Forum:Should nameless logos be considered logos?: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
Timpbskid23 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
CooleyBoy10 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|rank=User |
|rank=User |
||
|timestamp=17 May 2022 |
|timestamp=17 May 2022 |
||
}} |
|||
{{Forumpost |
|||
|text=I agree with Camenati. These aren't really logos, they're in-credit texts/opening quotations/etc. They might be better suited for Company Bumpers. |
|||
|username=CooleyBoy10 |
|||
|rank=Administrator |
|||
|timestamp=3 June 2022 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 18:48, 3 June 2022
| Report post
|
I've seen "logos" such as the Film Field Productions opening credit as well as the First National Movies "logo" and many Pakistani intros that starts with street views of a city or a mosque and I don't think they should be called logos. I think those intros have a different purpose than to display their company names in the opening, whether it'd be for religious reasons, crediting others, or simply hyping up the viewer for the movie. What do you think? |
| Report post
|
They are logos, especially the Pakistani ones, who have in-credit text before or after the "logos". |
| Report post
|
I agree with Camenati. These aren't really logos, they're in-credit texts/opening quotations/etc. They might be better suited for Company Bumpers. |
