London unveils creepy-looking mascots for 2012 Olympics


Recommended Posts

ept_sports_oly_experts-669697041-1274300145.jpg?ymyrdKDDJZ2HkrHS

When the official logo of the 2012 London Olympics was released three years ago, the odd puzzle-piece design

was the object of so much scorn that organizers were desperate to avoid similar criticism when they unveiled the mascots

for the Games on Wednesday. With the introduction of Wenlock and Mandeville (above), London 2012 organizers realized

their goal. The criticism of the mascots won't be similar to the complaints about the logo. No, they'll be much, much worse.

Look, I don't know what to say. Olympic mascots have always been the object of scorn (remember Izzy?), but these two,

uh, things take the absurdity to a whole new level. There's a complicated backstory to the characters which was written by

a children's author. It explains why the mascots have one eye (it's a camera lens to see the world) and yellow lights on tops

of their heads (an homage to London taxicabs), but fails to tell the tale of why they look like early rejects from a Pixar movie.

Plus, the fact that some details are explained only makes me wonder about the things that aren't. Why does the one on the left

look like it's wearing an oven mitt? Where are their feet? What, are both those design features a metaphor for how we can't run

away from global warming?

Officials boasted that focus groups of children helped form the designs of the mascots, which makes total sense because this

looks exactly like something a bunch of second-graders would create as a class project. It's like Wenlock and Mandeville were

pieced together from every child's suggestion. "They should have one eye!" "It'd be cool if they did karate!" "Make them fly!"

There was no filter. Instead of simple (like the only good Olympic mascot in history, Barcelona's Cobi) London went for a design

as complicated as can be.

The natural defense of the mascots is that they're not designed for adults, but for the children who will convince adults to buy

them a bunch of merchandise with said mascots. That's a cop-out. Pandering to children isn't an excuse for an uninspired design.

The aforementioned Pixar caters to kids, yet its films still resonate with the older set.

Wenlock is named after Much Wenlock, a village in Shropshire which held an event in the 19th century which inspired the modern

Games. Mandeville is named after the hospital at which the Paralympic Games were founded. Though both sound like Tolkein

characters, the names are quite good and are the only thing that makes the mascots distinctly British.

London 2012 released a video explaining the pair's orgins as well. Somehow, it makes them look even weirder than before:

(sorry for the format of the text, copy and paste job from yahoo)

Yahoo

.... AHHH HAHAHAHAHA...AHHHHH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... wait there is a video also .... AAHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHHA cant breathe (gasp) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT'S SO SAD HAHAHAHAHA

*facepalm* Can we not have anything that looks good for the olympics? The logo is ugly, The mascots are horrible.

don't worry it's universal. the same thing happened here in atlanta. Our Izzit, wtf the name was, mascot for the olympics was :blink: however the special olympics mascot Blaze I think, a phoenix, was epic.

i thought ours were dumb, but props london for one upping vancouver!

The Vancouver ones weren't completely dumb. At least they were designed to sell merchandise to Japanese tourists and it tied into the whole indigenous theme. Who would want to buy merchandise with these mascots on them?

For those that missed the 2010 Winter Olympics:

I was sitting here, looking at the picture and thinking, "great, we'll be the laughing stock again" and then I thought of something:

Why do we need mascots? Aren't they just "living" logos for something that is already represented by a logo?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
    • it dosnt support onprem exchange. it dosnt support mapi-calls. the views are all worse/limited. its slower. it cant see public folder calendars. we already have webmail. the list of other missing features is pretty huge but i only see it when customers call to say their email isnt working, and 9/10 times its cause they accidentality changed to outlooknew(new). Hold the line everyone!
    • yeah, this looks beautiful. Damn this winter's going to be great.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!