FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
On that ground, they need to change it. Even if it is only slightly. I find it very unfair that any epilepsy sufferers have to suffer whenever that clip is shown on tv.
Relax darling, I'm on top of the situation -{
Bill Tanner"Spending the money quickly" iPosts: 261MI6 Agent
edited June 2007
The risk of the advert inducing epilepsy seems to be exaggerated out of all proportion.
I have a child with Epilepsy so have done a fair bit of research. Only those with Photosensitive Epilepsy (about 5%, and most commonly girls aged 6 - 12) are triggered by flashing lights, so it's a fairly small group. I don't deny that there's a small possibility of people being affected, but suspect that this is just another stick with which the tabloids are beating the Olympic logo campaign.
On an unrelated side note - when Sydney held the games, the head of the IOC called them the best games ever. Is that still the case, or did Athens change all that?
It's a tradition to say that at the end of every game. And they said this after every game - except Atlanta.
That's because it was a widely perceived disaster.
Though I do have to admit, the Sydney games set a standard that was very hard for Athens to maintain (and it didn't, in my opinion). I'm betting Beijing will be a carefully choreographed and well-manicured spectacle though.
I think it's a lot more interesting than the "abstract athlete running" or "abstract torch" logos which every other Olympics ever has managed to come up with.
Come now jetset, that's a little unfair isn't it? Granted the past few Olympic logos have looked like that, and certainly back in the old days the designs were fairly uninspiring. But for a while in the sixties and seventies some of the designs were different and daring like the London 2012 design. Unlike the London 2012 design, they actually looked quite good.
Obviously the 1964 logo for Tokyo was very nation-specific; the rising sun motif was wonderfully simple and relevant to the venue. The 1968 logo has dated considerably, but at least it was of its time (which the London 2012 logo is not):
The Munich 1972 logo was simple and attractive, while the Montreal 1976 logo was again immediately recognisable but not irritating to look at. The 1980 and 1984 logos were pretty standard and unimaginative, but what about Seoul 1988? I think that was a fantastic logo, recognisable and incorporating the national Taeguk symbol (using the colours of the Sam-Taeguk) featured on the Korean flag so that it has a concrete connection to the venue.
After that the stylised 'athlete running' look proved dominant, but it is surely incorrect to suggest that this is the first time something different has been tried.
This is a design which has to be finalised in 2007, but still look modern, fresh and interesting in 2012 - an aeon in design terms. You can't be too modern, because it will date, and you can't be too "classic", because by definition it won't look modern.
I agree that whatever they did would be open to criticism. Anything new or brave will be. My personal objection, and I suspect the objection of some other people, is not based upon the attempt to do something fresh and innovative. My objection is based on it just being poorly designed. The 'London' font is odd, it isn't attractive to look at and I *still* think it looks like something unmentionable on a family friendly website.
Still, all of this is subjective. Yet given the number of complaints I should think this is not just the grumbling 'usual suspects'. Speaking of which. . .
The most depressing thing about this whole debate for me is that this is the first salvo in the massive wave of cynicism and criticism that is going to greet everything that they announce about the Olympics. There's a perverse habit of the British which means we immediately complain about anything the minute it's announced. I strongly suspect that if the public had been given a choice of fifty potential logos, with a phone vote, the universal reaction would have been that all fifty were rubbish and what they really needed was something in mock Tudor that didn't affect house prices. Look at some of the astonishingly bland reader designs on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6723027.stm) and look at what's winning: it's boring, it's predictable, it's safe.
Argh. Rant over.
If I thought this was the typical British gloomy attitude I'd be right with you jetset. I am glad London got the Olympics, and wish the whole country would get behind the games in a way the whole country *didn't* during the bid. But I think this has more to do with a naff logo which has been poorly executed.
That said, I don't think this should have been opened to the public. Then the design really would have been predictable and a design lowest common denominator. I just wish they had chosen a better designer, whose brand vision amounted to more than trying to be 'street' with the kids.
Come on people. How can anyone think it is a good design. The effort in the sun today with the tube map theme is a million times better imo. Or even this one.
I heard some bloke on teh news saying the whole idea of the logo is to create publicist about teh Olympics. So he thought the massive negative publicity was a good thing.
As H. D. Thoreau said, "Simplify, simplify." That's what lasts--the simple and elegant (think of the Bond gunbarrel or the "007" motif). The Olympic logo is just too damned complicated and, in my never-humble opinion, fugly. Surely, my Briton friends, there's someone's office you can ransack over this?
I've dealt with Wolff Olins- they know what they're doing. I do think their rates are unbelievable, but that really applies to the whole branding business. This logo is distinctive, and I haven't seen anything better or more eye-catching from any of the 'my cat could do better' brigade. It's got five years yet; give it time.
The Olympic logo is just too damned complicated and, in my never-humble opinion, fugly.
I think that's one word which has proven to be pretty worthless on this forum!
How so? Those who have used the word in the other context haven't exactly been given reason to change their mind.
Regarding the logo, I don't like it, but the one good thing is that it has at least sparked my interest in the 2012 Olympics, when ordinarily I couldn't care less (it is two Olympics away. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The logo was unveiled on Monday
A segment of animated footage promoting the 2012 Olympics has been removed from the organisers' website after fears it could trigger epileptic seizures.
Prof Graham Harding, who developed the test used to measure photo-sensitivity levels in TV material, said it should not be broadcast again.
Charity Epilepsy Action said it had received calls from people who had suffered fits after seeing it.
Organiser London 2012 said it will re-edit the film.
The new logo for the event, which is a jagged emblem based on the date 2012, was unveiled on Monday.
A London 2012 spokeswoman said the health concerns surrounded a piece of animation shown at the launch, which was recorded by broadcasters and put on the official website.
Emphasising that it was not the logo itself which was the focus of worries, she said: "This concerns a short piece of animation which we used as part of the logo launch event and not the actual logo."
She said the section of footage concerned showed a "diver diving into a pool which had a multi-colour ripple effect".
The spokeswoman said: "We are taking it very seriously and are looking into it as a matter of urgency."
'Suffered seizure'
Prof Harding is an expert in clinical neuro-physiology and he designed a test which all moving adverts need to undergo to check they will not trigger a reaction in people with epilepsy.
He told BBC London 94.9FM: "It fails the Harding FPA machine test which is the machine the television industry uses to test images.
"And so it does not comply with Ofcom guidelines and is in contravention of them."
Christopher Filmer rang BBC London 94.9FM to say he suffered a seizure while watching the footage on television and his girlfriend also suffered a fit and needed hospital treatment.
"The logo came up on TV and I was thinking about the 2012 Games and then I was out," he said.
Epilepsy Action said the images could affect the 23,000 people in the UK who have photosensitive epilepsy.
It said it had even triggered breakthrough seizures where people have a relapse after being seizure-free for a long time.
A spokesman for the charity said: "The brand incorporates both the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which is ironic as the latter is a showcase for athletes with disabilities.
"People can strive for years to gain seizure control and it is important that nothing puts this at risk."
The whole logo concept is overrated and overpriced. It's a symbol (pun intended) of what is wrong with a large section of the 21st and late 20th centuries, namely style over substance. This is true of many things a lot more important than logos for sports events- what shows on the surface is perceived as more important than what lies underneath, to put it in other words.
The whole logo concept is overrated and overpriced. It's a symbol (pun intended) of what is wrong with a large section of the 21st and late 20th centuries, namely style over substance. This is true of many things a lot more important than logos for sports events- what shows on the surface is perceived as more important than what lies underneath, to put it in other words.
As one who makes a living in the graphic design industry, I'd have to disagree somewhat. Style over substance is certainly not a good thing, but in age where communicating visually is increasingly important, a good logo can deliver a focused message to the individual or organization quickly and effectively. The question for me is: Does this logo communicate effectively in a matter of a few seconds the idea 'Olympics in London'? Honestly, not really. I believe that the Olympiad is a celebration of strength, grace, achievement, endurance, and aspiration. To me, those are typified in more slender, balanced, and less angular elements.
In my opinion (and design is very subjective) I think the logo falls short in the 'London' text element only in that the overall shape seems 'weak' (and the Olympics aren't about weakness) and the understating of the classier rings logo by placing it on a colored background.
The challenge with the Olympics logo is that it's international and every culture has it's own unique perceptions of color, shape, pattern, etc. What looks good for one group might be repulsive to another. Logo identities that transcend culture are rare. The usual Olympic Rings logo is one that is classy and has stood the test of time and ethnicity. Adding to it almost always seems like courting disaster.
The logo is going to be swept under the rug in five years anyway. This 2012 logo is being wheeled out now because it has a life-expectancy and if they are expected to build any brand awareness from it and 'sell' it, they have to start now.
Well, there's the 'everyone else in the world' disagreeing factor!
it's not exactly a popularity contest is it?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The whole logo concept is overrated and overpriced. It's a symbol (pun intended) of what is wrong with a large section of the 21st and late 20th centuries, namely style over substance. This is true of many things a lot more important than logos for sports events- what shows on the surface is perceived as more important than what lies underneath, to put it in other words.
It's interesting, for as a logo, it is all about style. I woiuld say though that it is an example of terrible style, or lack of style, over substance.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
What I'm saying is that while CR was enormously successful, there are still some people who consider Craig to be 'fugly,' and their view is unlikely to be changed regardless of how much money CR made or wether Craig can now be considered to be a movie star. It's like the logo. Even if turns out to be a very effective logo, increasing talk about the Olympics, I will still think it's ugly.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Bill Tanner"Spending the money quickly" iPosts: 261MI6 Agent
Ta-Dah!
And there it is ladies and gentleman, a perfect example of how any topic on any subject can eventually be turned around into a Craig Good/Craig Bad argument*.
*Or, if all else fails, an "I love AVTAK" statement.
The whole logo concept is overrated and overpriced. It's a symbol (pun intended) of what is wrong with a large section of the 21st and late 20th centuries, namely style over substance. This is true of many things a lot more important than logos for sports events- what shows on the surface is perceived as more important than what lies underneath, to put it in other words.
It's interesting, for as a logo, it is all about style. I woiuld say though that it is an example of terrible style, or lack of style, over substance.
My fault for not being clear. I should have started with "The whole concept of logos" rather than "The whole logo concept". Hope that's better!
What was wrong with this one, it's not seizure inducing!
I canot believe that horrible one they chose cost 400,000 pounds. A child could have designed a better one...free!
That's a very good point. What is wrong with that one? We could have saved a load of money!
That was not the most imaginative logo, but at least it had a relevance to the host city (I think; the coloured ribbon is supposed to represent the Thames. . . unless my geography is shockingly poor!).
That Mexico City one from 1968 is nausea-inducing. It was very much of its time though, whereas the London 2012 logo is very much of the 1980s. This new logo, to me, is stunningly un-modern. The branding seems to have been based on an attempt to be down with the street and the kids, or at least that is what Lord Coe is suggesting. This is hardly a novel concept, and normally misfires. Design agencies seem to not have much idea about what is 'cool' amongst the younger generation, and that changes every ten minutes anyway. Moreover, what one young person thinks is cool differs drastically from the next yung person. It was a strategically poor decision to base the brand on appealing to 'young people' as they will see right through it.
I know, the designers were caught between a rock and a hard place: whatever they came up with some people would grumble. Nevertheless, the breadth of the negative reaction would suggest to me that this is more than the typically grumpy British attitude to new ideas.
The favourite I have seen is the Seoul 1988 one: simple, classy and evocative of the host nation. Moreover, some of the ones on the BBC website were not bad and were quite fresh and distinctive. Again, the problem with this new logo is not that they have tried to be different and daring. The problem is, for want of a better expression, that the logo is crap. In my opinion, of course.
Comments
No, I think its shaping up quite nicely
And as our beloved Mayor, Ken Livingston tells us, 'its all for the price of a Walnut Whip'
A bargain, obviously
Sorry jsw and Bill, I just cant buy it. I think they have tried to be too clever and its backfired.
Apparently there is some sort of petition that already has 35,000 signatures asking for it to scrapped.
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
I have a child with Epilepsy so have done a fair bit of research. Only those with Photosensitive Epilepsy (about 5%, and most commonly girls aged 6 - 12) are triggered by flashing lights, so it's a fairly small group. I don't deny that there's a small possibility of people being affected, but suspect that this is just another stick with which the tabloids are beating the Olympic logo campaign.
Though I do have to admit, the Sydney games set a standard that was very hard for Athens to maintain (and it didn't, in my opinion). I'm betting Beijing will be a carefully choreographed and well-manicured spectacle though.
Obviously the 1964 logo for Tokyo was very nation-specific; the rising sun motif was wonderfully simple and relevant to the venue. The 1968 logo has dated considerably, but at least it was of its time (which the London 2012 logo is not):
The Munich 1972 logo was simple and attractive, while the Montreal 1976 logo was again immediately recognisable but not irritating to look at. The 1980 and 1984 logos were pretty standard and unimaginative, but what about Seoul 1988? I think that was a fantastic logo, recognisable and incorporating the national Taeguk symbol (using the colours of the Sam-Taeguk) featured on the Korean flag so that it has a concrete connection to the venue.
After that the stylised 'athlete running' look proved dominant, but it is surely incorrect to suggest that this is the first time something different has been tried.
I agree that whatever they did would be open to criticism. Anything new or brave will be. My personal objection, and I suspect the objection of some other people, is not based upon the attempt to do something fresh and innovative. My objection is based on it just being poorly designed. The 'London' font is odd, it isn't attractive to look at and I *still* think it looks like something unmentionable on a family friendly website.
Still, all of this is subjective. Yet given the number of complaints I should think this is not just the grumbling 'usual suspects'. Speaking of which. . .
If I thought this was the typical British gloomy attitude I'd be right with you jetset. I am glad London got the Olympics, and wish the whole country would get behind the games in a way the whole country *didn't* during the bid. But I think this has more to do with a naff logo which has been poorly executed.
That said, I don't think this should have been opened to the public. Then the design really would have been predictable and a design lowest common denominator. I just wish they had chosen a better designer, whose brand vision amounted to more than trying to be 'street' with the kids.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But... but that's disgusting...!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I heard some bloke on teh news saying the whole idea of the logo is to create publicist about teh Olympics. So he thought the massive negative publicity was a good thing.
I think that's one word which has proven to be pretty worthless on this forum!
Regarding the logo, I don't like it, but the one good thing is that it has at least sparked my interest in the 2012 Olympics, when ordinarily I couldn't care less (it is two Olympics away.
Epilepsy fears over 2012 footage
The logo was unveiled on Monday
A segment of animated footage promoting the 2012 Olympics has been removed from the organisers' website after fears it could trigger epileptic seizures.
Prof Graham Harding, who developed the test used to measure photo-sensitivity levels in TV material, said it should not be broadcast again.
Charity Epilepsy Action said it had received calls from people who had suffered fits after seeing it.
Organiser London 2012 said it will re-edit the film.
The new logo for the event, which is a jagged emblem based on the date 2012, was unveiled on Monday.
A London 2012 spokeswoman said the health concerns surrounded a piece of animation shown at the launch, which was recorded by broadcasters and put on the official website.
Emphasising that it was not the logo itself which was the focus of worries, she said: "This concerns a short piece of animation which we used as part of the logo launch event and not the actual logo."
She said the section of footage concerned showed a "diver diving into a pool which had a multi-colour ripple effect".
The spokeswoman said: "We are taking it very seriously and are looking into it as a matter of urgency."
'Suffered seizure'
Prof Harding is an expert in clinical neuro-physiology and he designed a test which all moving adverts need to undergo to check they will not trigger a reaction in people with epilepsy.
He told BBC London 94.9FM: "It fails the Harding FPA machine test which is the machine the television industry uses to test images.
"And so it does not comply with Ofcom guidelines and is in contravention of them."
Christopher Filmer rang BBC London 94.9FM to say he suffered a seizure while watching the footage on television and his girlfriend also suffered a fit and needed hospital treatment.
"The logo came up on TV and I was thinking about the 2012 Games and then I was out," he said.
Epilepsy Action said the images could affect the 23,000 people in the UK who have photosensitive epilepsy.
It said it had even triggered breakthrough seizures where people have a relapse after being seizure-free for a long time.
A spokesman for the charity said: "The brand incorporates both the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which is ironic as the latter is a showcase for athletes with disabilities.
"People can strive for years to gain seizure control and it is important that nothing puts this at risk."
Well, there's the 'everyone else in the world' disagreeing factor!
The whole logo concept is overrated and overpriced. It's a symbol (pun intended) of what is wrong with a large section of the 21st and late 20th centuries, namely style over substance. This is true of many things a lot more important than logos for sports events- what shows on the surface is perceived as more important than what lies underneath, to put it in other words.
As one who makes a living in the graphic design industry, I'd have to disagree somewhat. Style over substance is certainly not a good thing, but in age where communicating visually is increasingly important, a good logo can deliver a focused message to the individual or organization quickly and effectively. The question for me is: Does this logo communicate effectively in a matter of a few seconds the idea 'Olympics in London'? Honestly, not really. I believe that the Olympiad is a celebration of strength, grace, achievement, endurance, and aspiration. To me, those are typified in more slender, balanced, and less angular elements.
In my opinion (and design is very subjective) I think the logo falls short in the 'London' text element only in that the overall shape seems 'weak' (and the Olympics aren't about weakness) and the understating of the classier rings logo by placing it on a colored background.
The challenge with the Olympics logo is that it's international and every culture has it's own unique perceptions of color, shape, pattern, etc. What looks good for one group might be repulsive to another. Logo identities that transcend culture are rare. The usual Olympic Rings logo is one that is classy and has stood the test of time and ethnicity. Adding to it almost always seems like courting disaster.
The logo is going to be swept under the rug in five years anyway. This 2012 logo is being wheeled out now because it has a life-expectancy and if they are expected to build any brand awareness from it and 'sell' it, they have to start now.
What; being a movie star? Er... yeah!
And there it is ladies and gentleman, a perfect example of how any topic on any subject can eventually be turned around into a Craig Good/Craig Bad argument*.
*Or, if all else fails, an "I love AVTAK" statement.
Really, the London logo (as much as I don't like it) surely can't be as harmful as this thing?? It's brain hurting and nausea inducing
My fault for not being clear. I should have started with "The whole concept of logos" rather than "The whole logo concept". Hope that's better!
I canot believe that horrible one they chose cost 400,000 pounds. A child could have designed a better one...free!
That's a very good point. What is wrong with that one? We could have saved a load of money!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
That Mexico City one from 1968 is nausea-inducing. It was very much of its time though, whereas the London 2012 logo is very much of the 1980s. This new logo, to me, is stunningly un-modern. The branding seems to have been based on an attempt to be down with the street and the kids, or at least that is what Lord Coe is suggesting. This is hardly a novel concept, and normally misfires. Design agencies seem to not have much idea about what is 'cool' amongst the younger generation, and that changes every ten minutes anyway. Moreover, what one young person thinks is cool differs drastically from the next yung person. It was a strategically poor decision to base the brand on appealing to 'young people' as they will see right through it.
I know, the designers were caught between a rock and a hard place: whatever they came up with some people would grumble. Nevertheless, the breadth of the negative reaction would suggest to me that this is more than the typically grumpy British attitude to new ideas.
The favourite I have seen is the Seoul 1988 one: simple, classy and evocative of the host nation. Moreover, some of the ones on the BBC website were not bad and were quite fresh and distinctive. Again, the problem with this new logo is not that they have tried to be different and daring. The problem is, for want of a better expression, that the logo is crap. In my opinion, of course.