PIXAR Animation Studios
I've always been a fan of the Pixar logo. It has intense feeling of... cleanliness, or sterility even. I have long had a soft spot for Pixar, since the Toy Story days really, and what i liked most about their logo was how they applied it to their films.
Stand-alone, the text is fine - they use only the text for the signage outside their studio, but the incorporation of the lamp is something that is (in my eyes) vital to the companies image. They strive to be the best at what they do, and this is shown through the quality of their logo.
If you went to a Pixar film and it opened with just a still frame which had PIXAR written there in comic sans, and you had to look at it for a good 10 seconds you'd think that it was a tad shit. Which in turn would affect how you view the film. So their attention to the logo is a sign of their professionalism - and including the lamp is also a nod to their first animation Luxo Jr. ( watch Luxo Jr)
Now after saying all that, i can understand why they have the 2 different versions - the one they use in film is always going to be seen as a the more recognisable one. But just the logotype by itself must be used for business cards, letterheads etc because if you shrank the lamp down to fit on a business card the logo as a whole would get awfully cramped damned fast.
Industrial Light and Magic
The logo on the left is their original logo, on the right is the current logo.
When comparing these 2 you can really see the progression that time has brought round to the logo. But at the same time you can also see that they have kept a similar idea throughout the various changes that have resulted in the current logo.
The idea of creating 'movie magic' is clearly displayed by the magician in the earlier logo, whereas in the current one it is far more subdued - with the lightbulb imagery playing off the creative and 'ideas' angle. Also the use of the full company name rather than its initials has a more resounding effect for me - purely because more people are less likely to confuse INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND MAGIC with the possible magic show implied by ILM (when accompanied by the magician image).
Unlike PIXAR you dont see ILM displaying their logo at the beginning, or even at the end of their films. This is because unlike Pixar, they dont create the entire film - but they also let their work speak for itself. Rather than showing a dirty big logo and have people go 'theres gonna be some kick arse special effects in this!' and sit there trying to spot it all instead of watching the movie - ILM downplays its involvement and just pops their name in at the end - and people are left wondering what was real and what wasnt.
When comparing these 2 you can really see the progression that time has brought round to the logo. But at the same time you can also see that they have kept a similar idea throughout the various changes that have resulted in the current logo.
The idea of creating 'movie magic' is clearly displayed by the magician in the earlier logo, whereas in the current one it is far more subdued - with the lightbulb imagery playing off the creative and 'ideas' angle. Also the use of the full company name rather than its initials has a more resounding effect for me - purely because more people are less likely to confuse INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND MAGIC with the possible magic show implied by ILM (when accompanied by the magician image).
Unlike PIXAR you dont see ILM displaying their logo at the beginning, or even at the end of their films. This is because unlike Pixar, they dont create the entire film - but they also let their work speak for itself. Rather than showing a dirty big logo and have people go 'theres gonna be some kick arse special effects in this!' and sit there trying to spot it all instead of watching the movie - ILM downplays its involvement and just pops their name in at the end - and people are left wondering what was real and what wasnt.
