mgdmhl

Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

Recommended Posts

Guys.

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

See it yet?

W

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

73f687a60c91d5e5ac4b4978672aec0c.240x240

qoyadw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

popscollar.jpg

LOL TaylorMade

Btw..someone else mentioned that Milwaukee might go the Minnesota route of having a "M" transposed with a "W" for Wisconsin.

No no no..they're not a part of the Illuminati.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What about relegating the Irish Rainbow to warmups, like the Celtics did with yellow? I'd want them to keep it simple on in-game uniforms, but it wouldn't hurt to incorporate that in little ways here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Bucks_Slide_zpsri7fqv47.jpg

I freakin love this update, Sterling. I saw it around while I was researching Bucks concepts and this one's the best update of the frontal buck for sure.

I agree that maybe they should have gone with a side-view or 3/4 buck to fully distance themselves from the recent rebrands, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the batman comparisons i want this to be the new logo. absolutely love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9hHk2TNl.jpg?1

Some subtle differences in this version which was apparently spotted at store in Milwaukee. Antlers look better IMO as does the M. Ears are more prominent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The frustrating thing for me is they could have gone with either Irish Rainbow, or Green + Red (or, my preference, the early 80's version with both). Instead they choose neither and bring blue in out of left field, just like the purple. It will take 7 years before they admit these aren't the team's "real" colors. Hopefully it's really minimized, because the green/cream isn't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anatomy_zpsyvzgkueh.jpg

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.

About the neck...shouldn't the neck be foreshortened if it's a live quadruped looking forward? Seems to me you'd only see the long neck looking from below, like at a mounted head high on the wall.

To me the main difference is that the new one is far more abstract, which is ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9hHk2TNl.jpg?1

Some subtle differences in this version which was apparently spotted at store in Milwaukee. Antlers look better IMO as does the M. Ears are more prominent.

Seeing it here, I'm really digging it. Modern twist on the full deer head and hidden references to boot. Fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

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.

Anatomy_zpsyvzgkueh.jpg

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.

Bucks_Slide_zpsri7fqv47.jpg

At no point did I say that accurate proportions is the criterion for a good illustration. It was your statement.

Your concept is good and has more accurate proportions indeed, and looks good that way too. Still it is too sleek overall for my taste, the official (now old) version looks bolder and has more pride without looking mean, and, to my subjective view, is better and more suitable than yours. Another good thing it had going on for itself is that it didn't include a ball, which gave it more charm.

The neck being foreshortened as chackfu said also crossed my mind.

What comes to your and Conrad's opinion that they should've depicted the buck in another angle, I disagree completely, since there is not a bolder view of a stag than a head-on view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those who don't click and read:

· Blue underlines the importance of the Great Lakes and multiple rivers in the history and future of our city and state. In fact, some think the word Milwaukee was derived from the Algonquian term “Millioki,” which meant “gathering place by the waters.”

· The addition of blue to our color palette pays homage to the history of professional basketball in Milwaukee, as blue was the primary color of the Milwaukee Hawks, the city’s first NBA team.

I thought it was Algonquian for "the good land"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that ticks me off the most is that this new composition, both the lone buck as well as the (presumed) new primary, loses its connection to the Wisconsin state route signage:

bucks.png

m1-5_WI_s-2.gif

Whether intentional or not, I always saw that as a subtle stroke of genius. And now it (will be) gone.

--------------------------------------

For what it's worth, I also found this concept while perusing cyberspace...found its abstraction interesting in a "Picasso-yote" type of way, which to me takes on even more meaning when taking into account Milwaukee's considerable artistic vibe:

Milwaukee-Bucks-Redditor-Logo.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anatomy_zpsyvzgkueh.jpg

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.

About the neck...shouldn't the neck be foreshortened if it's a live quadruped looking forward? Seems to me you'd only see the long neck looking from below, like at a mounted head high on the wall.

To me the main difference is that the new one is far more abstract, which is ok.

I think I'm starting to love you guys. /blush. LIsten, foreshortening is clearly a minute possibility here. First let's clear one thing up. That mount photo I overlayed isn't elevated. That's as eye to eye as a photo gets. That's why I chose it. Let's not pretend that the taxidermist put the animal in a pose it never takes in nature. Deer put their heads very high up once every few moments because it's the easiest way to look out for predators and get the lay of the land. I'm guessing they can easily reach 10 degrees off completely vertical. They do it all the time. And moreover they are depicted in art as doing so all the time.

Back to foreshortening. Even though I'm arguing deer are depicted in the alert pose almost as a default in our culture? They clearly walk and graze even more often than anything else. I think we can agree the old Buck was not grazing. So what you're theorizing is, "Is this guy in a more relaxed walking /standing pose with his neck somewhere between a (let's say) resting 25 and 45 degree angle? Right? And if you search the internet you find lots of photos like this, lots of paintings and lots of mounts....all in this relative position. It would seem to fully support your conclusion.

BUT...the thing is foreshortening would also dictate that the lower the deer's head is, the less of the side of the face and neck should be visible from a frontal view. This is because the deer's spine attaches to the back of the skull, not from beneath like a person's. Make sense? If that Buck is truly just lowering his head slightly then the shouldery bumps would be protruding from a spot right under his ears...even or thereabouts with his eye. I don't have time to mock this up visually for you this morning with examples. And I'm sure I'm not going to get the benefit of the doubt and will end up doing that later on. But that's what would happen. Foreshortening doesn't happen in a vacuum to just one body part. If you take my mount photo as the vertical extreme of a deer's natural posture. Take this photo below as the 90 degree horizontal extreme where the deer's head is full extended toward the viewer. What happens due to foreshortening? the neck all but disappears! Because it's behind the head and obstructed from view. Thats foreshortening! So you're suggesting that the reality is somewhere in between I think...that the deer in the logo is standing (as I guessed) with a walking/resting neck angle of roughly 25-45 degrees. I'm with you so far. But you'd already be witnessing the signs of the gradual process of that neck disappearing behind the head entirely. And based on where the two connect to one another, one can infer this is NOT what is going on in the old Bucks logo.

foreshortening_zpsfinvz0au.jpg

The subtle visual clues the old Bucks logo is giving us are that the spine is beneath the skull (like a person's). That thing is much more Brock Lesnar than foreshortened deer.

As for truepg's "Bolder" comments that have become the go-to in this discussion? How does one argue something is or isn't bolder? We're just going to have to disagree and leave it there I think. I think what you're picking up on is the human quality subtext of the image itself. You disagree. Taking the facial features out of it for a moment, his body is clearly in a bold and menacing sort of bouncer at the club ...stand-off position. Most of us tend to feel his face is poorly rendered enough to give him an odd sad or possibly confused quality and that was always hard to square with the (lets call it BOLD) posturing. But if you don't read the face as sad (gold dress blue dress?) then yeah, this guy is absolutely "tough" in a way a real deer could never be. And especially if maybe you grew up with it? I didn't. I was already a sophomore in college when it was released so I have no nostalgia for it at all. I saw it for what it was immediately. I'm trying to be very magnanimous though and acknowledge repeatedly that I can see why someone might be drawn to it under those circumstances....even charmed by what I and many perceive as its flaws.

I'm not sure why the easiest solution is to agree there's no accounting for taste. It's not foreshortening. It's simply not. That's objective. But people can like (even love) a man-deer and that's totally allowed. That's subjective. We love beer barrel men and skating penguins. Right? It's all allowed. Eye of the beholder and all of that.

Carry on.

PS - I can also see from your POV that the new one isn't as "bold" even with demon comic eyes. I totally agree. There is (as a point of contrast) not enough foreshortening on the new Bucks snout. The position of his (still sheep) face and head is almost as though his head is facing down. Right? He is in like getting ready to butt heads with you position with snout downward and looking out from under his eyebrows at you. But the rack and tines don't follow him down accordingly. And I know it's hard...deer antlers are brutal to get right. Moose and elk and caribou and almost everything else is easier cause they all trail up and away from the head. Deer antlers obviously go up and away and then change course and veer right back at you like a Triceratops. And there are no great head-on triceratops logos are there? So I'm with you truepg on what you feel you may be losing in the new one. I am. I do not like it. Unfortunately I think I don't like it because its more of the same (bad illustration) and you think its for a different reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah...I can't unsee those "human eyes" now. In that new buck, those eyes are a little too close together...and probably a tad too large at that.

The other thing I'm starting to realize...I'm really not liking the new rack. I know larger racks are more intimidating and all, but the newer rack just appears a little too large for its own good. I like the idea of a hidden basketball in there...but if you look at the older buck, you could probably draw the same inference, which is to say I wish the newer logo would've hidden the idea of a basketball within the larger tined without adding a whole new set closer to the head.

All that said...it's still a decent enough primary, but I want to see how (or if) this fits within the rest of the visual identity system (provided they designed their identity that way). And while I'm not crazy about the particular shade of the green, I do like that they are focusing, at least for now, strictly on the green and cream. (Which I wonder if that just "sounds" good to them--the "green and the cream", as something of a marketing tool.) Makes the white details rather superfluous, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9hHk2TNl.jpg?1

Some subtle differences in this version which was apparently spotted at store in Milwaukee. Antlers look better IMO as does the M. Ears are more prominent.

Is it me or does this deer look possessed? Something about those eyes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

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.

Anatomy_zpsyvzgkueh.jpg

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.

Bucks_Slide_zpsri7fqv47.jpg

YES!

Maybe with the new green, cream and blue, without lime/irish rainbow would be better. But the render is perfect. Buck looks more compelling, inspiring.

Other "actual" new one looks like it was done in a couple hours, robotic and after thoughtish.

Your Loss, NBA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like it was done in a couple hours

Is this the new "Clip art!" hyperbole? Because it makes about as much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9hHk2TNl.jpg?1

Some subtle differences in this version which was apparently spotted at store in Milwaukee. Antlers look better IMO as does the M. Ears are more prominent.

Thanks for the pic. Is the text white or cream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like it was done in a couple hours

Is this the new "Clip art!" hyperbole? Because it makes about as much sense.

+1, not sure what "robotic" and "after thoughtish" mean either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.