Printable View
Oh dear god how did they get this so wrong!
£400,000 for that pile of ****!!?!
For a start it looks as though it represents the taxpayer on the left and the government on the right (suppose that's quite reflective of modern Britain)
Change the logo PLEASE!!!!
Looks like Lisa Simpson giving someone a favour, doesn't it.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...w_pink_203.gif
This thread is useless without pictures.
Awww bless. I keep forgetting there are some n00bs here that can't do a simple Google search :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcoder
http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2007/06/1.gif
For the Google search impaired:thumb:
That plumbs new depths of crappiness. :mad:
I have made a definition in my firewall to keep out such crap. :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Hey, don't be so harsh, it's got pink AND yellow on it. That is a sign of quality.
I didn't think you were serious.
Holy crap, I get it, the logo isQuote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
20
12
In blocky art.
You pass the IQ test. The rest of you though...Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
I thought it was: z o R :cry:
It's quite worrying that they spent so much on something that is so unclear.. but I guess it gets people talking about it (even tho it is in a bad way).
I thought it was Lisa Simpson too.
Bad times. :-/
I didn't think Lisa Simpson but I am now. :)
http://www.spudart.org/blog/images/2...mpics-logo.gif
Chicago....Chicagooooo......
It looks like something Picasso would reject for being too bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Quote:
Originally Posted by |2eM!x
Now, that is good.
I'm looking forward to:
Omicron Persei 8
3012
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
It was a British government funded project. It was bound to be rubbish.
That Chicago one looks pretty good though.:thumb:
I wish I could argue... there have been too many years of "we'll go with whoever puts in the lowest initial bid, and will pay anything they ask for later", followed by 'preferred suppliers' that don't seem to be up to scratch ("you didn't do the last project very well, but you're on our list, so see what you can do with this one...") :(Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The Chicago logo was scrapped.
"Regardless of whether or not we think Chicago's Olympic bid would be good for the city, I think we all agreed that the logo looked pretty good (heck, it even looked good as a bike). Well, the International Olympic Committee has nixed the logo, because bidding cities can't use Olympic imagery... in their Olympic bids. Right. I guess we already knew that the IOC were jerks."
http://chicago.metblogs.com/archives..._2016_lo.phtml
Wait a minute... does that mean that the logo has to be part of the bid? Oh... yeah... that's massively important in deciding who should host the games: "Well, they've got no interest in sport, the transpot infra-structure is up the duff, they've got hope of completing the facilities on time, their human rights records is atrocious and they shoot all foreigners on sight... but they can draw a nice picture... lt's go there!"
I do like this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/...00_450x295.jpg
yep, pity its still closer to Francesco Petrarca's day :cry: and is it just me or does it feel like we are looping circa 03/04?Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
That's not half bad!
They should pay mendhak for that.
:afrog:
Is it too late to submit?
That is only just good enough to use as toilet papper, but i dont want to ruin my screen.
How about a side view of tower bridge with the words 'London 2012'.
Done. That'll be 10 million pounds please.