Jump to content

Winnipeg Jets


lancebridwell

Recommended Posts

I wasn't going to do it, but that ugly piece of garbage (In my opinion) deserves to be wastebasketed. If you're fond of the new logo, I tried to unhorrible-ify it in my secondary, which I still don't like a whole lot. But anyways, this is what I have so far. Any suggestions on where to go from here?

2a8ktms.jpg

C&C Welcomed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you completely took the meaning out of the secondary, so if that was your intention, you succeeded. Not a big fan of the script tracing, it's very boxy and doesn't flow well. Such a thin logo wouldn't look so hot on the front of a jersey, anyway.

Another good rule to follow: unless it's different shades, stick to 3 colors or less. You've got 5 on this thing, that makes it look cluttered and non-cohesive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally just had the blue, white, and red, but then I thought it looked too bland, and that I'd get hell for having a blue smoke trail, so I added the grey, then I added the gold because I thought it looked (as mentioned, bland). I'll simplify the colors back down to my original scheme, and as for the secondary, I'll have the wordmark around the circle, because I realize that the blue circle was directly from the Canadian Air Force. Also, I'll thicken up the blue "Jets" and the wordmark entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but this is in no way any type of improvement over what was released, far from it in fact. The only thing I can recommend is scrapping it and starting over. Not trying to sound harsh, but it's just so off and nowhere near any solidity (real word? Gonna use it anyway). If it was just a concept on your own, it maybe wouldn't be so bad. But with your condescending bashing of the actual logo and insistence that anything was better, you kind of set yourself up for a higher level of critique that you didn't meet. Your not the only one who's done it. A lot of people come on here and just degrade a teams branding and give they're ideas and "fixes" while providing a less than lackluster concept that just leaves them looking like a whiner with little credibility. If your gonna critique a logo that badly and offer up an apparent improvement, make sure the concept can back it up. Just a tip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closely relating this re-do to the actual set, but with four different options including the script.

2mewufd.jpg

Better? Worse? Which do you like of both? C&C encouraged and welcomed.

While the colors are improved (over your previous concept), the jet being the darker red just blends into the maple leaf and is not noticeable, and not in a neat subtle way. The jet looks like an obvious trace job on an actual picture, rather than a icon type silhouette as the real one has. The designs with the placements over leaf and the one with the rotated jet just look awkward. And the upper right looks like the jet has explosive diarreha. The wordmark is a little plain, but I'm not to thrilled with the one they unveilled.

Basically, what you're doing in trying to improve upon their logo is create your own that is far inferior to it, and then gradually make changes and "improvements" to it to the point to where it is going to be their current logo. See? If you want to upgrade a logo, you need to start at or above the quality and go up, not down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole thing is I hate their leaf that they're using. I don't mind if they're going for the RCAF/AIRCOM look, but that leaf ruins it for me. It needs to be less, how should I say it, all over the place. The shading looks very odd, and it looks plain deformed on the primary. And it's not a trace of a photographic, it's a wire frame figure of the CF-18 Hornet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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