Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[colortv]

6 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 

 

You know it's odd, I'm looking at this post on both a PC and an iphone, and the "new" sol gold color looks much brighter and yellowish on my iphone compared to PC. Either way, it looks closer to the painting than the old colors from what I can see.

[dont care]

I have no idea how you can say the near orange gold looks like the current yellow in anyway.

[oldschoolvikings]

23 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

I think the gradient numbers could very well be retained long-term.

 

Look at the Lakers dropshadow uniform numbers.

 

If they had never had those but all of a sudden thrown them on, people would be shouting to the high heavens that they were gimmicky.

 

The gradient numbers match the image you want to project as a Los Angeles market team, glitz.

 

Actually, I think the gradient numbers will probably be the first thing to go. They might even be able to delete those ugly bastards before the five years are up, as there's some presidence for numbers changing outside the 5 year rule (ironically, the Rams did it themselves with their first navy/vegas gold jersey). 

 

And the Lakers' drop shadows are a bad comparison... drop shadow numbers were on baseball uniforms in the 30's.

[PaleVermilion81]

55 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 

 

The yellow on the uniforms themselves doesn't look anywhere close to that painting.

 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

 

I think the gradient numbers could very well be retained long-term.

 

Look at the Lakers dropshadow uniform numbers.

 

If they had never had those but all of a sudden thrown them on, people would be shouting to the high heavens that they were gimmicky.

 

The gradient numbers match the image you want to project as a Los Angeles market team, glitz.

Drop shadow is far less gimicky than gradient. I'm not sure how gradient= "LA glitz" either. 

[colortv]

21 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

The yellow on the uniforms themselves doesn't look anywhere close to that painting.

 

 

 

@TruColor Can you provide some insight.

 

[colortv]

56 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Actually, I think the gradient numbers will probably be the first thing to go. They might even be able to delete those ugly bastards before the five years are up, as there's some presidence for numbers changing outside the 5 year rule (ironically, the Rams did it themselves with their first navy/vegas gold jersey). 

 

And the Lakers' drop shadows are a bad comparison... drop shadow numbers were on baseball uniforms in the 30's.

 

16 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Drop shadow is far less gimicky than gradient. I'm not sure how gradient= "LA glitz" either. 

 

What criteria are we using to determine what's more gimmicky? I don't see what's more fundamentally outlandish about gradient numbers than drop shadow numbers.

[AnPheitseog]

If I see that painting one more time I will paint that user across the floor.

[dont care]

Since when are drop shadows which have been in use for nearly 100 years viewed as a gimmick. Go after the black side panels if you want to go after a gimmick and they have been panned just as much as the gradient has. But nothing could be as tore apart as the bone uniforms, the “Hello my name is LA Rams” patches, and the hot glue gun swirls on the numbers. When the one thing you are trying to defend is the least worse thing about the uniform you know that they are a dumpster fire that the designers tried throwing every gimmick at to make a “modern” uniform that fails in the same ways the Jaguars, bucs, and browns did of their last uniforms before having to correct to previous looks or in the Jaguars case traditional looks.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

21 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 

What criteria are we using to determine what's more gimmicky? I don't see what's more fundamentally outlandish about gradient numbers than drop shadow numbers.

 

Criteria being "things I like are good" and "things I don't like are gimmicky."

 

I'm going to like the new Rams set even harder now. And I hope it sticks around for a decade.

[AnPheitseog]

I like the lakers jersey set. I like the black side panels, and if the jerseys were worn traditionally (Yellow home, purple away, white Sunday home) then I wouldnt complain about them at all. It's the usage I have an issue with.

 

The rams? Nope. Start over.

[PaleVermilion81]

36 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 

@TruColor Can you provide some insight.

 

 

I don't think TruColor has the color values of an old painting. The main complaint I see with the Rams new colors is the yellow on the uniforms. That is the yellow that doesn't match the uniforms in the painting. The yellow they use in print & digital marketing is fine. But they chose poorly when translating that to textile on the uniforms.

[joekono]

7 hours ago, IceCap said:

1- People are tired of that painting. It's become a meme. 

 

2- You seem to be implying that people are being unfair to the Rams' current unis by not acknowledging the colour scheme. The Rams unis have gotten a lot of deserved flack, but I have seen people consistently praise the colours as something they got right (aside from the bone). 

Personally? I like the blue but think the yellow is too bright. They need to pair the current blue with the throwback athletic gold. 

 

Ultimately the Rams' unis remind me of the Buffalo Sabres' Buffaslug uniforms. A redesign that had a simple task (go back to the old look everyone likes) that they botched by overthinking it. 

I also remember that during the Buffaslug's panning here one Sabres fan was very outspoken in support for the look. He even claimed I, a Maple Leafs fan, was jealous. The Leafs have always had very traditional unis, and this guy claimed "well the Sabres will look like they belong in this century." 

 

Well the Sabres' hyper modern Buffaslug unis lasted the bare minimum before they went to a version of their old unis with a navy blue base and silver outlines. Only to go to a new uni after that, that was basically a tweak of their classic identity everyone wanted all along. 

So that guy- wherever he is- is cheering for a Sabres team that looks just as traditional as my Leafs do. 

 

This exchange has stuck with me because it highlights the perils of going all in on a very trendy uniform. What is trendy today won't be trendy in two years, but what is classic today will be classic in ten years. 

So my point is this- the Rams' unis were made to represent a very select number of design trends. Those will eventually go out of style and the team will rebrand. Likely to some version of a more classic look. 

And then all of this white knighting for "bone" coloured unis, gradients, malformed helmet horns, and nametag patches will seem silly. 

 

You can say all of the above for the Falcons' new abominations too. 

 

Now does this mean that every new design is meant to be trashed? No. There's nothing inherently wrong with a trendy look provided you know that's what it is and understand it as a snapshot of that era in time. Stuff like that can even give a look a certain charm. This even works for traditional unis that are objectively not great- I love the classic Dolphins logo because its grungy stylings put me in mind of a 1960s/70s Florida filled with roadside attractions and a Miami that was just finding its footing. 

 

Modern design can even become timeless. Look at the Bucs. Their uniform uses a very modern colour (uniform-wise) in pewter. The uniform itself is very traditional, but the colour scheme makes it stand out as a modern thing. 

The Eagles and Ravens do the same thing with modern colour schemes and their number fonts. Very modern elements, but the unis are very traditional in style. 

You can also look at any Chargers identity sans the 2007-2019 look. Or the Bengals' 1981-2003 look. Both used modern concepts (lightning bolts and tiger stripes) in traditional ways by using them to replicate UCLA-style striping. 

The Panthers and Texans also do something similar, using traditional uniform elements but putting just a bit of a twist on them to make them modern. Be it through the use of modern colours, a tapered stripe here or there, or a unique number font (as an aside the Panthers need to go back to the Hulkamania wordmark). 

 

All of these uniforms managed to shake up the traditional NFL aesthetic and did it without all of the obnoxious design elements we see today on "modern" uniforms. Ironically the Rams' 1973-1999 uniform (and the 2000-2019 look that followed) did the same sorts of things- using non-traditional elements in traditional ways to create fun, modern designs that didn't look like clown suits. 

 

What the Rams have now is very much a uniform made to cater to the design trends of 2018-2020. Which is fine. Just as long as everyone understands that's what it is- a disposable design that will get cycled out once trends change in a way to no longer make it interesting.  

Right on IceCap, personally, I think certain posters are trying to extend this thread just for the hell of it.

[Ben in LA]

2 hours ago, joekono said:

Right on IceCap, personally, I think certain posters are trying to extend this thread just for the hell of it.

With two more uniforms to be introduced, the thread will be going on for awhile.

 

I still think the new uniforms will be a yellow one and a white one.

 

And I still like the bone, criticisms be damned. It’s basically another shade of grey in my eyes.

[IceCap]

19 hours ago, colortv said:

What criteria are we using to determine what's more gimmicky? I don't see what's more fundamentally outlandish about gradient numbers than drop shadow numbers.

Drop shadow has been used in sports since at least the 1930. Classic teams like the Cleveland Browns and New York Rangers adopted that style in the 40s (the Rangers still use it, along with the Lakers). 

Gradient only came about in the 1990s, when sublimation technology took off. And, in fact, was associated with some of the worst eyesore uniforms of the 1990s. 

 

So @DG_ThenNowForever isn't exactly right. Drop shadow has been around a very long time, and gradient only showed up during what is perhaps the most obnoxious phase of uniform design ever. 

Now maybe you or him or someone else wants to go "that's still arbitrary, who cares when it came around, gimmicky is gimmicky!"

 

I would say, though, that like it or not? Time and tradition have meaning. The "big four" sports have their own aesthetic language and engrained traditions of what their uniforms should be, and the first half of the 20th century is when all of that codified across all of them. And drop shadows were around then.

Drop shadows are- whether you like it or not- just an accepted part of pro sports' traditional visual language. Gradients are some gimmicky  cooked up in the 90s. 

 

Maybe you think that's unfair or arbitrary, but it is how it is. 

 

Also you never told me how "gradient" = "LA glitz."

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

With two more uniforms to be introduced, the thread will be going on for awhile.

I reiterate my threat to close this thread down if I see any more "people only wanted the throwbacks because that's what pa saw them wear" nonsense. 

[FinsUp1214]

My (probably long shot) hope for the future Rams alternates is that one of them is a white jersey based on the blue jersey’s design, and that in time it slowly phases out the bone uniform as the primary road set. I think the set would be more than tolerable and possibly salvaged if that were to happen - I thought the blue over yellow combo was actually good to begin with, and I grew to like it even more throughout the season the more I saw and compared it to the bone set. Really, after observing it for a whole season, I think the bone set as a whole is the biggest thing weighing the uniforms down more so than any other particular uniform element. 

[colortv]

2 hours ago, IceCap said:

Drop shadow has been used in sports since at least the 1930. Classic teams like the Cleveland Browns and New York Rangers adopted that style in the 40s (the Rangers still use it, along with the Lakers). 

Gradient only came about in the 1990s, when sublimation technology took off. And, in fact, was associated with some of the worst eyesore uniforms of the 1990s. 

 

So @DG_ThenNowForever isn't exactly right. Drop shadow has been around a very long time, and gradient only showed up during what is perhaps the most obnoxious phase of uniform design ever. 

Now maybe you or him or someone else wants to go "that's still arbitrary, who cares when it came around, gimmicky is gimmicky!"

 

I would say, though, that like it or not? Time and tradition have meaning. The "big four" sports have their own aesthetic language and engrained traditions of what their uniforms should be, and the first half of the 20th century is when all of that codified across all of them. And drop shadows were around then.

Drop shadows are- whether you like it or not- just an accepted part of pro sports' traditional visual language. Gradients are some gimmicky  cooked up in the 90s. 

 

Maybe you think that's unfair or arbitrary, but it is how it is. 

 

Also you never told me how "gradient" = "LA glitz."

 

 

 

I reiterate my threat to close this thread down if I see any more "people only wanted the throwbacks because that's what pa saw them wear" nonsense. 

I’m not asking which has been in use longer, I’m asking what, fundamentally, makes a gradient inferior or less aesthetically pleasing than a drop shadow design.

[dont care]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

I’m not asking which has been in use longer, I’m asking what, fundamentally, makes a gradient inferior or less aesthetically pleasing than a drop shadow design.

Did you miss this part “Drop shadows are- whether you like it or not- just an accepted part of pro sports' traditional visual language. Gradients are some gimmicky  cooked up in the 90s. ” to go along with the rest of his post that he very eloquently stated why. Also you continue to ignore to answer how gradients = LA glitz. Along with the rest of the post that you seemed to not comprehend or just ignore .

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

I’m not asking which has been in use longer, I’m asking what, fundamentally, makes a gradient inferior or less aesthetically pleasing than a drop shadow design.

I explained it. 

[colortv]

52 minutes ago, dont care said:

Did you miss this part “Drop shadows are- whether you like it or not- just an accepted part of pro sports' traditional visual language. Gradients are some gimmicky  cooked up in the 90s. ” to go along with the rest of his post that he very eloquently stated why. Also you continue to ignore to answer how gradients = LA glitz. Along with the rest of the post that you seemed to not comprehend or just ignore .

 

See below, you continue to just post that whatever you like or dislike is what is correct. 

 

28 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I explained it. 

 

So basically, "I don't like gradients". I don't see how that has any bearing on whether they will be retained long-term or not.

 

I interpret gradient= glitz because it's not a basic design. Like drop shadow, it adds a unique flair compared to just basic numbers.

 

Just because drop shadow has been around longer has nothing to do with whether it will be retained long term or not if the fans take a liking to it.

 

It's like someone back in the 50's or whenever it was calling the Rams helmet horns "gimmicky and they won't last"

 

Everything, good or bad, whether it becomes traditional or not, starts "at some point".