After the furore about the escalating cost of the Games and the cost to Londoners personally, don't you think that the £400,000 they spent on the logo was money well spent? I doubt anyone in the world could have come up with a better design.
The advantage to London of hosting the Games is phenomenal - our superb public transport system could really do with an injection of millions of extra people on it in the middle of the summer and our well-maintained roads are so empty a few thousand extra coaches and buses won't be noticed.
OF COURSE, ALL OF THIS IS SARCASM. The logo is a pathetic extension of the self-indulgent egotism of Lord Coe and the rest of the Olympic Committee who, it appears, are on a 5-year junket at our expense.
We have enough drug-takers in London without hosting the drug-fest that the Olympics has now become. It's bad enough that the Tour de France is coming here.
Is there no one in any position of authority to shout "Stop, this has gone too far"?
2007-06-04 06:52:50 · 24 answers · asked by Essex Ron 5 in Sports ➔ Olympics
The only thing right about about the logo is that it probably accurately comments on our ability to put the Olympics together.
The logo's taking a right pasting on the BBC news site and "have your say" columns.
And viewers have knocked up vastly superior and more evocative ones in about ten minutes flat: see the alternates on the BBC site too.
Heck, a cute animal mascot would be better, and that's not saying much.
Maybe there's still time for them to to do a Wogan and admit they've announced the wrong winner.
2007-06-04 07:21:46 · answer #1 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Maybe they should have made a schools/college competition to design the logo and put all that money into school sports facilities for the 400 best entries. What a missed opportunity. Well done Lord Coe
2007-06-04 10:38:23 · answer #2 · answered by proud walker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that is totally the best logo that the Olympics has had for years and the money is soo well spent! (if you cant sense the sarcasm in my tone- even though I'm not speaking, anyway I'm going off the topic) Yes the logo should be changed and i don't understand how that much money could be spent on that silly thing? surely it could have been made much cheaper.
2007-06-04 07:20:35 · answer #3 · answered by kitty 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This logo is the product of reductivist post modern artificialism, founded in the belief that if a designer charges enough it must be good: otherwise known as the emperor's new clothes syndrome.
Beatles " White Album" now that was design!
2007-06-04 07:00:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
my four year old niece could have come up with something better.
what a waste of money
& the Olympics will either fail miserably, due to clean-up behind schedule ( the site once had a nuclear reactor in the grounds of the university ) incomplete/over-budget buildings
& as you say, the drug fest it is set be.
when children are starving in Africa, it is a glorified waste of money!
2007-06-04 07:05:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Im glad i got to your third paragraph before answering, just goes to show how far these people are from reality, but will we really be listened to dont you know we live in a democratic society ( as long as you agree with those that have the power and money )!!! sorry isnt that hipocracy not democracy. Starling would have been proud..........
2007-06-04 07:04:54 · answer #6 · answered by phill w 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree completely. It is a disgusting logo. Take a look in Polls and Surveys for more Q&A's on this subject.
2007-06-04 07:03:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree. The whole thing sickens me. I don't want anything to do with it. Those who want to participate in it/watch it can do so - and they can pay for it too. 'Cept it'll be you and me, mate, forking out for it, and many small, and not-so-small, worthwhile projects will be sacrificed to pay for it.
They should let Paris have it, if they want it, but I bet most people over there are breathing sighs of relief that it's us who've been lumbered with it.
As I said, it makes me sick.
2007-06-04 07:54:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think its hideous !!.
My 3 year old grandson could have come up with something far better, and it would only have cost the price of a nestle milky bar !.
I wonder what Ken Livingston thinks of it ?.
2007-06-04 07:06:25 · answer #9 · answered by Richard 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Its a joke isn't it?
A 7 year old could have designed something better, and they would have been happy with a McDonald's for payment.
2007-06-04 09:01:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋