I want a job designing shit like that for that kind of money, heck I’d do it for three time the price if they want to feel like they bought something worthwhile and exclusive.
[QUOTE=Colophon]
Another comment made about the official logo is that it looks like “Lisa Simpson giving head”. It does, too.
[/QUOTE]
Oh my…it took me awhile to work out the perspective, but once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
"“Here is my design for the Olympic logo. It is very simple and so memorable. The hands represent Britain pulling together to reveal the Olympics.”
[/QUOTE]
Did they pull it? All I see for pic 5 is a very simplistic rectangle with rounded corners and a line separating the simple sans serif texts “LONDON OLYMPICS” above the ine in black, and “2012” below in red. The rings aren’t even present, and the text below simply says, “Alex Chaplin designed this image.”
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
Did they pull it? All I see for pic 5 is a very simplistic rectangle with rounded corners and a line separating the simple sans serif texts “LONDON OLYMPICS” above the ine in black, and “2012” below in red. The rings aren’t even present, and the text below simply says, “Alex Chaplin designed this image.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
Did they pull it? All I see for pic 5 is a very simplistic rectangle with rounded corners and a line separating the simple sans serif texts “LONDON OLYMPICS” above the ine in black, and “2012” below in red. The rings aren’t even present, and the text below simply says, “Alex Chaplin designed this image.”
[/QUOTE]
Yes they pulled (ha!) it. There were 11 images there, now there are only 10.
That’s hillarious though – but it’s not the first time I’ve seen goatse incorporated into the Olympics logo. I’m just amazed and amused that it passed some level of formal judging – enough to be included in a list of alternates anyway. Shawn deserves a beer for that one.
Brilliant! They’ve pulled it, but too late, and now it’ll live on throughout the interwebs. You can imagine the moment of realisation by some lacky, and having to explain to his manager just why they needed to take that image down
Time Magazine had a similar questionable cover a few years ago, the only different being it was on the cover of the print edition so no editor could make it disappear down the memory hole.
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
I’m just amazed and amused that it passed some level of formal judging – enough to be included in a list of alternates anyway. Shawn deserves a beer for that one.
[/QUOTE]
No real formal judging, it’s just folk sending in stuff to the BBC. I’m 99% certain that the BBC staff web-monkey who published it to the list knew exactly what they were doing though. Kudos to them and to Sean Stayte!