Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

[eliasrappaport]

The now old Buck was more respectable, tougher looking. The new one is uber cartoony. Should've explored that more. I've seen concepts way better.

We will have to reserve judgment for when the full thing is actually revealed, but each time I see the new buck from the glass, I am less impressed.

This new logo is lightyears better than the old Buck. That thing was garbage.

[dgthree]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/237275/Bucks-Reveal-New-Color-Scheme-M-Logo-Image

This has such a Buggs Bunnyish, Looney Tunes feel to it.

on point!

I was going to say it reminded me (at least in spirit) of the Mavericks alternate. The "block M" just seems 90s-style dated and doesn't fit in with other modern logo/design trends. I don't care that necks creates the "M," it just isn't a good enough excuse to use that font style.

Otherwise, if the logos and colors are true, I am on board.

[QuarterRoy00]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/237275/Bucks-Reveal-New-Color-Scheme-M-Logo-Image

This has such a Buggs Bunnyish, Looney Tunes feel to it.

on point!

I was going to say it reminded me (at least in spirit) of the Mavericks alternate. The "block M" just seems 90s-style dated and doesn't fit in with other modern logo/design trends. I don't care that necks creates the "M," it just isn't a good enough excuse to use that font style.

Otherwise, if the logos and colors are true, I am on board.

Besides the fact that they are both the letter 'M', I don't see how these two logos look anything like the new Bucks 'M'.

I am also not a fan of the hoof 'M' myself, but it's grown on me. I am a huge fan of all the other logos on that glass. That cream and greens goes so well together and I can't wait to see it on various merch and the jerseys.

While I will admit I was disappointed that they weren't going in some direction with the orange, I think this is a great direction for the franchise.

[Germanshepherd]

Am I the only one who thinks the m logo looks like it belongs in that font?

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

My reaction on all of this: Eh.

The M logo is kinda weird and pretty not-great. The buck isn't awful, but it's far from good. And it looks like he has the same face as the Memphis Grizzlies' logo.

The new colors aren't bad, and I appreciate the originality... but that being said, I liked red as a compliment color for them.

Call me old fashioned, but I would have went with an update of this era:

[The_Admiral]

Yep. That's the best they ever looked.

[SFGiants58]

I'm all for the Irish Rainbow, but Green/Red is the Bucks to me. Just updating the championship-era look would be great, with some lip service to the Irish Rainbow in the form of an alternate (which should not be red, as red really should remain secondary - like gold for the Pelicans). I think of the Irish Rainbow the same way I think about the Astros' Tequilla Sunrise - it's good in small doses, but really doesn't need excessive use like some people think it does.

I don't care about the "LOL Xmas" connotations, or that the color scheme is the same as a Minnesota team. Green/red is simply the best color scheme for the Bucks.

[truepg]

I don't believe there's any objective measure that would support the idea of the current/former Bucks logo being a "quality" illustration. Not unless the quality is mediocre. It's eyes are where a person's eyes would be. It's got a human proportioned neck and shoulders.

Say what you want, but this is just not true.

And this new buck lacks a 'crown' (as in head), among other things.

Which part isn't true? The neck to head ratio/proportions? The placement of the eyes? The brow tine highlights that read to the viewer as sad eyebrows? I specifically used the word objective (rather than subjective) inviting you or anyone to argue those issues/flaws directly. Saying they aren't true doesn't address them as far as I'm concerned. I'll reiterate. Loving the look has nothing to do with it being good. I'm attached to some really bad art too.

The whole statement that is quoted, obviously. The illustration is anatomically correct, thus doesn't support your view of it being "mediocre" because of it. You mention "objectivity", but then use the argument that the brow tine (which are actually the pedicles) highlights read as sad eyebrows, which is a totally subjective statement, since I never read them as such until I tried to. Neither I ever read the nose as one of a pig, although I admit it can be interpreted as such.

Ha! Well I think we're probably officially worn out the grace period and are now annoying everyone with our arguing about this now former bit of artwork. I've been hating this half my life. I'm not about to budge on my astute and studied interpretation. I could write a master's thesis on how much this Bucks logo sucks. The folks at NBA properties couldn't give two rips this mark and it's always showed. And the key bit you mention here is that (to you) the illustration is anatomically correct. But the trouble is that It isn't. That's exactly the point. See the image below if I can figure out how to post it.

The overlay doesn't work perfectly but it's pretty good. The red areas are where the artists took non-deer like (and I'd argue human-like) liberties. The neck is way WAY too short....like a whole head too short. This creates the man shoulders. The eyes are a tad too centered on the face. The head is rounded on top. All of these make him more humanesque than a deer is. He's anthropomorphic but not in a cool, cute or mascot way. More like a Island of Dr. Moreau way.

Even areas that are rendered quite effectively (like the rack) are still bothersome. Why put the sad eyed highlight on the brow tines when a highlight really would have been useful to show which tines up high pass in front of which others?. The face and neck wants to hint at some dimension then but the upper rack is 100% silhouette?

You can claim to have never seen sad eyes or pig nose. That's awesome. I'm far from the only one to interpret the logo that way. That was a meme amongst bitter Bucks fans before memes were memes. I didn't invent that.

And my favorite stupid awful part is the white accents by the chest. You've got what is otherwise a completely symmetrical logo right? And in most cases with such a work an artist will throw in some asymmetry here and there....as a visual treat to keep the eyes moving and keep the image from being too stale.. And this artist decides to use that little bit of asymmetry for what exactly? The comma shaped ...highlights? on the collar/shoulders? I'm guessing they are highlights because there's no anatomical reason for two white stripes there. This is where the "roid" mocking comes from too. How else to interpret the random shininess than as glistening bulging muscle? But glistening over fur? And why the two square notches missing from the tank top shaped area that is meant to be the white tummy fur? the chest of this animal (right above the MILWAUKEE type, is arguably the most intricate portion of the entire piece and yet non of it means or depicts anything in particular. It's filler. It's visual jibberish.

Kudos for bringing up the comparison pic. Yes, the deer has a taller neck, you were right about that one - everything else is so close that it is a pretty darn accurate simplification (you can't really make a case about the eyes). Actually, the deer looks even better and bolder with the shorter neck and shoulders without hurting the eye, and a neck that long in the logo would look ridiculous - but that's not the point here. Yes, the two square notches missing from the white chest have always bugged me too. Everything else you are simply overanalyzing strongly. Still, the proportions are nothing like human.

[Shadojoker]

Via realGm_Bucks

I think the blue wont be as visible or noticeable in too much marketing. Maybe black for sure.

I also think people are overreacting in terms of the blue. Just like Hornets have Carolina blue and gray..etc.. with them its mainly Teal and purple. Just food foe thought.

[truepg]

Via realGm_Bucks

I think the blue wont be as visible or noticeable in too much marketing. Maybe black for sure.

I also think people are overreacting in terms of the blue. Just like Hornets have Carolina blue and gray..etc.. with them its mainly Teal and purple. Just food foe thought.

That's a fan-made graphic, it uses Conrad's first redraw of the logo.

[mjd77]

Via realGm_Bucks

I think the blue wont be as visible or noticeable in too much marketing. Maybe black for sure.

I also think people are overreacting in terms of the blue. Just like Hornets have Carolina blue and gray..etc.. with them its mainly Teal and purple. Just food foe thought.

That's a fan-made graphic, it uses Conrad's first redraw of the logo.

I'm guessing the use of blue may be kept to a minimum and maybe only used as a trim color. It seems a bit odd that it isn't in any of the logos or wordmarks on the glass.

[TaylorMade]

Someone on another site said that the deer looks like he's wearing a popped collar and now I can't unsee it.

[TJKiddsHead]

I'm all for the Irish Rainbow, but Green/Red is the Bucks to me. Just updating the championship-era look would be great, with some lip service to the Irish Rainbow in the form of an alternate (which should not be red, as red really should remain secondary - like gold for the Pelicans). I think of the Irish Rainbow the same way I think about the Astros' Tequilla Sunrise - it's good in small doses, but really doesn't need excessive use like some people think it does.

I don't care about the "LOL Xmas" connotations, or that the color scheme is the same as a Minnesota team. It's simply the best color scheme for the Bucks.

exactly how i feel. modernize the old school forest/red unis, update the logos and i would've been happy. add a red alt and an irish rainbow alt and i would've considered them perfect.

[altosax29b]

This may be a stupid question, but with the Bucks nixing the red, could this make it more likely that the Sonics would bring back red to their identity whenever we see them again? They could own the green and red, and there's history with those colors for hockey obviously.

[Conrad.]

Via realGm_Bucks

I think the blue wont be as visible or noticeable in too much marketing. Maybe black for sure.

I also think people are overreacting in terms of the blue. Just like Hornets have Carolina blue and gray..etc.. with them its mainly Teal and purple. Just food foe thought.

That's a fan-made graphic, it uses Conrad's first redraw of the logo.

Haha, yep, that's correct. You can tell from the eyes and rounded mouth/nose parts.

[FinsUp1214]

This may be a stupid question, but with the Bucks nixing the red, could this make it more likely that the Sonics would bring back red to their identity whenever we see them again? They could own the green and red, and there's history with those colors for hockey obviously.

I sure hope so. *Unpopular opinion* My favorite Sonics color scheme ever was the 90's green-brick-gold. Green-gold was a great scheme too, but green-brick-gold looked SO good together and was a scheme the Sonics really owned at the time all across sports, it seemed. You didn't really see it anywhere until the Wild came along.

I'd of course want a different uniform entirely, but if Seattle came back with those colors, I'd be a very happy man.

[TaylorMade]

This may be a stupid question, but with the Bucks nixing the red, could this make it more likely that the Sonics would bring back red to their identity whenever we see them again? They could own the green and red, and there's history with those colors for hockey obviously.

Nope. There's a reason the team switched back to green and gold in 2001. Any other color scheme will send fans into a tizzy.

[Sterling84v2.0]

I don't believe there's any objective measure that would support the idea of the current/former Bucks logo being a "quality" illustration. Not unless the quality is mediocre. It's eyes are where a person's eyes would be. It's got a human proportioned neck and shoulders.

Say what you want, but this is just not true.

And this new buck lacks a 'crown' (as in head), among other things.

Which part isn't true? The neck to head ratio/proportions? The placement of the eyes? The brow tine highlights that read to the viewer as sad eyebrows? I specifically used the word objective (rather than subjective) inviting you or anyone to argue those issues/flaws directly. Saying they aren't true doesn't address them as far as I'm concerned. I'll reiterate. Loving the look has nothing to do with it being good. I'm attached to some really bad art too.

The whole statement that is quoted, obviously. The illustration is anatomically correct, thus doesn't support your view of it being "mediocre" because of it. You mention "objectivity", but then use the argument that the brow tine (which are actually the pedicles) highlights read as sad eyebrows, which is a totally subjective statement, since I never read them as such until I tried to. Neither I ever read the nose as one of a pig, although I admit it can be interpreted as such.

Ha! Well I think we're probably officially worn out the grace period and are now annoying everyone with our arguing about this now former bit of artwork. I've been hating this half my life. I'm not about to budge on my astute and studied interpretation. I could write a master's thesis on how much this Bucks logo sucks. The folks at NBA properties couldn't give two rips this mark and it's always showed. And the key bit you mention here is that (to you) the illustration is anatomically correct. But the trouble is that It isn't. That's exactly the point. See the image below if I can figure out how to post it.

The overlay doesn't work perfectly but it's pretty good. The red areas are where the artists took non-deer like (and I'd argue human-like) liberties. The neck is way WAY too short....like a whole head too short. This creates the man shoulders. The eyes are a tad too centered on the face. The head is rounded on top. All of these make him more humanesque than a deer is. He's anthropomorphic but not in a cool, cute or mascot way. More like a Island of Dr. Moreau way.

Even areas that are rendered quite effectively (like the rack) are still bothersome. Why put the sad eyed highlight on the brow tines when a highlight really would have been useful to show which tines up high pass in front of which others?. The face and neck wants to hint at some dimension then but the upper rack is 100% silhouette?

You can claim to have never seen sad eyes or pig nose. That's awesome. I'm far from the only one to interpret the logo that way. That was a meme amongst bitter Bucks fans before memes were memes. I didn't invent that.

And my favorite stupid awful part is the white accents by the chest. You've got what is otherwise a completely symmetrical logo right? And in most cases with such a work an artist will throw in some asymmetry here and there....as a visual treat to keep the eyes moving and keep the image from being too stale.. And this artist decides to use that little bit of asymmetry for what exactly? The comma shaped ...highlights? on the collar/shoulders? I'm guessing they are highlights because there's no anatomical reason for two white stripes there. This is where the "roid" mocking comes from too. How else to interpret the random shininess than as glistening bulging muscle? But glistening over fur? And why the two square notches missing from the tank top shaped area that is meant to be the white tummy fur? the chest of this animal (right above the MILWAUKEE type, is arguably the most intricate portion of the entire piece and yet non of it means or depicts anything in particular. It's filler. It's visual jibberish.

Kudos for bringing up the comparison pic. Yes, the deer has a taller neck, you were right about that one - everything else is so close that it is a pretty darn accurate simplification (you can't really make a case about the eyes). Actually, the deer looks even better and bolder with the shorter neck and shoulders without hurting the eye, and a neck that long in the logo would look ridiculous - but that's not the point here. Yes, the two square notches missing from the white chest have always bugged me too. Everything else you are simply overanalyzing strongly. Still, the proportions are nothing like human.

Yay! Consensus! Kind of. You concede me a point on the neck, but then argue that anatomical correctness suddenly isn't as important afterall and that it would look ridiculous if it WERE accurate? Then you go on to tell me I can't make an argument on the eyes (have we met?) and basically just seem to lay out a case for what cannot be done or what isn't important. I'm here to tell you that every single line, ever vertice matters...to me at least. It had better at least. I've taken a crack at "fixing" this logo a while back. And it's been around the internet. You may or may not have seen it. I didn't post it earlier because I'm more interested in what they did or didn't do right moving forward. But I'm posting it now so you can hopefully see what I mean. Visuals seem to help. My neck is longer. Not 100% anatomically accurate long. About 50-60% longer than the original though I'm guessing. And that I think really begins to help make it look like an animal with a long powerful neck without the proportions getting wonky. It's all a balancing act. I left the antlers largely alone except for overlapping the lead tines with the stroke to show that it moves forward in space. Then I un-pigged the nose. All it needed was a bottom jaw that was white and a gap between the white that wraps around the snout. Lastly I reshaped the eyes and the white around them and nudged the eyes a LITTLE further apart on the skull (just as I showed you upthread). It makes all the difference in the world. Now the eyes look like they are more on the side of the animal's head and his gaze is no longer one of "deer in headlights". This guy means business.

Now for the record, I don't think the Bucks should have used my work or anything like it anymore. This was just a portfolio piece and an exercise for me. I'm actually of the opinion that something like the one P34 rolled out on these forums would have been the way to go. That one is fantastic.

Going from head-on view to another head-on view like they did is only going to invite these comparisons like the one we're having now.

I have also always wanted to try a Bucky Badger like update for original recipe Bango...cause he was the man.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Guys.

I get it now. Flip the M logo upside down.

See it yet?

W

Wisconsin... Or maybe even... Wumbo?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Guys.

I get it now. Flip the M logo upside down.

See it yet?

W

Wisconsin... Or maybe even... Wumbo?