super bowl logo

so i really want someone to tell if it is a rule that the logo for the superbowl has to look horrible? dont get me wrong not every logo has kept with this trend. but MANY have.

i think this really is a shame considering that they have as much time as they need to design them. its not like the due date is going to surprise them. take this years logo for instance:



this logo is drowning in mediocrity. i mean does anything except the terrible design jump out at you? i mean maroon, red, and sky blue? did martha stewart pick the color scheme? no even she would have done better. granted they did try with the angled forced perspective but it still comes off like a lame leftover found in the back of a fridge from 1991.

and this is not the only bad one the superbowl logo has made a habit of being bad here are some winners:


1985... sad its like the 30's took a dump in this one.


1987 doesn't this one scream masculine?


1998 is it football or toss across?


1999 what does this make you think of hut 1... hut 2... ORDER UP!


so where was i when the 2004 superbowl took place in a 70's scifi movie?

and just so you dont think that im raggin on the designers here are some that i think are really good:


2000 ahh one of the best, a shield, strong graphic presence.


2001 again a type of shield, very nice and balanced. bold type. i like it.


2003 very different logo, and thats a good thing. took a chance, but came out with a solid and memorable logo.


2005 another really nice logo clean and incorporates city nicely.

but after that it went down hill to this travesty.

well thats my opinion. most people talk about football when talking about the superbowl. i talk about graphic design.

band of brothers

if you have not watched this series, you need to. it is an amazing work. and one of the best "movies" i have seen.

when i try to imagine the situations that those men went through, it makes me want to weep.

movies movies movies

well lets see hear so many movies to review.



I am Legend

i really had high hopes for this movie. it was an ok movie, but just kinda bland. it was supposed to be this great movie, and the trailers looked really good. it really disappointed me when i read a summary of the book and found that they left out about half of it.

so i give it 2.5 stars out of 5

28 Weeks later



if you haven't seen 28 days later then see it first cause this is a sequel. i think its not as good as the first one. its a decent movie until the end. dont watch it if you dont like bloody zombie movies. and the ending is frustrating.

i give it 2.5 stars out of 5

Stardust



this is a fun movie, if you like princess bride, youll probably like this movie. its clean and family friendly. we both liked it, and recommend it.

ill give it 4.5 stars out of 5

JUNO



this is a really good movie. this is one we saw in the theater. we actually had to go twice because our first attempt failed it was sold out. it played in a smaller theater.it was a funny movie that had a good moral to it. im not sure that i would recommend it to teenagers even though its pg-13 and the theater was filled with them. i still recommend it to anyone that has had kids or want em. it gives a different and funny perspective.

ill give it 4.5 stars out of 5