Comments on: Hazardous Logo

By: david

david — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:45:56 +0000

I love this quote:
“This light bulb joke also happens to be the ONLY joke about graphic design that we know of.”

It’s true – that’s the only one I know too!

By: admin

admin — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:45:52 +0000

Ah, looks like there are more ad agency light bulb jokes out there:

http://texturl.net/?p=643

By: Victor

Victor — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:04:47 +0000

The logo doesn’t feel integrated at all into the poster – the whole poster really feels halfassed. I saw it in person at the Fox Atomic booth at Wizardworld this past weekend and has a very knockoff of a Shepherd Fairey design feel to it in the way someone with rudimentary photoshop knowledge would do.

The 28 weeks later logo looks more like a brand that has nothing to do with the movie. hey could have had the biohazard logo fades on other side of the MAINTAIN THE text block minus the text and had the title centered on the bottom of the stormtrooper or gone more with the motif and had an element that looked like a barricase tape with the biohazard symbol perhaps.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:42:44 +0000

That could be (likely?) what she meant — but the notion that including the logo is a “concession” still remains — it still looks half-hearted with the fade we mentioned. (The pink fade goes against the styles she cites in the interview, in our opinion.) Does the logo feel integrated to you? The idea of not including the logo/name of the film still rings true with the dumb light bulb joke.

Maybe we’re the cynical one in this case. ;)

By: Madeleine

Madeleine — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:19:15 +0000

Hmmm…I read that quote as saying she’d prefer the poster not to have a movie logo title at all (i.e., to look more like a quarantine poster than a movie poster), rather than not to be re-using the logo scheme from the first movie.