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) They are logos, the Pakistani ones have in-credit text after or before the "logo" so that makes them logos. |
Timpbskid23 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|rank=User |
|rank=User |
||
|timestamp=15 May 2022 |
|timestamp=15 May 2022 |
||
}} |
|||
{{Forumpost |
|||
|text=They are logos, especially the Pakistani ones, who have in-credit text before or after the "logos". |
|||
|username=Timpbskid23 |
|||
|rank=User |
|||
|timestamp=17 May 2022 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 08:05, 17 May 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". |
