SO much better than the 2012 logo.

Paul Granese said:SO much better than the 2012 logo.

Yep the Rio one is WAY better.

I keep seeing "20 YR" whenever I look at the London one, haha. So bad.

Paul Granese said:SO much better than the 2012 logo.

Agreed. The interview was a good read as well.

I just constantly see this when I look at London's.



2016 one is 100 times better.

OMG THE CLOSING CEREMONY IS GIVING ME SO MUCH LIFE

A MARCHING BAND RENDITION OF PARKLIFE AND NOW PET SHOW BOYS!!!!

I was shocked/disappinted when i saw the London logo. I honestly thought it was a joke

ONE DIRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now lets see how the conspiracy theorists make the word Zion out of this one.....

Raw Meat said:Now lets see how the conspiracy theorists make the word Zion out of this one.....

I did it.

Although pretty much any type would be an improvement over London, the one for Rio is pretty gorgeous.

http://www.geekosystem.com/rio-2016-olympics-typefont/#0

SPICE GIRLS SLAYED

BOWING AT THIS ICONICNESS

Victoria looked so pissed off.
not a massive fan of the logo.. feels like i've seen it a few times already, elsewhere
but the typeface is beautiful

Rio's logo looks awesome.

not even going to lie, it took me half way through the games for me to realise that it was '2012'. Although, I never really took too much notice of the games at all.

Christiane said:Victoria looked so pissed off.

When is she ever not? hahahaha

Who is Ryan C. said:

Christiane said:Victoria looked so pissed off.

When is she ever not? hahahaha

the one in the white needs to calm down

logo and type - excellent

spice girls - embarrassing

wotto said:logo and type - excellent

spice girls - Iconic

Fixed it for you

YOU ALREADY POSTED THAT RYAN DOESN'T COUNT

Adhesive Hippo said:YOU ALREADY POSTED THAT RYAN DOESN'T COUNT

FUCK THE POLICE!

Never thought I'd actually say this, but I prefer the 2012 logo :|

No matter how pretentious I find their justification for the 2012 identity, can't deny they made valid points about the games and the city that hosted them. I think it did exactly what they intended it to do, and I applaud the balls it took to put an identity out there that they knew would get everyone talking, mostly in a negative way. Its ugly as sin, no doubt, but it worked.

Rios logo, while aesthetically not as offensive, bores me beyond belief. How can I get excited by such an expected, corporate, safe little squiggle? How does this logo give any room for exciting, beautiful design in the other areas of the games identity?

The typeface is undoubtedly an improvement in every way possible, though.

2012 is better than 2016 I think.
2012 has that pop flavor. 2016 is just on the edge of being boring (if not because of lush colors), with depiction of people holding hands. It is just one of the cliche "unity" logo.

radiomode said:2012 is better than 2016 I think.
2012 has that pop flavor. 2016 is just on the edge of being boring (if not because of lush colors), with depiction of people holding hands. It is just one of the cliche "unity" logo.

I do not think it is too cliche though, because when you think about it, the logo stands out as "Rio to the world", not the other way around. So in some aspects, I think it has achieved its purpose of representing Rio in a much more different light than what we often think Rio is about.

I like both, but I do find myself leaning to 2012 simply because of its "idontgiveafuckshapesuglytype" boldness. on the other hand, 2016's logo is well executed and very well formatted that it comes out as "safe". I mean, you simply cannot bring out a flaw, concept and execution wise. It's so perfect that it is "safe" so it comes off as "boring".

The type for Rio in my honest opinion, is one of the best typefaces that I have ever seen my entire life, not to mention the Paralympic logo enhanced even further by way of vibration, human touch, sound, and even smell. That is awesome.

Abstruse Apparel said:I just constantly see this when I look at London's.




2016 one is 100 times better.

yup agreed! haha Lisa blowing Bart

Mel B is a problem!

chad manzo said:

radiomode said:2012 is better than 2016 I think.
2012 has that pop flavor. 2016 is just on the edge of being boring (if not because of lush colors), with depiction of people holding hands. It is just one of the cliche "unity" logo.

I do not think it is too cliche though, because when you think about it, the logo stands out as "Rio to the world", not the other way around. So in some aspects, I think it has achieved its purpose of representing Rio in a much more different light than what we often think Rio is about.

I like both, but I do find myself leaning to 2012 simply because of its "idontgiveafuckshapesuglytype" boldness. on the other hand, 2016's logo is well executed and very well formatted that it comes out as "safe". I mean, you simply cannot bring out a flaw, concept and execution wise. It's so perfect that it is "safe" so it comes off as "boring".

The type for Rio in my honest opinion, is one of the best typefaces that I have ever seen my entire life, not to mention the Paralympic logo enhanced even further by way of vibration, human touch, sound, and even smell. That is awesome.

Yip, agreed but you cant blame the designer for going for the "safe" / boring / obvious route. After the 2016 got such a ass raping from the critics. I prefer the 2016 logo. 2012 was just trying to be different so much it looked like bart was going down on lisa. The designer pulled it off

it's an extremely well executed version of something i feel like i've seen plenty of times on logo showcase sites like logopond. some abstract people holding hands in some weird orb shape.

https://www.google.com/search?pws=0&q=abstract+people+logos&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=-XQpULSSPKPiiALOvIDoCg&biw=1294&bih=851&sei=_nQpUKKAHobwiwKI2oHQCg

I just saw this and I had to share it haha

Vinny S said:

Abstruse Apparel said:I just constantly see this when I look at London's.




2016 one is 100 times better.

yup agreed! haha Lisa blowing Bart

I hate this logo, but not even with you adding colour could I see what you saw till it was pointed out. you guys are perverted! haha

bleet said:

chad manzo said:

radiomode said:2012 is better than 2016 I think.
2012 has that pop flavor. 2016 is just on the edge of being boring (if not because of lush colors), with depiction of people holding hands. It is just one of the cliche "unity" logo.

I do not think it is too cliche though, because when you think about it, the logo stands out as "Rio to the world", not the other way around. So in some aspects, I think it has achieved its purpose of representing Rio in a much more different light than what we often think Rio is about.

I like both, but I do find myself leaning to 2012 simply because of its "idontgiveafuckshapesuglytype" boldness. on the other hand, 2016's logo is well executed and very well formatted that it comes out as "safe". I mean, you simply cannot bring out a flaw, concept and execution wise. It's so perfect that it is "safe" so it comes off as "boring".

The type for Rio in my honest opinion, is one of the best typefaces that I have ever seen my entire life, not to mention the Paralympic logo enhanced even further by way of vibration, human touch, sound, and even smell. That is awesome.

Yip, agreed but you cant blame the designer for going for the "safe" / boring / obvious route. After the 2016 got such a ass raping from the critics. I prefer the 2016 logo. 2012 was just trying to be different so much it looked like bart was going down on lisa. The designer pulled it off

haha. you guys ARE perverted. anyway, I do honestly think that it was not in the intention of the agency to go through the "safe" route. I can only imagine the committee's brief with so many points they wanted to accomplish, and as always, the compromise of satisfying the client AND breathing in your creative juices by process always comes out as "safe". Eliminating impossible points and streamlining the brief with the client is sometimes difficult to find common ground for both parties.

There are some exceptions though, unless the client is a fellow creative and would develop it further, rather than constrict it. I think with the 2012 logo, it comes out as so daring and such a rebel that the committee for Rio saw something naked and just wanted to clothe it. just my humble .02 cents.

Random said:
Mel B is a problem!

Excuse you but Mel B owned

Maybe I'm tripping but I see "Rio" in the design of the 3 people holding hands. That is actually a killer logo.

nomadjj said:Maybe I'm tripping but I see "Rio" in the design of the 3 people holding hands. That is actually a killer logo.

I do, too, but in a peripheral sort of way

Anthony Smith said:...Its ugly as sin, no doubt, but it worked...

http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much-did-they-cost

It definitely worked. Especially for Wolff Ollins, the design agency. I think, they're pretty happy with the 625,000 Bucks they got for this awful piece of crap. Seems to me like they've thrown all the worst design-crimes of the 80s together to come up with this result.

Even their website is a good example of horrible usability --> http://www.wolffolins.com/

if u have 5min to burn

Thought the logo was cliche and overused as well but it works so damn well, taking in consideration it's from Rio, Brazil. It simply reflects the culture and that whole Brazilian vibe. And that type is brilliant. I'm looking forward to the entire branding and especially the 3D motion graphics, I'm positive it'll be great.

Idk if anyone noticed while watching the Closing Ceremony (or if anyone here even watched it), but here's the logo popping up during:



I also forgot to post this, but here's the logo for the Paralympics

bleet said: iframes are not allowed :(

if u have 5min to burn

Josh Elowsky said:

nomadjj said:Maybe I'm tripping but I see "Rio" in the design of the 3 people holding hands. That is actually a killer logo.

I do, too, but in a peripheral sort of way

It DOES say Rio! :O

Who is Ryan C. said:

And I believe this is an abstraction of the 3D Rio logo seen at a different angle.