hi

the new logo for Londons olympics, 2012, was supposed to look futuristic and stay in fasion 'til 2012.
All over the internet have been partitions to change it. They spent £500 000 to pay for the guy to make it.

was it 1/2 a million down the drain?

or was it well spent?

tell me your opinions...

(btw, can someone post a picture of it so other people, who dont know what it looks like, can see it, thnx!)

There's the logo.

I know they're all trying to be flashy and fab and glam and everything you associate with being futuristic (read metrosexual) but right now it looks like crap. I mean, you can't really call that £500,000 well spent, but hey if the organisers think this is what will draw crowds into London then I pat them on the back three times.

I've also seen a promo ad where a diver splashes into the pool and these FRICKEN HUGE RAINBOWS splash out nowhere, and apparently this caused epilepsy attacks as well as a petition to change the current marketing campaign altogether, but who knows we may all learn to accept and love this logo! ;o

What I've learn from all this is apparently gen y are into rainbows and colours and happy stuff, so uhh to all you emos out there YOU'RE NOT COOL ANYMORE!!!

It's OK, but some of the ones people sent into the BBC News Online site were much better.

Ditto..

I absolutly detest that logo. for me to discribe what i think it looks like would break the rules of this forum.

What was wrong with the logo used for the bidding

It's the 80's!

Reasons why that logo = FAIL:

1. It uses obnoxious colors that contrast so much that they catch the eye but do not appeal to it.

2. It's square instead of rectangular, and any good logo maker knows that a rectangle appeals more to the eye that a square.

3. It's got too much detail for a logo. (Well not exactly, but you know what I mean, it's too busy). Was the yellow shadow really necessary? Did they have to use that font?

4. It looks unprofessional and almost childish, and doesn't really show anything that's English. Seriously, they could have at least made it union-jack colors or incorporate part of the Millennium eye or something somewhat related to London!

nothing else to say. Except that:
It's the ugliest thing i ever had the displeasure of putting my eyes on.
THIS is a decent logo:

it makes sence: it has seagulls, things natural of the place, the colors match with the place and competition. Aand, even with that, it's not so good.

lol You have four years left. I'm pretty sure it'll change.

I really hate that. I'm sorry, but it looks more like a blob than anything else.

...

london ZOR?

The logo looks like a folded version of the Great Britain's flag. I do't really like it anyway. Not because it is ugly but because it looks very weird

I don't like it because you can't tell that it says 2012, the whole thing looks like it was made in paint, the text is too plain, the colors just don't fit the Olympics, and its definitely not worth the money. I think that they might change it before the Olympics because it looks terrible.

It's hard to 'stay' in fashion if it never 'goes' into fashion.

And by pay the 'guy' who made it, do you mean 'kid'

And Cellblock will donate it all to the Education Fund for CellBlock. (means she'll take it all)

Not exactly "imaginative" is it, thats what you call a budgeted design (and by budget i mean like 99p budget) honestly, something like that peice of **** could be imagined by a 2 week old chimp baby, makes me feel ashamed to be English...