IceCap Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 What blows my mind is I just saw in the concept thread, someone do a Chicago Bulls logo redo and uniforms and talked about the Bulls logo looking dated. Yet, for whatever reason, this dated logo is praised. It's not a great logo, it's not horrible. If I was to give a grade on 1-10 point scale with 10 being best, it's about a 5. What's worse is the "bodiless" version of this logo.Because the logo here isn't really the same logo as the original. It's been cleaned up, given a face-lift if you will. Much like the take on the Chicago Bulls logo in the thread in question.And it's still dated.That's your opinion PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timaa Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I think his skating stride looks a bit "fancy", if you catch my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I think his skating stride looks a bit "fancy", if you catch my drift.Hm. I wonder how that explains my lumbering stride. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Color-corrected in all his glory...Brilliant. If this became their primary, I would become a fan of the team. That's how much I love this logo. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 What blows my mind is I just saw in the concept thread, someone do a Chicago Bulls logo redo and uniforms and talked about the Bulls logo looking dated. Yet, for whatever reason, this dated logo is praised. It's not a great logo, it's not horrible. If I was to give a grade on 1-10 point scale with 10 being best, it's about a 5. What's worse is the "bodiless" version of this logo.Because the logo here isn't really the same logo as the original. It's been cleaned up, given a face-lift if you will. Much like the take on the Chicago Bulls logo in the thread in question.And it's still dated.That's your opinion You're right. It's still a horrible, crappy, dated looking logo. But then again, what would you expect from a crappy organization like Vancouver? They must like dated things, because they signed a soft, dated center who won't help them do anything in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 What blows my mind is I just saw in the concept thread, someone do a Chicago Bulls logo redo and uniforms and talked about the Bulls logo looking dated. Yet, for whatever reason, this dated logo is praised. It's not a great logo, it's not horrible. If I was to give a grade on 1-10 point scale with 10 being best, it's about a 5. What's worse is the "bodiless" version of this logo.Because the logo here isn't really the same logo as the original. It's been cleaned up, given a face-lift if you will. Much like the take on the Chicago Bulls logo in the thread in question.And it's still dated.That's your opinion You're right. It's still a horrible, crappy, dated looking logo. But then again, what would you expect from a crappy organization like Vancouver? They must like dated things, because they signed a soft, dated center who won't help them do anything in the playoffs. I would argue that the logo that is Johnny Canuck would do more for the team then Mats Sundin will PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrousoxide66 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I have to admit, I do like it.Better than the Vachon V-head they have on the shoulders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 What blows my mind is I just saw in the concept thread, someone do a Chicago Bulls logo redo and uniforms and talked about the Bulls logo looking dated. Yet, for whatever reason, this dated logo is praised. It's not a great logo, it's not horrible. If I was to give a grade on 1-10 point scale with 10 being best, it's about a 5. What's worse is the "bodiless" version of this logo.Because the logo here isn't really the same logo as the original. It's been cleaned up, given a face-lift if you will. Much like the take on the Chicago Bulls logo in the thread in question.And it's still dated.That's your opinion You're right. It's still a horrible, crappy, dated looking logo. But then again, what would you expect from a crappy organization like Vancouver? They must like dated things, because they signed a soft, dated center who won't help them do anything in the playoffs. Mats Sundin is anything but soft, he goes to the tough areas and takes the punishment but he also gives it back. He might not be a point per game player but he's provided leadership and has chipped in a couple of goals. The main thing he has done is made teams focus on him which in turn has helped the Sedins and helped elevate Burrows and Keslers game to the next level. As for the logo there was a closeup of it on the players helmets in today's paper, I noticed that the logo had no silver on it, which is perfect cause the silver is just unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letterform Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 What blows my mind is I just saw in the concept thread, someone do a Chicago Bulls logo redo and uniforms and talked about the Bulls logo looking dated. Yet, for whatever reason, this dated logo is praised. It's not a great logo, it's not horrible. If I was to give a grade on 1-10 point scale with 10 being best, it's about a 5. What's worse is the "bodiless" version of this logo.Because the logo here isn't really the same logo as the original. It's been cleaned up, given a face-lift if you will. Much like the take on the Chicago Bulls logo in the thread in question.And it's still dated.That's your opinion You're right. It's still a horrible, crappy, dated looking logo. But then again, what would you expect from a crappy organization like Vancouver? They must like dated things, because they signed a soft, dated center who won't help them do anything in the playoffs. You know, if you're gonna talk crap about a rival team for no reason other than to troll, you might wanna make a point that actually makes sense and draws someone's ire. FTR there's PLENTY of things that you could have EASILY brought up about the Canucks. Do you know anything about this franchise's history? Next time try to bring your "A" game.As for your take on the logo: I'm a little perplexed by your comments. Do you have a critical arguement to make about any element of this design or do you just simply not like this?How exactly is this logo dated? I can't think of any elements that suggest this belongs to an older era. The colour scheme is definitely modern. The lines have been simplified and thickened. It may look a little cartoonish, but it's definitely not screaming minor league like the old 60's variant of Johnny Canuck. There are a couple of NHL logos that definitely look dated by the way and they work for a lot of people. The Leafs logo for instance looks incredibly dated with that font and the stylistic lines they use. I personally think it's an overrated piece of crap but Leafs' fan seem to like it. Ditto for the 80s Oilers logo. That font and those colours SCREAM 70's to anyone that ever travelled to the US by car in the 70s or 80s.For the record I'm not a big fan of this logo either, but I don't think calling it "horrible crappy and dated" suffices much as an arguement. DEATH TO REEBOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Look, just because you clean up a logo from the '60's doesn't mean you've modernized a horrible logo. Crap is still crap. I love this absolute farce of making it better, "They cleaned it up and made the lines a little thicker." Crap is crap. If it's brown and smells like crap and came out of a dog's behind, I don't care how many lines you take out of it, it's still crap. It's a crappy 1960's logo. If you like taking dog crap and sculpting it, then go play with your dog crap. This logo is crap and always will be crap. Why should I like this logo? It's a crappy 1960's or 70's logo that someone "cleaned up" and I'm suppose to like it? Why? As far as the comments on the Canucks and being weak and that weak center of theirs, well here's my "A" game. How many Cups do they have? How many Cups will they have together? Tough? Anyone can go into the corner during the regular season. Tough is taking a team into the playoffs and winning Cups. When has Sundin done that? When have the Canucks done that? If he's a leader, he's lead his team nowhere. It's the same thing every year about Matt, how he's underrated and how tough he is and time and again just like the talented Vancouver Canucks, when the big boys play, Matt is watching the big boys on the tv. The only reason Matt Sundin is tough, is becuase he played in Toronto, where everything hockey comes from. Know the history of the Canucks? I know the history of them winning 0 Cups, flaming out in the first round, so what else do I need to know? Oh, I'm sorry you lost a couple of Stanley Cup finals. Key word there is lost. History? What history? The team traded away it's best player for Barry Pederson. Yeah, that's your history right there. Trading away Cam Neely! That is and always will be the real Canucks history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randyc Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Matt Sundin? Huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 The logos not perfect but it's far from a :censored:ing piece of crap. The colors are great; they fit the city and the province perfectly, IMO one of the best colour schemes out there. Johnny Canuck might be some cheesy hockey playing Lumberjack but that what makes him so great. It's a fun logo that does a good job representing the name of the team and something the fans can connect to. The year he's from is irrelevant, the Blackhawks logo is from the 60's, is it crap to? Compare the logo to other ones right now and try to tell me it looks dated. It's true the Cancuks have a :censored:ty history, logo and record wise, but as of today it is a team I can be proud to say I'm a fan of. But the you saying about Sundin is pure nonsense, the guy is a :censored:ing Swede, if they're is one thing Canadians love it's calling Euros soft, you need to be on badass for the media and fans to call a Euro tough, including Don Cherry. And yes the Cam Neely trade was pure crap but every team has made a horrible trade. Shouldn't tarnish anyone's history, unless your the Islanders and for 10 years you did nothing but make bad trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I like it a lot, but green and blue is still Hartford Whalers and only Hartford Whalers to me. And their take on it was better than Vancouver's, which don't contrast enough. The logo itself though is very good, and a few of you are going a little too hard on it. It has a certain "old-time hand-drawn logo" look to it, yes, but that's good! The only small problem with going to this is that it means yet another uniform era for the poor Vancouver Canucks. They'll never settle on anything. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I don't think this ought to be considered a new uniform era, even if they adopted it as the primary, considering that a version of this logo was included in the last overhaul. It's a tweak, not a new identity.As far as the Whalers, I loved 'em but they're gone. They have no more claim on the colors than Boston did on the Penguins' black and gold. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarred Revolver Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I wore a green shirt with this logo on the front yesterday for St. Pattys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 As far as the Whalers, I loved 'em but they're gone. They have no more claim on the colors than Boston did on the Penguins' black and gold.Perhaps even less, since Vancouver adopted the colors in 1970, while the Whalers were green and gold in their WHA days, not going green and blue until the merger in '79. On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letterform Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Does anyone outside of a few logo geeks really care about the Hartford Whalers? I guarantee you that 99.999% of the population never thinks about the Whalers and does not see any connection with the Canucks. It's a completely trivial issue outside this forum. DEATH TO REEBOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsox Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Does anyone outside of a few logo geeks really care about the Hartford Whalers? I guarantee you that 99.999% of the population never thinks about the Whalers and does not see any connection with the Canucks. It's a completely trivial issue outside this forum.People in the Hartford, CT/Springfield, MA area care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Does anyone outside of a few logo geeks really care about the Hartford Whalers? I guarantee you that 99.999% of the population never thinks about the Whalers and does not see any connection with the Canucks. It's a completely trivial issue outside this forum.Get ed.*Saves as a standard response to any letterform post* On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Does anyone outside of a few logo geeks really care about the Hartford Whalers? I guarantee you that 99.999% of the population never thinks about the Whalers and does not see any connection with the Canucks. It's a completely trivial issue outside this forum.Get ed.*Saves as a standard response to any letterform post*So it's not just me. There's something in the water around here. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.