It's a complete joke :arrr:

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43010000/jpg/_43010835_official_logo.jpg

 

It's incredibly outdated and supposed to encourage interest in the Olympics from the younger people of the country - how exactly is it supposed to do that when it looks like a graffiti relic from the 80s? A sentence which summed it up in my view would be 'A logo designed for young people by old people who don't understand young people' -_-

 

And you know a logo is terrible when people think it looks like Vicky Pollard having sex with the Elephant Man or Lisa Simpson giving head :rofl:

 

It's garish, it's ghastly and it doesn't represent our country in any way whatsoever - we get a rare chance to host the Olympics and we can't even design a proper emblem for it, instead shelling out £400,000 for a logo which could have been done by a 5 year old! :puke2:

 

I would MUCH rather have gone for the following:

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43010000/jpg/_43010067_richard_416.jpg

 

Or just stuck with the one we used for the bid:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e4/London-2012-logo.svg/800px-London-2012-logo.svg.png

 

Rather than go with the outdated trash Coe and co. have decided to use -_-

 

I doubt it will do much, but there is a petition circling around which could persuade the Olympic committee to change their minds on this disaster, and hopefully it will if the committee has any sense whatsoever :rolleyes:

 

Discuss ^_^

Looks like some kind of orange robot. :\

I see the Lisa giving head :rofl:

It's not bad, I prefer the second one you posted though ^_^

 

I had a look at some older logos and ours is SO different to the others, the second one is more in-keeping with those.

That logos probably acceptable in the 80's but it's not cool, what its trying to be

Anyone want a custard flan? :D

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/TiswasFlinger.jpg

I quite like it ^_^

I quite like it ^_^

:mellow:

 

I am gradually losing faith in your sanity Josh :(

HIDEOUSHIDEOUSHIDEOUS

 

To think we paid £400,000 for that :mellow:

How does that represent the British culture in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM?

:mellow:

 

I am gradually losing faith in your sanity Josh :(

It's CHAVTASTIC DONT YOU AGREE? :w00t: The sign that is. ;)

 

But seriously, it's not that bad. But I prefer this one ALOT more:

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43010000/jpg/_43010067_richard_416.jpg

 

But think about it, the Olympics arnt here untill 5 more years, it's not like they're going to hold onto that Logo for the next 5 years is it?

And you know a logo is terrible when people think it looks like Vicky Pollard having sex with the Elephant Man or Lisa Simpson giving head

 

LOL LOL LOL

I SEE IT :rofl:

But think about it, the Olympics arnt here untill 5 more years, it's not like they're going to hold onto that Logo for the next 5 years is it?

No, seriously, that's the one they're using for the actual Olympics :cry:

It's a complete joke :arrr:

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43010000/jpg/_43010835_official_logo.jpg

 

It's incredibly outdated and supposed to encourage interest in the Olympics from the younger people of the country - how exactly is it supposed to do that when it looks like a graffiti relic from the 80s? A sentence which summed it up in my view would be 'A logo designed for young people by old people who don't understand young people' -_-

Tyron you put that so well. A relic from the past.

Problem with it are the straight lines - like early graffiti in a run down train station and the 80's colours. Only good point is the 3d effect and that it scales well.

I heard on the BBC this might not be the final version which is a relief. I don't think this would be saying anything other then old and outdated to anyone under 30. I hear that Seb Coe approves of it, well how old is he? :teresa:

hate it. horrible horrible logo. worst ever

The pink version:

 

http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2007/06/04/1180973903_0.jpg

 

It also comes in green and blue.

 

But nonetheless a poor choice, couldn't anyone come up with something better?

The pink version:

 

http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2007/06/04/1180973903_0.jpg

That's the one that looks like Vicky Pollard :(

DO NOT WATCH IF YOU HAVE EPILEPSY

 

"London 2012 resembles Lisa Simpsons giving..."

ROFLMAO :lol:

Edited June 6, 200718 yr by Joao Filipe

HIDEOUSHIDEOUSHIDEOUS

 

To think we paid £400,000 for that :mellow:

£400,000?!!!!! I could do better for a tenner!

 

 

I like the second one, though.

Apparently it's supposed to show that 2012 would be "everyone's games". Don't ask me how, I'm just repeating what the consultant said. The alternative you show is far better - clever and stylish. There some other good alternatives suggested by users of the BBC website although, be warned, some others are as bad as the offical one.

 

I've never been able to understand how a logo is supposed to put across a message - apart from the message that someone has been daft enough to pay a group of consultants vast sums of money to design a new logo. These consultants always claim that their design is "modern" or "contemporary". What they actually mean is "This logo will look dated in five years so you'll have to come back to us and pay us even more money to design another one".