mgdmhl

Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

Recommended Posts

As a lifelong Bucks fan, I'm going to have a hard time getting used to liking their new logo. The snout looks like it's half dog, half goat, and it doesn't look like a deer at all. In the past I've stated on the boards that I wasn't a fan of how the soon-to-be previous logo used lines rather than shading to form the buck's face, but I did like how it looked exactly like a buck, and had a distinct line around the nose, as all deer have.

On the new logo:

I don't like that the logo is 50% cream and is full of so much empty space.

I don't like the curved lettering that awkwardly sits inside that box which just suddenly ends.

Most of all, I don't like the face. If this thing didn't have antlers, we wouldn't even know that this is a deer, because the snout looks bad.

Yes yes and yes. And like I said earlier, the more I read of that interview the angrier I get about it. Because the design team basically calls out the previous one for it's awful snout, then describes how it could easily look like another animal and then puts "their six" guys who can draw a deer up against anyone. I love confidence but I don't even think people who LIKE the new look think they lived up to that bit of illustrative trash talk.

It's just all wrong. They went huge on the new rack because they incorrectly thought the proportions on the old rack (AND ears btw) were all wrong? But they correctly identified the neck proportions were wrong? How? How does that happen? Upthread 10 pages or whatever I did a composite lay over of a real buck and the old logo. It takes two seconds to see the REAL deer's ears are actually bigger still! It takes two seconds to note that while racks vary in size...the former Bucks logo was an 8 pointer. The deer photo I found was a 13 pointer if memory serves. So again, if anything the old Bucks rack was likely a "touch" exaggerated for effect to the BIG side already.

And what did they have to say about the eyes? He referred to them as "negative eyeballs" which I can only assume was his clunky backward way of talking about what you just mentioned. The old logo essentially used line work for facial detail but also white lines on a dark background...which to some people is always going to read as a photo negative of the more common dark line work containing lighter shapes. But to take those very founded concerns and twist that into the justification for Space Ghost eyes? That's incompetent. Deer do have big dark eyes. Doe eyes!?!? So the dark eyes weren't the problematic design choice. The DARK GREEN DEER was the problematic design choice.

And as I and others have proven over the years. The problematic design choice of a super dark deer with dark eyes can be solved easily with some skilled illustration. Don't use line. Use tone. Reveal the form through shadow in that tone...the set always had silver which could have been the solution all along for those tonal shadow solutions.

And with all the supposed problems they identified they forgot to mention how the eyes of the old buck are on the front of the face like. And because they didn't see it they repeated it...except with Space Ghost eyes. I love Space Ghost eyes. The most popular thing I've ever done had Space Ghost eyes. But it doesn't fit here. Negative eyeballs. Nice.

I gotta tell you guys. The more I think about it , I think this design team was over their heads in many many ways. Anyone really dig into the logic of what they wrote about intentional errors in their font as a call back to errors in the pre-digital era of the Bucks unis? WTF? What does that mean? Total BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ preach, brother.

how can they be so dumb as to not let you do the whole damned thing? you obviously have more passion for this than some uppity Brooklyn bros...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't altogether dislike this new logo, I wish teams were more apt to get detailed with logos instead of simplifying the utter life out of it for the purposes of it looking good as an app icon. I googled "deer logo" and there were many that had at least some effort at shading and texture that looked far more like actual deer.

The wisconsin thing is neat and the blue is desperately needed but the primary rings hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only who thinks Sonics colors through this design...in a way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only who thinks Sonics colors through this design...in a way?

Dude, really? As much you might want/think the Bucks are moving to Seattle, they're not moving. No ownership is going to buy a team then spend thousands and millions on a re-brand and arena plans just to see them go to waste in a few years. The Bucks owners, of a year now, wouldn't spend all their time and money just to give the team to the Adam Silver and the NBA to sell and move wherever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only who thinks Sonics colors through this design...in a way?

If you think cream is the same as yellow. And ignore the blue. The green is also darker. So in a way, yes, but also in no way whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only who thinks Sonics colors through this design...in a way?

Dude, really? As much you might want/think the Bucks are moving to Seattle, they're not moving. No ownership is going to buy a team then spend thousands and millions on a re-brand and arena plans just to see them go to waste in a few years. The Bucks owners, of a year now, wouldn't spend all their time and money just to give the team to the Adam Silver and the NBA to sell and move wherever.

I never said anything implying a move to Seattle. I was just making a comment on the (somewhat) similar colors, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, if you're going to go there then the obvious allusion is to Green Bay, not Seattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh that reminds me! More hate from that article. At one point one of the principles says something to the effect of...."well, if you know you're color theory at all you know green and cream actually go really well together"

That took me aback too. Is that color theory? I guess so. Like elementary color theory...cream being yellow ISH...and green and yellow going together. Green is also complementary enough to orange and brown and whatever else you could imagine being "in" that cream family.

So that's not a wrong statement. But it's still (to me) kinda over the top? Kinda smarmy or big timey? Right? You actually don't need to KNOW color theory to know that dark green and tan look OK together. Just look at every 90s Honda Accord that was forest green with a beige interior. That's kind of street wisdom rather than advanced stuff to me.

Whatever right? I'm trying to set the guy up for punchline part. Having established that these guys are the kind of guys who start sentence with "If you know your color theory".....they then go on to pick the Thunder's blue and plop it next to the green where it can't be seen...where it vibrates like crazy and never is placed next to the cream where it could look quite nice.

So to me? THAT's color theory in practice. Knowing you'd better put the cream between the blue and green basically at all times OR go with Memphis' blue. THAT's knowing your stuff.

Everything with these guys is calling their shot and then striking out looking on the next pitch. It'd be hilarious if it were someone else's team just from the performance aspect of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, tonight was (hopefully) the last time we'll ever see the Bucks in the green road unis with red trim. They looked great in losing to the Bulls, going down 0-2 in the series. Green and red together were a great, inspired and unique color scheme. Forest green and tan is better served for the uniform of some dude working at a cell phone store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, tonight was (hopefully) the last time we'll ever see the Bucks in the green road unis with red trim. They looked great in losing to the Bulls, going down 0-2 in the series. Green and red together were a great, inspired and unique color scheme. Forest green and tan is better served for the uniform of some dude working at a cell phone store.

We'll be back in Chicago for at least game 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When can we expect to see New Era fitteds with the new logo? Around summer or so? I think a contrasting bill might look good with the logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When can we expect to see New Era fitteds with the new logo? Around summer or so? I think a contrasting bill might look good with the logo.

I'm definitely gonna need a snapback of that new Buck head for when I go visit my family out in Wisconsin this Summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, tonight was (hopefully) the last time we'll ever see the Bucks in the green road unis with red trim. They looked great in losing to the Bulls, going down 0-2 in the series. Green and red together were a great, inspired and unique color scheme. Forest green and tan is better served for the uniform of some dude working at a cell phone store.

We'll be back in Chicago for at least game 5.

I hope not mjd :D

broom-sweep-floor-15248719.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope the Bucks go to a lime green and forest green pallet. I think it would be a lot more unique. It would reduce the amount of red in the NBA, which is sorely needed. Plus, they will further separate themselves from 3 of the 4 teams in their own division, who have red as a major part of their uniforms.

I say it all the time and I will continue to say it, any color pallet that reduces the amount of R/W/B in the major leagues is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you hoping for this 5-10 years down the road? Because the new color scheme is set in stone ... well, for now.

I still want to see how the blue is incorporated. It seems forced right now, although using it only for water borders is a good story.

Finally read the Lukas piece, and I can't imagine that it would have been worth it to wait a year for a darker green or different blue. The green they have is plenty dark and the Knicks, Thunder and "Carolina" blues mentioned gave them a decent range to work with.

I still don't look at this logo searching for a literal deer, but I didn't mind the old one, either. They sure trashed it in the article, though.

Overall I like it so far and am very curious to see the uniforms. Any chance they are putting them on beer glasses? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally read the Lukas piece, and I can't imagine that it would have been worth it to wait a year for a darker green or different blue. The green they have is plenty dark and the Knicks, Thunder and "Carolina" blues mentioned gave them a decent range to work with.

Respectfully disagree. Obviously. It's always worth it to not waste a hue like that. I think waiting would have not only benefitted the palette but perhaps the artwork too. There was no ticking clock on this. But say for the sake of argument that you are right. There were also several tweener solutions. First and foremost using a lighter blue. Something that Denver or Memphis or LAC are already wearing wouldn't have clashed so hard. [EDIT] Also....Reebok and Adidas are related in some business sense right? One bought the other or something? I think their shared design offices are up the road from me in Canton MA and perhaps even have some staff overlap. So......this may seem like a foolish question, but I don't QUITE understand how a company like that wouldn't have access to at minimum a slightly larger array of blue dyes or fabrics to choose from given all the sports their umbrella covers. The Thrashers old on perhaps or something from a soccer team even. What am I missing? The NBA unis use special fabric no one else uses that doesn't take dye very well?

Or lastly, keep those colors separated by cream. I think it's likely to work better on the uniforms if the blue is greater proportion. But it really doesn't work on that WI logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain why the notches in the font are "technically wrong"?

Would love to. You have time to read 8,000 words look at 100 images and spend 3 hours? Cause I've been over and over that statement and it makes no sense.

in short. NOTHING is technically wrong. You make a font and you are responsible for the characteristics of each character. But you can and usually will have to override that at some point. Usually somewhere between "M" and "Z" when letter forms start defying convention.

What they've laid out here is the simplest Minecraft stacking boxes font imaginable. Each ascender is the same width (X) as the crossbars are tall (X). Make sense? There's no pen and ink variety to it where some parts are thicker than others. It's literally stacked cubes. The counters (the negative space holes in side letters) are 1.5x the width of the ascenders.

So imagine a grid laid out like this:

Bucks_Font_Character_zpsphhjuygk.jpg

And you just color in which cubies you want to until it makes the letters you like.

It's actually vastly simpler than even a digital clock or calculator template would be. Easier still than standard block fonts because most of those would incorporate 45 degree angles on some or all of the corners to give the slight appearance of roundness or curvature as needed.

I'm not insulting this technique. It's a valid style choice. But it's also literally not possible to get much simpler than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "technically wrong" they really mean inconsistent. None of the numbers should have notches. The thing is nobody will notice or "appreciate" that. I certainly don't appreciate it. The whole numeral set looks like crap.

Share this post


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