.  It might not be screaming in your face like the full-bone uniform will be, but that's also why this is both the best aspect of the new uniform dump, but still a disappointing aspect in my summation.  I think it'd be a home run if they had simply just kept the old horn, and then rendered the uniform in the same, vibrant/deep shapes of blue and yellow/gold.  The segmentation and lack of a curlicue just seem like downgrades visually for something that didn't need to be downgraded.

[El Scorcho]

The segmented horn is used as a more identifiable device that they've carried throughout this release to try to get some continuity happening. It wasn't just done arbitrarily to be more modern, they've built the entire uniform around it. It's in the logos, on the shoulders and in the numbers.

 

Whether that's the right decision or not is subjective, but I think it's a bit odd that people say they can no longer read a Rams horn. I think it looks like a Rams horn anyway, but in the context of how it's being used, the idea that it can be mistaken for a "banana and crescent moon" or whatever is suggested here is a bit silly. The old horn was just as much of an abstract representation of a Rams horn as this one is.

[OldRamsFan]

37 minutes ago, El Scorcho said:

 The old horn was just as much of an abstract representation of a Rams horn as this one is.

The old horn was not abstract at all. It was a very good 2d representation of a Rams horn. When I first became a Rams fan, no one had to tell me that those things on the helmet were Rams horns. It was plain as day.

But when I saw the new horns, my very first thought was "why are the horns broken in two"? I had to be told that it was supposed to represent the 3d curling of the Rams horn, and when I did read it, I thought "doesn't look like it to me". And I know I wasn't alone.

[guest23]

if the rams really wanted to push/emphasize the segmented horn they should have used a ton of restraint on the uniform elements or if they really wanted to have fashion forward uniforms they should have kept the horn as is...doing both at once is simply too much change for the sake of change.

[hugevolsfan]

53 minutes ago, El Scorcho said:

I think it looks like a Rams horn anyway, but in the context of how it's being used, the idea that it can be mistaken for a "banana and crescent moon" or whatever is suggested here is a bit silly. The old horn was just as much of an abstract representation of a Rams horn as this one is.

If you Google crescent moon shape almost every picture you see if it was colored yellow would look like the lower half of the new horn... Its not silly as it really looks like that shape... I have to process the horn now where I never had to before. Even if it did not look like a moon in no way would that horn be better than the one they had obviously in my opinion.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

There's a major question as to how this helmet is going to look on the field. The horns are going to have a different effect when you're seeing it at different angles. 

[El Scorcho]

2 minutes ago, hugevolsfan said:

If you Google crescent moon shape almost every picture you see if it was colored yellow would look like the lower half of the new horn... Its not silly as it really looks like that shape... I have to process the horn now where I never had to before. Even if it did not look like a moon in no way would that horn be better than the one they had obviously in my opinion.

 

Whether it's better or not is entirely subjective, I won't even argue that point.

 

But in context, you're going to see it in yellow, on a blue helmet, being worn on a football field. It's going to read as the Rams helmet every time. The crescent moon part of the design isn't ever viewed in isolation, it's as part of a design that contains 2 stylised horns in a familiar horn shape on a football helmet.

 

I'll reiterate that the old horns were also abstract and aren't actually specifically any more reminiscent of rams horns than the new ones without context.

[ramsjetsthunder]

I'm disappointed at how well received the new helmet shade is. I've always been of the opinion that one of the best parts about the Rams' classic look is the navy helmets that make the horns pop

[1908_Cubs]

1 hour ago, El Scorcho said:

 

Whether it's better or not is entirely subjective, I won't even argue that point.

 

But in context, you're going to see it in yellow, on a blue helmet, being worn on a football field. It's going to read as the Rams helmet every time. The crescent moon part of the design isn't ever viewed in isolation, it's as part of a design that contains 2 stylised horns in a familiar horn shape on a football helmet.

 

I'll reiterate that the old horns were also abstract and aren't actually specifically any more reminiscent of rams horns than the new ones without context.

A fair point in a vacuum, but then why replace one abstract version of Rams horns that everyone at least had grown accustomed to over the course of decades and decades simply for a different or new abstract version of a rams horn?  And while it's subjective, just a quick glimpse of opinions seem to be at best, luke warm on the change, so I'm hard pressed to call it an upgrade (and certainly isn't a slam dunk of an upgrade).  I think that's why it feels like it's an attempt at a modernization.  It's change for change sake and less a change to make it any less abstract or to really improve the logo design/clean things up.  It kind of reminds me of when the grocery store moves the bread aisle.  It's an attempt to make the store feel different, but no real upgrade has been made.  

 

Generally speaking, of all of the Rams issues with the previous uniform set, the horns were probably the thing no one figured needed a change (outside of the re-coloring to yellow/gold).  It could have been worse, I have a hard time really coming up with a way in my head to have improved the horns, and this one, as I said, feels like change for changes' sake.  Which I guess, just bums me out.  If you've got something good and you can't upgrade it, then there isn't a pressing need to change it.

 

I hate to sound like "that guy who bashes Nike" , and I'm really not trying to do that (I think this is a symptom of consumer culture in general across brands and products) but it feels like a situation of "how can we change something enough to be noticeable enough that people will buy new stuff with a fear of missing out all without harming the brand".   And I understand that's just the culture...it just...hurts my idealistic little heart.

[gosioux76]

28 minutes ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

I'm disappointed at how well received the new helmet shade is. I've always been of the opinion that one of the best parts about the Rams' classic look is the navy helmets that make the horns pop

 

I've seen a few posts expressing this sentiment, and I completely understand. That said, I think the issue here is that the uniforms are so bad that these new helmets look great by comparison, even if they're also underwhelming. 

[ramsker]

15 hours ago, jws008 said:

But, here’s that design/fashion thing again — the current trend with a lot of things that are yellow is to make them brighter and lighter. And five, ten, or fifteen years from now that cycle might have changed again (and again and again). It’s easy to blame Nike (and it’s fine not liking a trend or color choice). But I think stuff like this is always going to happen in design over time, irregardless of who is actually doing the design.

 

I get what you're saying, but Nike even admitted the mistake, and said they will correct it. https://lakersnation.com/lakers-will-revisit-color-of-gold-nike-icon-jersey-amid-fan-complaints/2019/11/29/

 

1 hour ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

I'm disappointed at how well received the new helmet shade is. I've always been of the opinion that one of the best parts about the Rams' classic look is the navy helmets that make the horns pop

 

I also loved the mismatching blues, but it makes sense to match them and I can dig it. I will be curious to see how it looks on the field.

 

The changes to the horns on the helmet are the one aspect of the redesign that I just can't get past. They could have changed the finish, changed the color, and played with the thickness of the horn, but the segmentation and lack of curl ruined an iconic helmet.

 

Here are one, two, three takes on the iconic helmet that would have accomplished both the traditional and progressive goals. 

 

The fact of the matter is, the Rams' brass had to know the day the LA logo got leaked that the entire rebranding was going to go over like a lead balloon. The new horn design was the centerpiece of the entire design (logos, helmets/uniforms), and they botched it. 

 

Demoff said in an article that they felt like they needed to match their progressive stadium with a progressive new look. To me, that's an extremely short sighted view of things. That stadium will be outdated in 10 years, your brand is going to continue on much longer than that. 

 

[Lights Out]

1 hour ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

I'm disappointed at how well received the new helmet shade is. I've always been of the opinion that one of the best parts about the Rams' classic look is the navy helmets that make the horns pop

 

Couldn't disagree more. The navy helmets were always dull. They stood out in a bad way. The horns always "popped" just fine on the royal blue jerseys, there was never any reason why they needed mismatched helmets to accomplish that.