my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Kodak unveils new logo (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Kodak unveils new logo Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-08-2006 12:18 PM                        I agree with the majority--the old logo was fine and the new one just looks "odd." Having said that, I looked at some Kodak packaging and it seems that they don't really feature the logo very prominently on their current packages: For motion-picture products, they seem to favor this logo (which I think is quite good, actually): As for the Bell System Bell, AT&T doesn't have the rights to use it--those rights were assigned to the BOCs. Verizon doesn't use it very much (it's not on the phone book covers), but it does appear on the back of their trucks, on some payphone enclosures, and on their payphone instruction cards:  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 01-08-2006 12:47 PM                        Not only is the new one plain, it's not a logo, insofar as my understanding of design is concerned. It's the company name in a font! The lines aren't incorporated in any way and could drop out or be omitted with changing the look or feel. There's no character at all, and thus nothing to identify. I believe in the less-is-more theory of graphic design, but the-simpler-the-better is a bad mentality for its own sake. A logo works when you can see it from a distance or at a glance and the brain knows what you're looking at and makes its associations before you can think consciously of the company name. This won't do that, and not just because it's still new, but because ANY word boxed by lines is something you see all the time on ANY sign. Maybe if a company changed its brand every 10 years, you could get away with it, and use the excuse of keeping things fresh and hip and new. What was it, 70 years? A corporate board room voted in a word-and-lines sign to "redefine its brand-name identity"? That sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Established for 70 years, and they want to start over?  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 01-08-2006 02:51 PM                        It's as if they thought they should be ashamed of the old company and its heritage. This is just as bad as movie posters with "only a head shot" of an actor! (ref: not a logo; just a font with lines.) Louis  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-08-2006 06:51 PM                     A little update of their logo would have been OK, but I also think the new logo just doesn't cut it. It looks like your typical management-moron decision, "we don't know how to fix our problems, so let's just change the logo".  |  IP: Logged Cory Isemann Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: White Plains, MD, USA Registered: Jun 2004 posted 01-08-2006 10:40 PM                        Wonder what John P's thoughts are??  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 01-09-2006 04:26 AM                        I wonder if he's even allowed within 100 yards of a public opinion on the matter.  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 01-09-2006 08:35 AM                     I'mm guessing that if John likes his job his comments will be non critical  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-09-2006 12:14 PM                        I think it totally lacks imagination. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of dollars that cost? (and will cost, in signage, etc.)  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-09-2006 12:36 PM                  I don't think a company's logo has to be "prominently" displayed on their products for them to be recognized. Actually I get annoyed at companies that feel they have to be in one's face in a BIG way. It's almost like they are compensating for an inferior product. Sorta like the guy that has to have a Corvette to make up for shortcomings in other "things". IMHO, Kodak is making a HUGE mistake by dumping their long-time logo that is easily recognized by both those in and out of the industry. BTW: I also like the style of their old "text" logo. quote: CoryBoi Wonder what John P's thoughts are?? quote: Bill Enos I'mm guessing that if John likes his job his comments will be non critical Even if "allowed" to, it's a wise man that doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-09-2006 01:05 PM                        I was not involved in the choice of the new logo. As I understand it, part of the need was for the Kodak name to be readable on small digital displays, as on a camera phone display. The Kodak "box", while known and beloved by many, just did not have the room for legibility of the "Kodak" name on small displays. The stylized "d" and "a" catch the eye, and will be successful if they don't distract. Here's the six logos used in the last century: As Scott and Phil noted, the Kodak corporate logo is not usually a prominent part of motion picture product packaging. Gives me a reason to order new business cards however, and maybe get some new shirts.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-09-2006 05:37 PM                  John, send me your old Kodak shirts, smelly, dirty, or not! Ummm... that is except the ones with the rotted out armpits! I'll wash them and wear them at ShoWest! BTW: Send me a pass to ShoWest... I'll even wear the "I (heart) KODAK" shirt! OBTW: Tell Eric I said Hello... even though he's a jerk for ignoring me! HA!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-09-2006 06:38 PM                        I definitely prefer the 1987 logo over the 1971 logo. The 1907 logo sucks ass and should not be able to be used legally. What a stupid and useless year. Tell Eric I said "Hi". Oh and also Jean, Tim, Samuel, Jim, Ted, Steph, Shauntraniece, and Bill as well. And John "Zippy" Rogers if he is still there. Get to it. Thanks.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-09-2006 07:15 PM                        I like 1960's logo the best. It reminds me of my dad, he was heavy into photography when I was a kid and we had dozens or hundreds of boxes of stuff with that logo around the house.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-10-2006 02:50 AM                        I think the 1935 logo translates without dating. The new logo looks kinda Cyrillic to me, too. Wonder why the 'a' wasn't good enough for them any more & they had to go with a schwa? Maybe the letter 'a' is now associated with moribund technologies. They probably did some focus group research.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-10-2006 08:49 AM                     quote: Phil Hill It's almost like they are compensating for an inferior product. Sorta like the guy that has to have a Corvette to make up for shortcomings in other "things". Are saying that the Corvette is inferior? I know the car has it's shortcomings, but I make it look good! Rick  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.