2012 London Olympics
>>366396Not even a bad logo
>>366396I actually really like this one. No clue why it gets so much shit
>>366411it's very interesting on its own, but IMO it was not appropriate for the context. something so edgy couldn't fly well with a global event for general audience which your average Joe watches. and IMO it doesn't say "London" at all.
>>366417It was relevant at the time. There was a lot of olympic branding and advertisement all over Britain in the year leading up to it, the design became pretty common and seemed to attract public eye.
>>366444relevant? maybe, depends on what you mean. appropriate? wouldn't say so. many hated it for how edgy it was. could as well slap brutalism there next time.
>>366396Every time I doubt my talents, I remember this shit exists
I don't hate it, but it feels like something you'd see on a Nickelodeon t-shirt from 1995.
>>366417>doesn't say "London" at allIt's right there
>>366396I can't tell what it's even supposed to look like. Unless it's a dude getting sucked off.
>>366537I mean the image itself. compare it to most other identities, they reflect the location quite well. London 2012 doesn't do it at all.
>>366587Sydney 2000 and Beijing 2008 are the best ones.
>>366587>Atlanta 1996This one is nostalgic for me, personally. It's nice to know it's a good design on top of that.
>>366587Pretty much every other olympic logo looks like it's been taken off some generic stock logo website.
>>366590you like that lil guy running huh
>>366614that's a dumb opinion. nearly all these logos are relevant to their locations and reflect olympics well. and yeah, they're simple, duh. welcome to graphic design.
>>366396The second 2 is trash but it's not that bad.