DC Comics New Logo
by Bennett Holzworth, (15 comments)
There goes another graphic design legend’s logo. Milton Glaser’s classic DC Comics logo will be no more. Josh Beatman of Brainchild Studio designed the new DC Comics logo. I can’t say that I have deep feelings for Glaser’s logo, but the new one seems a bit to slick and “swoosh” like for my tastes. I really don’t have much interaction with comic books, so I’m not sure that my opinion is very valid in this instance. The new logo is well done and eye catching, but is it a good fit for DC Comics? I would like to hear some comic book lovers opinions on this one.
Comments (15)
Dale Cruse said:
Comic book companies are doing what they can to remake themselves as relevant in an age when eyeballs are directed more to things like TV and video games. Writers like Joss Whedon and J. Michael Straczinski and Kevin Smith are brought in to revitalize titles. So doesn’t it make sense that at some point the company logo would be freshened up as well?
The new DC logo looks okay to me. Doesn’t excite me either way. But the swoosh and 3-D aspect of it are perhaps a nod to the interactive element of DC’s brand.
Posted on May 11, 2005
Michael Dogan said:
I’m so sick to death of the ‘swoosh’ thing. It seems like a terrible dream that you’ll hope someday to wake up from. Here I thought it was a simple fad, but I see no end in sight.
Most recently, I remember having a logo brainstorming session with one of my agencies biggest clients. It was a Friday afternoon, so there was wine, cheese, grapes, crackers, etc. We must have discussed hundreds of good ideas before finally settling on — you guessed it — a swoosh!!
It’s just too juicy for non-designers to think a swoosh is a perfect fit for their ‘dynamic’ company. My tone is very cynical as I say that.
Cheers!
Posted on May 11, 2005
Robert Cortez said:
I don’t see they couldn’t have just refreshed it a bit, keeping the familiar color and shape, but maybe tweaking the type and stuff. I’m not an avid comic book reader, but I instantly recognize that old logo. This new one looks too young. Immature, in fact, like the recent redesigns of so many sports teams’ logos.
On the other hand, Marvel has had a sorted history of logo (and name) changes, but their current logo is so simple and strong it’s almost timeless. I hope they never change it.
Posted on May 11, 2005
Dale Cruse said:
They DID refresh it. All the elements are there: the round shape, the two letters, and a star. All the elements are there - they just tilted the circle to make it more 3D rather than flat. How is that NOT a “refresh?”
Posted on May 11, 2005
nate said:
ANNOUNCEMENT: Designers calling foul on the Millennium Swoosh as an unusable/over-trendy design element has officially become as played-out as the Millennium Swoosh itself.
I grew up reading comic books. I’ll pick up a few now and then. Jim Lee’s run on Batman (where the above Batman illustration comes from) was fairly entertaining and Jeff Smith’s BONE still stands as a crowning achievement in storytelling. This logo is, for what it is trying to do, just about perfect.
The dimensionalityóI’m rejecting the word “swoosh” hereómakes the mark very dynamic. And when your main product features illustrated stories of superheroes in capes and underwear fighting crime, that dynamic element is perfect. I dare say the “swoosh” is more at home here than anywhere else it’s ever appeared. Certainly a helluva lot more appropriate here than on a forgettable IT company logo.
Also, let’s not wax philosophic about the old Glaser logo. Really, it’s not that great. It is not the old UPS mark.
If I had to knock down the new logo for anything, I would say that it won’t last 50 years, like the old one, before it becomes dated. But that old one sure looks dated to me now.
Posted on May 12, 2005
Adrian said:
Thumbs down on the new logo from me. I have never been that enthusiastic about Milton Glaser’s work, but I like the old logo. Part of it is that I am nostalgic towards the old one, and part of it is the trendy look of the new one. I don’t care for the new “DC” type. The new star trail/ring doesn’t say “comic book” to me. The shield symbol of the old logo was much stronger. I think the old logo was timeless, and the new one will look dated in a few years.
Posted on May 12, 2005
Donovan Beery said:
With the audience of their products, I don’t think it matters if the logo only has a shelf life of 2 years. The only DC logos that really matter are those on the front of the superhero costumes.
Posted on May 12, 2005
Joe Sparano said:
While a majority of comic books offer little in either art or intelligence, an increasing percentage are artful and smart (e.g. The Acme Novelty Library and anything published by Top Shelf, Fantagraphics, or Vertigo). The medium has managed to double its punch in the last 20 years ñ adding poignant storytelling to its pictures.
To DCís credit, the new logo expresses the same sort of energy present in all of its most popular books. However, it is exactly this sort of irradiated gyration that these books are moving beyond. The physical form of the characters hasn’t changed since inception, but their motives have. Over the last 20 years, comic books have become monthly studies in relationships and emotions, and only secondarily about truth and justice.
Itís obvious that DC’s new logo was created specifically for cinema. It reflects the industry’s new priority, of motion pictures over static. Still, the new logo is troublesome, since the theme of the 21st Century superhero movie is the humanity of the hero - not necessarily his heroics.
Iím not suggesting that DCís outgoing logo was better-suited for the modern comic book, but at least it wasnít so wrong. While it will certainly animate better than its predecesor, DC’s new logo represents all of what comic books used to be.
Posted on May 12, 2005
Bennett said:
It looks like Speak Up has started a discussion on the new logo today. See what some of the heavy hitters have to say about it.
Posted on May 13, 2005
Max Riffner said:
The creators I know are pretty dismissive of the whole thing, and most of them don’t even know who Milton Glaser is. Here’s the thing with DC; they produce icons, whereas Marvel Comics produced hereoes who weren’t always sure of themselves or did the right thing (which earned them marketshare and money). But DC’s business, conceptual, creative and editoral drive has been to always have these heroes be mythical and magical. Lasting.
With the introduction of Identity Crisis featuring superhero rape, and Crisis on Infinite Earths featuring a second-rate character getting executed for shock, you get the sense that they are trying to be perceived as new and fresh. Cutting edge.
I’m sad to see the old logo go.
Posted on May 15, 2005
Max said:
I’m sorry; I must correct the following: With the introduction of Identity Crisis featuring superhero rape, and Crisis on Infinite Earths featuring a second-rate character getting executed for shock, you get the sense that they are trying to be perceived as new and fresh.
Crisis on Infinite Earths happened in 1986. What I meant to say was Countdown to Infinite Crisis.
Posted on May 16, 2005
Bennett said:
Some great perspectives from everyone. It is good to hear from some people that know a little more about this industry than I. From the look of the logo and from DC’s press release, they are really trying to make it more motion friendly. In the long run, I wonder how much this will distance them from their core audience to try to make some quick money from video games and films.
I agree that it looks like every pro sports team’s recent redesign.
Nate, The whole “Designers calling foul on the Millennium Swoosh” is only played out because unoriginal designers keep rehashing the same old cliches. DC’s sort of swoosh is more appropriate than most, but it is still an easy solution and not very well resolved.
This might be getting too off topic, but I thought I would throw it out there. Is it really necessary for a logo to be timeless anymore? Many people didn’t even notice the drastic redesign of the Burger King logo a few years back. Consumers are so used to change, it seems that a logo redesign is hardly a blip in their recognition of a brand. Of course a redesign is never cheap to implement on a national scale.
Posted on May 16, 2005
Lawrence Krubner said:
David Ogilvy, in his book Confessions Of An Advertising Man, said companies are too quick to change their ads, logos, and looks. He thought it was common for a new ad executive to come into a company and feel like s/he needed to make a mark by changing everything. But Ogilvy thought that consumers, rather than being a standing audience that grows bored with the same ad, is rather a marching army, and the ad is constantly being seen by new people.
My own feeling is that companies have a strong tendecy to underestimate the value stored up in an old, classic logo. Many institutional forces are at work, pushing toward the new and away from the old. Designers, for one, want more work, so they push for new ads, logos, looks. The executives inside the company want to make a mark or, after a bad year, they want to be able to claim that they are doing things differently. Companies end up wasting money on new logos that will be less effective (have less recognition with audience) than the old ones.
The only good reason to start over again and get a new logo or a new look is when the old one is associated with a strong negative in the consumer’s mind (bad customer service, a bankruptcy, a fatal product flaw, etc.). I emphasize the negativity should be present in the consumer’s mind, not the designers or the executive. The opinion of the designer and the executive shouldn’t matter.
Posted on May 24, 2005
DC1974 said:
Based on the comments in Print this month, taken from actual patrons at a comic book shop, the ‘new’ look isn’t appreciated. Why mess with a good thing designed by a master, eh?
Posted on July 13, 2005
Martin said:
There’s an interesting history and commentary on the DC logo here: http://www.apocalyptek.com/index.html
Posted on July 14, 2005