DC Comics Unveils New Logo to Debut w/ Rebirth #1

File: DC logo history.png (243KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 960x640px

>>82854728
>The new DC branding will be introduced immediately on various digital platforms, including DC websites, social media channels, DC All Access webseries, and DC All Access app and will continue to rollout worldwide across all DC content and products. One of the many benefits of the new logo design is its versatility to showcase DC’s iconic and timeless characters and stories across all media. Look for the new logo to come to life at key events in the coming months.

>The new identity and logo were developed in partnership with Pentagram, the world’s largest independent design consultancy.

>>82854728
For fucks sake DC stop this shit.

2005 and the 90's bullet were already perfect

Still look like trash. Like something om the side of an auto factory. Seriously stick "Automotive" under it and it would fit way more then "Comics"

>>82854728
Is this a joke?

Didn't they literally just rebrand themselves? How much money and group-testing does this shit cost?

>>82854728
>Blue Circle Detective Comic comics

Really ?

Maybe a little too ubiquitous.
It'll work well across comics, movies, and TV but I feel it's lost some of the impact previous logos had.

>>82854752
1976 is absolutely perfect, my rose-tinted glasses make me say.

2005 is a great modern logo that works across lots of different media as well.

>>82854728
Oh god this is the worst one so far

>>82854752
i miss 2005

I still think the 2012 logo was great, in theory. They just never actually utilized it well. I feel like they intended to create mini-icons (or BARE MINIMUM, unique color schemes) for each book, but somewhere along the way, they just never got to doing it for ANY books. From the things I've read, Omega Men is the only one to have covers that uniquely used the logo.

>>82854728
So somehow the new logo represents them branching out into film.

>>82854851
Car industry, more likely.

Way better than the last two.

>>82854752
>DC comics
The worst thing is I like the logo, but the guy who thought putting comics behind it was a good idea should have been lobotomized

>>82854851
It's pretty obvious. The angular parts on the inside of the two letters, notice how sharp they are? And how there's two of them?

You know what else is sharp? Nails

You know who had two nails through them? Jesus

LOGOKINO

http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2012/03/06/dc-entertainment-reveals-new-brand-identity

In 2012...

>"We believe our new brand identity will strongly resonate with our loyal fans who will want to proudly express their affinity for DC Entertainment and their passion for their favorite stories and characters, this new look allows them to easily do this. In addition we were excited to update our identity, it's not often a company gets to revisit something as important as its brand and we took the opportunity to make sure it represented the multi-media business we set out to build with the formation of DC Entertainment,"

Im just happy the logo no longer say Detective Comics Comics

>>82854841
Arrow,Flash, Constantine and Gotham used it well

just bring back the fucking bullet

>>82854930
>Detective Comics Comics

That was the worst part of the 2012 designe, it was made by people that was absolutly clueless.
76 and 2005 were the best.

>>82854728
i like it, better than the last 2 logos.

>>82854728
That's a lot of marketing buzwords for not much meaning

File: 14_h4uml2utzcy9u2pbt34.jpg (250KB, 1000x647px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1000x647px

>>82854907
fuck me

Pic related is exactly how they could have used it on the comics BUT THEY NEVER DID (at least on the big books, like the exact ones shown in pic: Batman, WW, Action Comics, etc.).

I mean, for fuck's sake, they basically imply in that they're going to mix things up and individualize the logo for at least their main books:
>"The new identity is built for the digital age, and can easily be animated and customized to take full advantage of the interactivity offered across all media platforms."

>>82855052
That's auctualy pretty cool
Doesent fix the ATM machine problem but otherwise pretty nifty the way they can make it work with different colors

>>82854760
They can't use the 2005 any more

>>82855088
source

>>82854728
I think it's cute. Kinda retro

>>82854728
Why? The last one was good..

>>82855052
I'm now mad about things I didn't even know or care about before now, anon. I'm not sure if I should thank you or not.

Oh boy I sure am going to enjoy all my DC books having 3 totally different fucking spine logos

THANK YOU BASED GOD

Fuck that sticker logo was awful

I fucking LOVE IT

>>82855149
cry more

Good riddance

>>82855149
>only having 3 different ones

Some of mine just have a plain "DC" in black or white on the spin and not a logo at all
I don't really give a fuck

>>82855103
they tried suing DC shoes for their logo, only to realize they hadn't patented/trademarked their own logo when they were countersued

>>82854728

I liked this one. much better than actual.

I wonder ho wmuch DC paid for someone just tweaked a old logo

>>82855241
>only to realize they hadn't patented/trademarked their own logo
What the dark fuck? How does that even. Oh my god I can't begin to fathom this sort of thing.

>>82855286
You didn't actually think comic book companies were staffed by competent people right?

>>82855286
It's like how Penders got to keep all his Sonic OCs because Archie didn't have the right work-for-hire paperwork or whatever.

File: 1428421218557.gif (876KB, 479x349px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 479x349px

why the fuck is DC so retarded bros?

don't they realize that NOT changing your logo is how to build a brand

fucking dark horse, image, of course marvel. but even other companies have iconic brands....BECAUSE THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM AND THEY BECOME ICONIC OVER TIME

ford, GM, coca-cola, mcdonald's, IBM

I love this logo. It goes with the theme of all the old logo's of 'DC' in the circle. This one doesn't seem like it would fit well at the start of a film or end of a TV show though, so I wonder if this one new will be purely just for Rebirth?

>>82855111
>Literal toilet seat
>Good

It's like you WANT to be laughed at by Marveldrones

>>82855352
You're not wrong, but it is just a publishing company and an IP farm. The only publisher logo I know outside of comics is Penguin books because it's cute.

File: marvel logo.png (4KB, 357x141px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 357x141px

DC has had like 10 logos in 70 years.

Why can't they just get a nice stable logo, like Marvel?

>>82855424
Marvel's logo always triggers me because the only letter not touching any others is the L and it's awful. Why would someone do that?

>>82855448
Holy shit I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to come off as that one guy. Now there's two of us so it's fine.

>Logo: Rebirth
based

>>82855448
Because the E would look retarded if it was touching the L

Looks better than Brand Synergy logo, even if it is a bit rustic looking.

>>82855480
If all the letters can't touch then none of them should.

>>82855448
Because E and L would form an even worse-looking super letter.

File: marvel.png (25KB, 353x141px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 353x141px

>>82855497
Nigga, look at it

File: 1463502178898.png (9KB, 357x141px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 357x141px

>>82855480
Only a little bit.

Damn that looks ugly.

Looks too much like some appliance logo.

Just use the 1976 logo, it has resonated with a generation well and still looks bold and pops out.

>>82854728

Great new logo (a lot better than the 2012 and 2005 ones), has a nice vintage feel... not liking that the letters are touching the ring tho.

I wonder when/if they will apply it in other media (movies, tv-shows) too.

>>82855088
it's not 1938 anymore

>>82855520
Other way around. I have some Marvel trades where on the spines they use the same amount of space between the E and the L on the other letters and it looks fine.

>>82854752
how do they keep getting worse with this just bring back the '76 one

>>82855543
noice 1 D00D

>>82854728
JUST

File: 1462089872266.png (485KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 500x500px

>>82855424
C O M P A N Y W A R S

It's ugly enough to be a Jim Lee design. Still better than the last one but that's not saying much.

>>82855544
That IS the same amount of space. It's just not noticeable on the other letters because they're slanted

>>82854728
That C is hideous.

File: marvel-studios-logo.jpg (31KB, 420x235px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 420x235px

>>82855567
What?m It's a genuine statement. The modern Marvel logo created in 2002 is slick, modern, easily recognisable. When I think red and white, my mind goes to Marvel. I can't say the same for black, white and blue and DC.

>>82855567
>its an autist anon gets triggered by other companies episode

File: Action 419.jpg (380KB, 960x1405px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 960x1405px

The "open page" logo kind of stuck with me now, but I like this new one. It's an updated Bronze Age logo. It's new, but retro. Really like it.

>>82855448
>>82855424
But Marvel kept on changing logos till they settled on that logo in the 2000's. They made some minor changes of that logo in 2013 to copyright it.
http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Marvel_Comics

File: 3271792-thumbs+up[1].png (419KB, 350x458px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 350x458px

>>82854728
i like it
much better than Detective Comics Comics

>>82855578
No I mean between the ends of them. The letters are not touching.

>>82854752
2005 is the best imo

>>82855608
>When I think red and white, my mind goes to Marvel

I'm more of a Christmas kinda guy myself.

>>82855608
>When I think red and white, my mind goes to Marvel
what is Coca-Cola?

just cut the bullshit and rename it BATMAN COMICS.

>>82855617
Open page was a decent idea but the end result just looked like a sticker rather than a page

File: dccomics.com.png (795KB, 1247x641px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1247x641px

>>82855538
>I wonder when/if they will apply it in other media (movies, tv-shows) too.
Supposedly they're transitioning it immediately. We'll see if Suicide Squad has it in the intro.

>>82854752
'76 looks best imo, it's simple and recognizable

I don't like it, at least they've gone back to the circle though. Maybe they can try sticking with the logo this time. Marvel's logo works because it's a nice easy rectangle with two solid colors, instantly recognizable and cheap to stick on t-shirts and other things. Whereas with DC, their last few logos have been complicated or have used gradients instead of solid colors, it's generally not a good idea.

>>82855674
The new logo looks like a logo I'd see for the city of Washington DC while coming into Reagan National. God, what a shitty airport.

>>82855674
>blue logo on blue background

FUcking hideous

File: latest[2].gif (9KB, 269x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 269x200px

>>82855352
id rather Marvel's 90's logo back
that was the best

>>82855751
That giant M was retarded but I loved it

>>82855751
3edgy5me

File: Logos.png (2MB, 2100x1130px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1130px

>>82855424
Marvel's had a ton of logos too, newfag.

>>82855780
Update it with all the logos instead

>>82855780
I miss that logo.

>>82855751
No, that looks like shit.

>>82855803

Goddamn that blue and yellow lower middle Marvel one gives me a flood of nostalgic emotions

File: image.jpg (28KB, 238x295px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 238x295px

>>82854728
STOP CHANGING YOUR LOGO DC.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I like it. So long as they fucking stay on that logo for a while

File: 6M90w.jpg (128KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 400x600px

>>82855751
>>82855803
I'm particular to the "80s slant".

File: dc-logo-feat1.jpg (73KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1080x720px

3D render with filters when?

File: marvel business card.jpg (41KB, 600x352px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x352px

>>82855751
That's not corporate enough. A logo needs to evoke feelings of class and sophistication. Coca Cola. Walt Disney Corporaton. Harpo Studios. Marvel.

It's so much better than 2012 I'm honestly just relieved at it. Like I get it's not perfect compared to previous logos (I think the bullet logo from 1976 is probably still the most iconic one they have), but it's at least a step in the right direction so I'm certainly not mad.

It does set up a nice contrast with Marvel's logo. Marvel's a red box, DC's a blue circle, bing bang boom, you got two easily distinguishable logos.

>>82855878
I want to go Joker on Alonso's hand.

>>82854823
>Oh god this is the worst one so far
Never change, /co/.

File: clark kent enjoys this.jpg (70KB, 368x527px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 368x527px

>>82854728
That is a good logo, well done. It will also look good in different colors, which is something the previous two logos lacked.

While we're here, Vertigo's logo is pretty good.

File: wb.png (82KB, 800x339px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x339px

>>82855856

I hope they keep the flat look, which can look great on screen (like in the recent The Accountant trailer).

>>82855803
That's basically 3 different logos with multiple variations of each one. For example Marvel comics is a division of Marvel, thus it's not a logo for Marvel as a company but for a particular part of it. The Marvel Now logo is a logo for the initiative Marvel Now. They didn't rename the company Marvel Now for 6 months.

>>82854728
>Rebirth #1

Please don't tell me they're rebooting the universe again.

>>82854728
MASSIVE improvement over the pudding cup logo.

File: 0f11a70395536f0fa0724fba110c29c15b49988b5cd1d43c4055efe28c3ca658.jpg (47KB, 625x468px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 625x468px

>>82855975

>>82855352

All of those companies have, to some degree, changed their logos you idiot. It's a normal thing companies do all the time.

>>82855950
Hot damn, that is a sexy logo.

File: no.jpg (78KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x692px

>>82855975
fuck off, my man

I don't care, I'm just glad the toilet seat is gone.

>>82855975

It's just an Infinite Crisis-type thing. Some origins are changing (Jason Todd got his Pre-52 origin back) but it's mostly the same continuity.

>>82855975
>guaranteed replies

>>82855975
No. It's just a company wide renumbering. Plus tons of new ongoings and new teams on nearly everything. And the biggest selling titles are going twice a month.

So it's basically DC's version of Marvel NOW.

>>82855975
I want you to choke on a cock hard enough that air from your lungs is completely depleted and your brain has 0 oxygen and it gets paralyzed.

>>82856008
Well it was a good logo, quite indicative of the content inside.

File: XNwd0vJSeiSBqmeWuk2w_OpubeCw.gif (2MB, 559x373px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 559x373px

>>82855674

>>82854752
I really like the 1976 one. They should've spruced that one up.

This new one looks really weird with the circle being a different line weight.

>>82856011
So it's more like Secret Wars without the actual Secret Wars part.

>>82855854
Me too. Though, I'm also fond of the banner.

File: 300FeetOut_News_SFDW_landor-2.jpg (61KB, 700x479px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x479px

>>82855052

>>82856052
So are they gonna change that before the movie comes out?

>>82856069
I don't. It always looked like some US propaganda symbol.
Although 2005 made me think of washer soap.

The real test if this is truly immediate is if Flash tonight has it at the end instead of the sticker

>>82855950
That's beautiful.

>>82854752
>The new identity and logo were developed in partnership with Pentagram, the world’s largest independent design consultancy.
So they actually paid people for that?

File: bravo, aquaman.png (241KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 720x540px

>>82856079
Even Aquamans logo looks lame.

>>82856079
Those are some sexy logos.
Who's top right? Robin?

File: WBTV.jpg (207KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x1440px

>>82856079

>>82856128
So you actually work for free?

>>82856128
I dont know how much BS they invented to get them to accept this logo

>>82856153
The opposite, I'd love to figure out how to get paid thousands of dollars for putting the letters DC in a circle.

>>82856155
You're trolling, but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6U5RS0Xp3s

>>82856194
>they get paid thousands of dollars for putting the letters DC in a circle
>anon doesn't
Why are you such a loser?

File: 34567bc280b7a151df42d222b5044822.jpg (14KB, 736x414px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 736x414px

>>82856079
These look so fucking great but they never used it to it's full potential like this and just kept the same flat logo. The only ones that decided to actually go with the character-variant logos are the DC TV shows - Arrow, Constantine, Legends, Flash, etc. all have character variant logos.

File: dickcomics.jpg (88KB, 1055x508px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1055x508px

DICK COMICS

>>82855617
>It's an updated Bronze Age logo.
... Huh. That is actually really clever. Now I like it even more!

>>82856227
The problem is that on a comic cover it just distracts from the cover art. They're too busy. The variants literally only look good on a plain background like how the TV shows use them.

>>82854728
Meh, it's better than the peel off at least.
Needs more stars.

>>82856232
>DiCk
Fixed.

File: marv8period.png (7KB, 357x141px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 357x141px

>>82855448
>>82855467

Gee I have no idea why they would do that.

>>82856274
A Russian letter, as a homage to Black Widow!

>>82856274
Scroll through the conversation, I want the spacing increased on the touching letters as a solution not the E and L touching

>>82856294
What? (Чeгo, блядь?)

>>82854728
Top of the C looks like a weird dick.

Looks like we're back to 0 days since DC fucked up.

Seriously, with all the effort they're putting in to establish their film universe, they NEED to be more consistent with their branding.

>>82856274
>MARV8
I'm surprised they haven't tried to make that a renumbering excuse.

"At the House of Ideas, we don't just innovate, but we Marv-ate! Beginning next month, we're going to do an unprecedented event by renumbering all of our comics, commissioning 30 variant cover incentives for each new #1 issue, and polybagging every issue in an opaque bag that also includes some kind of a holofoil trading card."

>>82856274
I just want a little uniformity. Don't need to go the whole way.
>>82855522
It's like a school making everyone wear blue coats except this one asshole who wears red.

File: CARLOS.jpg (6KB, 153x193px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 153x193px

>>82856332
More like Mor-b8, right?

>>82854728
I dig it. Better than the last one.

>>82856266
Not the other guy, but I disagree. Logos or logo areas have been *much* busier for long stretches of time, without any big complaints.

(see >>82855854 and lots of comics from both Marvel and DC released around that time)

But hell, even if they didn't outright put special effects, the least they could do is add some pretty colors and make the logos reflect the color scheme of the characters. Like >>82856079's logos but perhaps simpler.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (217KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1920x1080px

DC All Access also updated their logo in this week's episode. Will not be surprised if The Flash, etc. will also update the logo this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XWePTzI0o

File: DC.jpg (60KB, 800x339px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x339px

>>82855950
quick mockup

File: DC Flash.jpg (121KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1200x1200px

>>82856713
That's really cool. I also like its simplicity so you can also mock it up with character colors.

>>82856713
That's a really sexy logo

>>82854752
better than the peel
but i'd hope this logo lasts longer than 4 years this time

File: wintage.png (75KB, 391x269px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 391x269px

>>82854728
Reminds me of the 70s logos. I like it. The toilet seat wrapper was ambitious, but this is refreshingly straightforward.

>>82857044
looking at >>82854752 it seems like there's a short-short-long pattern if none are missing there so we're due for another generational logo run on this one

>>82856585
>>82856713
>>82856923

It's good. Solid. Will feel iconic soon enough.

Well, at least they're retiring that horrible peeler-logo...

>>82856713
>>82856923
Very good, if I could modify anything, I would add a second outside ring

Still, 8.5/10

Not as bad as the 2005 logo but not as good as the 1976 or 2012 logos.

>>82857099
Sure it will.

I love how they are admitting New 52 was a mistake.

As a long time DC fan who lost the passion five years ago, it all feels a little too late.

Don't get me wrong, i still read some books but I don't think I will ever get my old attachment to these characters back.

>>82857144
>I would add a second outside ring
I couldn't put my finger on it but that's exactly what looks wrong with the new design

>>82857276
As in, a second ring is good or the current ring is bad? I don't get it

>>82857248
>I love how they are admitting New 52 was a mistake.

Eh, in name only. The redesigns are *still* Jim Lee and his particular aesthetic. It's still the same talent, management, etc.

I feel the same though, the Nu52 caused me to leave completely, i'm stoked to see if there's a couple books i'll dig, but it just feels like more of the same Nu52.2

>>82856713
>>82856713

hnnnngg, fuck that looks great.

>>82857172
>Buller Logo Bad
>Peel Logo Good
I mean I give props for the Peel Logo for being flexible enough for variant designs but the Bullet was the best

>>82857248
I know how you feel but I kind of got over it in the past couple of years. I stopped mostly reading right after it happened then came back in 2014-15.

>>82857248
>I love how they are admitting New 52 was a mistake.
Except they're not. It's still the New 52 world and characters with just more classic stuff thrown in. It's still the same thing, just evolving. Just like anything really.

>>82857321
a second ring would be good

right now it looks kinda odd because the ring is too thin compared to the letters

File: tim seeley telling it like it is.png (55KB, 597x354px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 597x354px

>>82857248

>>82857497
That post you're replying to never mentioned financials.

File: logo.png (2KB, 196x127px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 196x127px

>>82854728
I literally just got used to this logo, too.

>>82857497
The New 52 being a mistake has nothing to do with sales.

File: arsenal4.jpg (77KB, 350x501px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 350x501px

>>82857560

>>82856128
>Pentagram
It was mady by Satan

>>82857600
No one is saying pre-new 52 was good. The line needed to be revitalized in a big way to remove the stench of Identity Crisis that had infected almost every franchise. But the new 52 being justified doesn't mean its execution was perfect. Getting the right balance takes time though and they're fixing some things as they go along (though some things will remain fucked sadly, terrible state the Superbooks will be in for Rebirth).

>>82857600
Obviously not everything that happened prior to Flashpoint was good, but that doesn't change how poorly execute the New 52 was. Pretty much everything I liked about DC was gone.

>>82857717
It wasn't even justified. You could have revitalized the line without needing to fuck up the lore so bad.

>>82857600
People still try to justify New 52 with these kind of things, when they could have easily just written off instead of rebooting the whole damn universe and losing decades of lore and character building.

>>82858082
I think doing anything big at that point was justified but it doesn't excuse the specifics of what they chose to do.

>>82858130
Getting rid of that stuff was half the point

>>82854728
I feel like the page turner one was 100% perfect but /co/ hates it for whatever reason

File: BbjjFtLIMAAoy-6.jpg (30KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x367px

>>82854728

>>82858202
>a company that doesn't mostly produce stickers has a logo that looks like a sticker

can't imagine why people disliked it

>>82858230
I think it's pretty obvious that it's a page being turned anon, and this is a company that makes books where you turn pages

>>82858277
the intent is clear but the execution is poor, it looks like a fucking sticker not a page turning

>>82854841
That was plan and happened at launch. Then they just forgot about it.

>>82857560
It also must not have been to do with quality because 2013 onwards N52 shaped up quite well

File: 1453946830539.jpg (26KB, 451x292px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 451x292px

>>82854752
>2005
What's become of us?

>>82858202
I liked it too. I don't hate the new one but I had zero problems with it.

>>82858367
Just like with anything new, it takes a little bit to find your footing and get into the groove of things. DC's in a good place right now from a setting/story perspective overall. The characters are mature enough to add some classic elements in with Rebirth and also throw some new twists in with established characters and even those that haven't shown up yet.

>>82858367
That was when they revamped their entire editorial department. Context is important, it's not like it just naturally got better on its own after things settled down.

>>82854728
Wait, is that the actual new logo?

>>82854728
Simple, I like it, glad they resolved that "Detective Comics Comics" issue.
Looked odd.

>>82858467
Yep
http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2016/05/17/dc-entertainment-introduces-new-identity-for-dc-brand

Examples: http://www.dccomics.com/
https://twitter.com/DCComics

File: 1457988902126.png (59KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x400px

>>82855803
>marvel ∞mics

>>82854728
I like it better than 2012's, but I'd have to see it on an actual comic cover to really make a judgement.

>>82858130
And they complain about the quality of the books when the solution was simple: make better comics.
The best books out of new52 has NOTHING to do with the reboot. The worst? they were related to the reboot.

>>82858519
Oh.
Huh...
I was never crazy about the varsity lettering, though I have a soft spot for the bullet, but this actually doesn't look so bad when it's not against white.

It's definitely better than the sticker. I can't believe that's been the logo for five years.

At least they're changing the logo at the start of the relaunch instead of a few months later

>>82858628
>Infinite Mics
That sounds like a hot Hip Hop collab Album

File: clarence.jpg (73KB, 1280x604px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x604px

>>82858850
they had a bunch of rap album cover variants last year so who knows

maybe falcon will become a rapper again

File: DC2.jpg (149KB, 400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 400x1600px

>>82856923

>>82859042
That last one is so sexy, tshirts W H E N

>>82859042
oh shit, we have a fucking winner

>>82854728
What is this, their 4th new logo this decade?

File: QONVIyz.gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>>82859042

>>82858666
The New 52 was truly a mess. They didn't even bother to think anything out really...it was just "let's do this,and worry about the details later. Even the writers if the books didn't know what was in continuity and what wasn't, and every character that got hard rebooted ended up worse off than they were before with the exception of Vibe.

>>82854728
Just so we're clear, this logo will also be used in the movies, right?

>>82858992
>Falcon was in 8 mile
Holy hell is this a sight to remember.

>>82859042
muh dick

>>82859042
Why is the Supes one white instead of yellow?

>>82859042
Also, I think this might be one of the intended outcomes.

The 2012 pageflip logo was nice, but it was surprisingly complex to edit, given the gradients and weird design. I'd assume that art teams and DC designers just couldn't be arsed to make real logos for everything, especially a few months after the company-wide logo was released.

The new logo is basic enough to be almost child's play to edit.

>>82854752
76 is the eternal GOAT

>>82859042
This can work extremely well if they get the colors right.

>>82859121
yes

>>82855424
Because it's bland

>>82854728
Should've just brought back the bullet logo.

>>82854728
Thank God they ditched that ugly ass toilet seat cover logo.

And now for some reactions from casuals:

https://twitter.com/DCComics/status/732602166200963076
>Hideous. Fire some folks & start over.
>supes didn't die for this
>eh
>Not sure why @DCComics are confused, but Milton Glazer,'s "Bullet" logo is the only logo design they'll ever need.
>This is so meh
>FUCK GO BACK
>Microsoft Paint?
>it's so... ugly...
>put this on fire
>DELETE IT
>errrr!
>oh god no
>go back to the the old one this one is ugly :(
>STOP
>it looks like a highschool sports team logo... did you really pay to someone to do this????
>Change pls
>"Please clap"
>make better movies
>My 11 years old sister with paint could have done that ...
>soooo maaany aaaangles
>The current (or now old) DC Films logo was obtuse for obfuscating the "DC" branding. This design is the opposite. Too basic.
>This looks like Marvel's "graphic design is my passion" poster team created it. :/
>this looks like one of my amateur logos
>I see the company is dying along with superman
>Ugh, what the hell for? The Bullet was classic, the swoosh was absolute rubbish but the 'reveal' was ok. This looks like nothing.
>you have to change it is to Didio and Harras
>sorry guys, this logo is a complete disaster.
>wHAT GO BACK TO THE OTHER LOGO DELETE THIS
>been DC for decades but the new "new" logo (2 in 3 yrs), Rebirth (again), and the morbid DCCU. I feel y'all are grasping at straws
>WHY DID YOU CHANGE THE LOGO, JACK?!?!?!!!?!?!?!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>if you put the letter I inbetween d and c is says dic hahahaha
>"Let's go back to the Bullet logo from the 80s!! We were successful back then, right?"
>The Duke Blue Devils called, they want their logo back.
>THATS FUGLY IM SO UPSET
>spend some of that BvsS money on a graphic designer
>just like everything from didio, awful and desperate for more money
>You should be more concerned about the fact that you actually paid someone real money to create this abomination.

For some reason that last Tweet also tagged Greg Miller (@GameOverGreggy).

>>82855546
Arguably this new logo is better than the one they've been using in the past few years.

>>82859400
>Not sure why @DCComics are confused, but Milton Glazer,'s "Bullet" logo is the only logo design they'll ever need.

May be a casual, but he's right.

>>82859400
Wow, do people actually give this much of a shit?

I suppose they don't actually read any comics, so getting butthurt over a difference in logo is about the best they can muster to seem like an actual fan.

>>82859422
True, but that doesn't say much.

File: DC3.jpg (45KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x400px

>>82859201

It started looking too "Fisher-Pricey" in my opinion.
I think having the white background as an unifying constant makes the logo much more bold and recognizable.

>>82859241
Not like two letter in a circle.

>>82859510
Love it.

>>82859510
I see and concede.

>>82859510
I kind of like the yellow interior though. Makes you think "Superman" more.

>>82854728
It's shit.

File: CiraHynWYAA4vX1.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

It really looks good with just about any background color other than white. A lot of effects you can work into it as well.

>>82855899
>Marvel is a square while DC is a circle
HYPERCRISIS STRIKES AGAIN

>>82854752

Wow, the only one that isn't shit is the '76 one, and that's the one they legally CAN'T use anymore.

>>82855546
>just bring back the '76 one
>>82856069

They can't. They lost use of it in a lawsuit to a shoe company.

>>82859510
I think the balance just gets thrown off since there's less negative space in the S-shields they normally use these days. Looks weird with so much yellow.

>>82859201
>why white instead of yellow?

ask the ancient one

>>82859510
nice

File: 1460312415652.png (169KB, 1205x1285px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1205x1285px

>>82856192

>>82856585
Preachers out already?

>>82855975
No, no, it's not a reboot. It's just a renumbering. And a retconning. And a focus shift. And a rebranding. And the company logo is changing. And they're calling it fucking Rebirth. But don't you dare call it a reboot.

>>82860200
if it's not a reboot why are Superman's shoes blue now?

File: CirQwhCUoAAvNJf.jpg (95KB, 600x910px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x910px

Khouri has a point.

https://twitter.com/andykhouri/status/732627421988425728

File: CirQwhTU4AEDI3A.jpg (95KB, 600x910px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x910px

>>82860243

>>82860243
>>82860256
and there are people who will still defend the sticker logo

>>82860243
Looks great in context, like it fits. Classic, alright, DC.

>>82860085
It will be out by next week. DC has been hyping it for days now. Heck, they made a top 10 Preacher moments in the DC channel.

>>82860291
well yeah, it's not as bad as you all will start painting it as. It's not bad at all.

>>82860243
I actually really like this.

>>82854728
I like this logo a lot more than the one they've used since Flashpoint.

The bullet and the 2005 circle will always be the best DC logos though. Especially the 2005 one.

Edits really have made me see this logo in a different light. Maybe if they chose a darker shade of blue or make sure to never have the background white it could work really well.

The real test is to see what motion they choose for it though. Marvel has an awesome opening cinematic with theirs. The sticker logo was supposed to do this but never panned out. What will they go with to stand out.

File: CirUWlCU4AA1m6N.jpg (97KB, 600x889px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x889px

>>82860243
>>82860256
Works on other media as well

>>82860502
>muh movies

>>82860558
fuck off

>>82854728
add a ring with stars and it'll be perfect

File: 31Pt4F5[1].png (997KB, 520x800px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 520x800px

>>82860243
Looks great on here, but to be honest that cover is an ideal scenario. For one it has the fitting classic artstyle look. Second it has very little colors and the white arrow matches the logo. There's also obvious negative white space on top left corner so it fits.

I just made this mockup and it looks a whole lot less nice here.

This is also going to look like shit on anything that isn't a comic book.

>>82860591
>telling me to fuck off when you literally said "the real test is what it will look like in some shitty opening credit no one pays attention to"

come on

>>82860605
Naw. I think it still looks good there.

>>82860558
>the brand has evolved to now stand for powerful storytelling across so many different forms of media

When your fucking goal is to have the logo plastered over your actual multi million dollar ventures instead of your kiddy chump change pieces of paper yes the movies do matter.

>>82860502
I always loved the 2005 logo intro for DC movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV4kvWJtQ3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0sEVy76QvI

>>82860605
That looks nice.

>>82860605
>This is also going to look like shit on anything that isn't a comic book.

I don't know why you'd say this when you've already been proven wrong >>82856713
>>82856923
>>82859042
>>82859510
>>82859641
>>82860522

>>82856194
why are people like you so ignorant when it comes to design?

>>82860663
>implying all of those look good.

Only one that's okay is the Suicide Squad one. And the reason most of you like this new one is simply because it is able to be colored.

I agree it's a step up from the sticker, but I have a feeling there could be so much more potential for DC.

>>82860675
when things are well-done, they look deceptively easy. idiots then assume anyone can do it.

>>82860243
I like it hope DC doesn't force a giant blue logo on every book.

>>82855424
because Marvel is a corporate holding company and DC is an art company.

Marvel also spent most of their corporate life bankrupt, so they couldn't afford new logos

>>82860756
he is an editor so I think he would know the usage and wouldn't be changing the color if they weren't allowed to

>>82855352
all of those companies change their logos all the fucking time dipshit

>>82855149
>implying you buy DC
>implying you buy comics

>>82859400
>>soooo maaany aaaangles
>"it's too sharp!"

That person probably loves the new PPG

>>82860729
You'd think they'd learn by now. Every logo change I've ever seen has this same shit come up.

I mean, branding isn't even just making a logo. It's also style guides and handling trademarks and shit too.

>>82860764
>because Marvel is a corporate holding company and DC is an art company.

This. I hate being company wars guy, but Marvel gives 0 shits how a book looks, the interior art had gone down the tubes linewide since they stopped pushing Ultimate Marvel after Ultimate Comics failed to respark interest in the line.

At least they got rid of the giant red Marvel Now bar at the bottom of every cover, too bad the CW2 cover format is just going to shit all over the cover art this summer.

>>82860243
I just realized that Khouri edits all the best DC books sans Midnighter

>>82860914
At least they care how a book reads. Pick up a Marvel comic and the very first page is a summary o get a new reader up to speed. Meanwhile I could pick up a DC book and the Flash could be in a 4 part crossover with Cyborg and Superman and I'd never know what the fuck was going on.

>>82859471
It's DC, wvery little thing they do has to be met with outrage and disgust.

>>82860914
>>82861053
Marvel and DC are both 99% shit, so cut the damn bickering.

File: new dc logo nightwing variant.jpg (28KB, 500x583px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x583px

I will miss the sticker logo a bit, if only because this will no longer be relevant.

>/co/ is a board that is heavily focused on traditional art
>thread about traditional art comes up
>most posters talk about the design
>a certain subset of posters loses their mind trying to make it a company war thread
>this set of posters also makes it clear they know nothing about art

it's almost like...they're from another board... whoa.

Some kind of board built around something that isn't traditional art, and all it's posters are champing at the bit to spin anything a certain company does as negative

>>82859042
Fucking gorgeous. Well done, anon.

File: ihwwxwu.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>3 major logo changes in 10 years

Is...Is DC gonna' be okay?

They put on a good poker face, but I can't shake this feeling that bad things are under way there.

File: SquirrelGirlMoon.jpg (83KB, 750x400px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 750x400px

>>82861053
>At least they care how a book reads.
>marvel
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

>>82861192
>certain subset of posters loses their mind trying to make it a company war thread
>comparing logos
don't you people ever get tired of feeling of feeling like victims?

>>82859107
They still had the bullet in 2000 IIRC. Wave came in around Infinite Crisis which was 2006, I think. Sticker came immediately post New 52 in 2011, and this will be 2016, so this would be the third in a decade.

File: JUST.png (577KB, 745x1309px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 745x1309px

>>82860797
not really family

there is nothing wrong with tweaking, updating your logo to fit the current times

but problem is, DC is pulling a JUST 3 times in the last 10 years and throwing shit out for no reason and starting all over again

then again this isn't surprising considering all the DC/WB execs aren't that bright

File: mcdonalds2.jpg (543KB, 1000x2232px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1000x2232px

>>82861255

so do you admit you know nothing about branding?

>>82861255
they've done this literally twice already, the logo history has been posted in the thread

>>82861255

They're throwing everything they can at the wall to find something that sticks.

They'll just keep hard/soft rebooting until they find a combination that works.

>>82861255
See
>>82854752

>'40, '42, 49 = 9 years
>'72, '74, '76 = 4 years
>'05, '12, '16 = 11 years

It's a logo change, they'll be fine. Hell, if the pattern holds up then this is the logo they'll be with for a long, long while.

>>82854728
Minimalism is shit. Was refreshing 10 years ago but I'm so sick of it.

>>82854728
DC is to Marvel as Pepsi is to Coca-Cola.

>>82861309

Are you talking to the right person? I don't recall even getting into that discussion.

>>82861282
>but problem is, DC is not associated The Walt Disney Company™ and that makes me angry

>>82861386
DC is definitely Coke though

>>82861309
Here's the difference. Every logo since 1968 isn't an entirely new logo it's just a variation. They're all the golden arches.

Other than having the letters "D" and "C" none of the last 4 DC logos look remotely similar.

>>82861386
Other way around. DC is the good one and Pepsi is the mass-market slop.

>>82861309
you realize you're proving his point right?

mcd's goes long periods of time before changing their logos. and as a fast food company they have to compete with more restaurants

DC basically owns 40% of the market along with marvel and are still having an identity crisis

this isn't surprising considering their movies don't know what they want to be and the execs at the top don't have a single unified vision

>>82854728
can someone make a .ico for this

>>82861398
The more accurate comparison is DC is Hydrox while Marvel is Oreo

>>82861398
I guess Marvel is the choice of a new generation.

There's something about the baby blue coloring and the old style bold font that really meshes well together. Though I am very endeared to the '76 logo revision

>>82861413
>Other than having the letter "M" none of the last 4 McDonalds logos look remotely similar.

File: DC_Logo_Blue_Final_573b356bd056a9.41641801.jpg (111KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x1200px

>>82861406

It's not a reboot guys gosh!

File: 2015_Sales_chart.png (40KB, 800x463px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x463px

>>82861440

>DC basically owns 40% of the market

Not... quite

>>82861282
>there is nothing wrong with tweaking, updating your logo to fit the current times

DC's logo is a circle with DC in it. When it's been tweaked, it'd been a circle with a DC in it. The 2005 one is a slanted circle with a DC in it. The ONLY one that's really different is the pageflip. And they went back to a circle with a DC in it.

File: DC Logo Transparent.png (165KB, 965x964px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 965x964px

>>82861441
Not an .ico, but I do have this.

Are the Hanna-Barbera reboots getting the same logo treatment?

File: 1422299533779.png (214KB, 290x464px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 290x464px

>DC could maintain some new fans if they stopped rebranding and rebooting everything
>i-it's not a reboot!

>>82854728
Looks like the Doom font.

Still better than the fucking Band-Aid though.

>>82861494
I don't see why they wouldn't, it's the company logo. They have the current one on their covers now.

>>82861486
>Other than having the letters "D" and "C" none of the last 4 DC logos look remotely similar.

>>82861486
>DC's logo is a circle with DC in it. When it's been tweaked, it'd been a circle with a DC in it. The 2005 one is a slanted circle with a DC in it. The ONLY one that's really different is the pageflip. And they went back to a circle with a DC in it.

>>82861483
now imagine if you removed Star Wars

You know what would be great? If they added a star inbetween the "D" and "C"

File: Dc-bullet.png (226KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x1000px

>>82861393
keep damage controlling and living in denial faggot

i'm not trying to start MUH COMPANY WARS bullshit, you are

if DC changed their logo it's no big deal but these aren't minor changes, they are as the other anon said here >>82861413 these aren't variations, they're new for the sake of being "new"

ironically the 2005 logo isn't that great in design but in terms of color it's perfect. blue is the opposite of marvel, bold, bright, catches your attention on the rack. a few tweaks and it'd be decent

the 76 logo is still the best, and would be great with color

>>82861571
they probably can't use stars anymore after the shoe lawsuit

>>82861464
Don;t be a dumbass. The design of the M is more or less the same. They may add an outline for a few years or a red bar beneath it but the golden arch is the same shape, every time.

File: Ramona thinks you're fucking stupid.jpg (52KB, 600x604px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x604px

>>82861515
>New logo means it's a reboot

File: iBd9k93d_400x400.jpg (8KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x400px

>>82861571
They'd get sued again.

>>82861515
DC has rebooted literally as many times as Marvel has while you've been alive.

>>82861572
>they're new for the sake of being "new"

How is this logo new? It's the 72 logo with a tighter circle

people are just making shit up now

>>82861611
>>82861589
That's a JUST situation if i've ever seen one

>>82861620
Marve never rebooted...

>>82861572
>these aren't variations, they're new for the sake of being "new"

>>82861486
>DC's logo is a circle with DC in it. When it's been tweaked, it'd been a circle with a DC in it. The 2005 one is a slanted circle with a DC in it. The ONLY one that's really different is the pageflip. And they went back to a circle with a DC in it.

>>82861619
What do movies have to do with anything? He's talking about comic book sales. This is why no one likes /tv/, you butt into everything for no reason.

File: company logos.jpg (89KB, 391x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 391x720px

>>82855878
>That's not corporate enough. A logo needs to evoke feelings of class and sophistication. Coca Cola. Walt Disney Corporaton. Harpo Studios. Marvel.

Right.

>>82861644

Then neither has DC

>>82861619
that would seem to imply Disney's Marvel Studios makes good movies???

>>82861663

I just figured if we were living in magical fake pretend land we should reach for the stars.

>>82861670
So wait then, what was the New 52 supposed to be?

>>82861552
Now imagine if we removed Superman.

File: Pepsi.png (559KB, 1308x704px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1308x704px

>>82861664
the new pepsi logo is probably the perfect modern example of JUST

look at this, they had god tier design with the red, white, and blue pseudo-yin and yang and now it looks like a retarded sailboat

File: 01.jpg (671KB, 1024x1575px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1024x1575px

>>82856192

>>82861699

No, it implies that every non-Batman movie DC has made has been trash and they don't see any reason to attempt to grow any other character brands other than Batman.

>>82861700
You really don't see why someone might want to focus on Marvel's main line comics when directly comparing sales rather than including licensed stuff?

>>82861726
should have stuck with the 70s, or 2003

I just can't believe /co/ is having a logo discussion with 330+ replies. Unreal

>>82861726
>and now it looks like a retarded sailboat

It looks like one of those Obama posters now.

File: harley.jpg (89KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 400x400px

>>82859042

>>82859303
>Should've just brought back the bullet logo.

They can't. They legally lost the ability to use that logo when they tried to sue some shoe company whose logo they said was too similar to the bullet, and the shoe company provided evidence that they had been using the logo longer and thus it was DC who had to back down and stop using it.

>>82861740
No, because that doesn't align with my ideals. Based Russos FTW! Fuck Superman!

>>82861740

Well yes, I can see why they would do that, it'd be because they're a DC fanboy who wants to make up arbitrary rules about sales so that they can feel like the company they've attached their sense of self to is doing better than it actually is.

You know, like what Nintendo fans do.

>>82861775
Hello newfriend.

>>82861778
Awesome.

>>82861776
That was the stated purpose of them changing it in the first place.

>>82861799
my nigga

>>82861778
...and now I like the logo

>>82861807
you seem really invested in company wars for some reason rather than actually discussing and analyzing the market so have fun I guess