Which looks better?
The former is the logo of 2008 Beijing Olympics, while the latter is the one of 2012 London Olympics.
You may note a distinct contrast of the latter to the former as me
-black background vs white background, angle numbers vs round numbers, words inside numbers vs outside them.
This is truely an attempt for speciality, but does it work?
Change can get a better result, however it can also get a worse one.
I think the second design looks horrible. It looks like they got it from a jagged.ttf file and went to www.freefonts1001.com! To me, it just looks like a pink blob. Can you believe that it took £400,000 to make that piece of rubbish? The only good thing about it is probably the original idea behind it. Other than that, everything just looks like it wasn't thought out properly, and those colours (along with the background) do not seem very appealing ... why did they skip the old logo?
The first logo is most definitely a lot better ... it has a lot more colour and is nice and bright; Good, no black background. The text is easily readable and the sub-logo at the top is consistent with the rest of the logo.
Beijing looks friendly, London looks like you might accidentally cut yourself.
I might be actually going to watch the Olympics in Beijing next year with my family, we might be able to afford buying tickets!
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination," ~ John Lennon
Well, at least they say the colour may change; the background may be omitted in certain occassions.
Acctually I am not quite appreciating the first one-nice but a little bit sparse, just that the second is too horrible.
For Beijing Olympics, you cannot miss the artistic torch, and the special medals! The torch has many clouds figures on it, revealing a beauty of complex. The gold madals are made of gold and a kind of precious stone, Hotan Jade. The Hotan Jade is as hard to carve glass but it wears a smooth and friendly look. Other madals use different jades. Interestingly, though, jades represent the cultural idea similiar to gentlemanship-polite and friendly, but can be very determined when meeting confrontation. (It touches smooth, looks nice, but it will rather collapse than bend under force) And Hotan is best of its kind, because it's the nicest on the surface while hardest inside. However the medals have only passed 3 metre free fall test, so be careful winners!
To be frank, the Olympic arena doesn't look nice. It looks a little bit chaotic and too artificial-I mean an environmentalist may dislike it. Anyway, I didn't vote for it but it won out from several designs. The water stadium (for swimming kind of sports) is interesting-a huge bubble box, yet I just wish the bubbles were brighter.
I read that it's meant to be shown on screens rather than paper, and that it changes colour constantly in a psychadelic fashion, supposedly to interest the apathetic teenagers who would apparently perceive a static logo as boring.
So the theory is that the logo is actually much better than we think it is and that mere pictures of it don't do it justice. I don't think that being dynamic will improve it much, but I suppose I should reserve judgment until I've seen the moving version.
Why did the vector cross the road?
It wanted to be normal.
Cynical view: They made it move so it would look better than the others during presentation time.
Optimistic view: Can't wait to see the new technology they have to make it move on paper, medals, etc