Jump to content


Photo

Quite literally speechless


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#31 Nanazola

Nanazola

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 12:21 PM

Well, we can agree to differ on how it should be used, but I think it's fair to say that the organising committee have put a lot of thought and planning into the Olympic legacy. Apart from any altruistic motives (and yes they do exist), it's an obvious political hole not to fall into.

Axean - it's a difference of opinion is all, not a Daily Mail/Guardian stand-off.

#32 misspoddy

misspoddy

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:57 PM

I think they just look like a mixture between a Telly Tubby and a remote control, which if the target group is 2 to 4 years old is ok, but what exactly IS the target group? This is true question, I really have no idea what these mascots are really for.... :blink:

#33 katsku

katsku

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 02:32 PM

Well that's just it. I thought the point of having an olympic mascot was to personify the games, evoke positive feelings about them and unite people in support, making it "our games".

I have nothing against the actual droplet creatures as such, they look quite cool and would do fine if there was one of them and it had a catchy name and a simple story. Gridlock and Vaudeville may well personify certain aspects of the games, but hardly the positive stuff. And their back story is far too complicated for just a mascot. As such, I don't think they fulfil their purpose. The only emotion they evoke in me is confusion.

#34 Spoon

Spoon

    Paolo Di Catio's mum

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 02:36 PM

Aren't Olympic mascots just something to hang your merchandising hat on?

I can't wait for my stuffed fluffy Mandeville. That hospital saved me a finger once. And I shall wave my fluffy Mandeville at John G! :P

#35 John Greatrex

John Greatrex

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 05:07 PM

Dear Nana

The recent Commonwealth Games Stadium in Manchester is now successfully occupied by Manchester City Football Club after it moved from its Main Road Stadium.

#36 John Greatrex

John Greatrex

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 05:22 PM

Dear misspoddy

When I get a spare few minutes I'll post what London2012 have to say regarding the target groups and what the mascots are really for.

Second thoughts, go to the site below and read it for yourself !

http://www.london201...scots/index.php




Dear Spoon

You wag your little Manderville at whoever you like.

#37 Nanazola

Nanazola

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 05:31 PM

And your point is? Sorry, that sounds sarcastic, but I do want to know why this is considered a good use of public money. Did the money from the Middle Eastern geezer who bought it go towards riding clubs for people with disabilities? Or dance classes for the over 60s? Or netball or basketball leagues? Why is football the default beneficiary of any sports-related windfall?

I spent many a bored hour at Maine Road in the company of then boyfriend so I know it wasn't exactly glamorous. But neither are public swimmming pools, school sports halls, inner city leisure facilities etc.

#38 John Greatrex

John Greatrex

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 05:44 PM

There is also Chapter One of 'Out of a rainbow' which could appeal to any child between the age of 3 and 103. Personally, I think it's delightful.

You can download and/or print it if you want:

http://www.london201...mascot-book.pdf

#39 John Greatrex

John Greatrex

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 06:01 PM

Dear Nana

My point is: I was simply commenting on the stadium (which was used for a very limited number of sports, athletics mainly) not being a financial white elephant and giving the local supporters of the best club in Manchester a more glamorous venue to go to with their boyfriends or girlfriends.

You say:

I do want to know why this is considered a good use of public money. Did the money from the Middle Eastern geezer who bought it go towards riding clubs for people with disabilities? Or dance classes for the over 60s? Or netball or basketball leagues?


Sorry, I've no idea what the gentleman who bought it did, or does, with his money. Perhaps if you know who he is, you could write him a polite letter suggesting he spends some of his money on the worthwhile causes you have listed.

#40 Spoon

Spoon

    Paolo Di Catio's mum

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 21 May 2010 - 07:42 PM

I know this is a serious thread now but I am lol-ing. Seriously cannot wait to wag my Mandeville! :lol:

#41 misspoddy

misspoddy

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 10:47 AM

There is also Chapter One of 'Out of a rainbow' which could appeal to any child between the age of 3 and 103. Personally, I think it's delightful.

You can download and/or print it if you want:

http://www.london201...mascot-book.pdf


Well, you think it's "delightful", I think it's cheese... :blink:

I will show it to my daughter though (when I'm back home next week) and will see what she thinks. I'll let you know the target group verdict :rolleyes:

#42 John Greatrex

John Greatrex

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 22 May 2010 - 01:26 PM

Dear Spoon

Is your Button Moon made of cheese. Misspoddy thinks she's found some.

#43 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 23 May 2010 - 09:36 AM

My favourite take of the mascots on the internet is Morecambe & Wise !
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#44 sydenhamcentral

sydenhamcentral

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 08:15 AM

Is Britain trying to win the "We're the worst country at design, ever!" competition?


The 2012 branding is simply appalling. As a designer I'm ashamed of it.

As for the mascots, the names, the idea behind it etc are really nice. They have a reason, a story behind them which. But they just don't look particularly lovable. They look hard and cold, shiny, 'plasticy' and a bit tacky which is the fault of trying to tie them in the branding which is a world wide embarrassment.

As for pubic money being wasted, this ALWAYS comes up whenever design gets into the papers. The idea of the mascots is to sell merchandise. It will make money. It's the whole point. Good design always pays for itself but unfortunately the press only print bad news about design and how much it costs.

Overall British design is one of the most highly revered in the world.

Edited by sydenhamcentral, 27 May 2010 - 08:15 AM.


#45 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 08:23 AM

I bet it wont be as embarrasing as the medal table results !
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig