Olympic Mascot

After the logo which was criticised by so many, UK agency Iris had a tough task in creating a mascot that people would actually like. In fact, they came up with two characters, one for the Olympic Games and the other for the Paralympic Games. There names; Wenlock and Mandeville, both taken from appropriate sources to represent their origins. I rather like the designs. They certainly work well in the digital format with their metallic finish, and are quite charming and well engineered characters. However, I cannot help but feel that in costume form they will look plain awful.

There will of course be mixed response to the characters. A lot of people would expect something more reminiscient of Britain - perhaps a walking talking Big Ben....I don't know. But these things are a sign of a beginning of a lasting life for them. The supporting animation, which can be seen here, explains the origins of the mascots nicely and helps establish what they stand for. Although a little airy fairy at the start, it does get to the point, effectively targetting a younger audience as well as adults, appropriate for their design of being characters which will grow and develop (again another link to their primary digital format). The mascots are shown 'being born' from metallic pieces taken from the Olympic stadium, and proceed to play in an energetic frolloc, highlighting their youth, playfulness, and really establishing character identities. The film acts as a nice, short feature to give an introduction to the characters.

Though I think the metallic designs compliment the jagged form of the now infamous logo, which are positioned well on their bodies, there are still a few things which I don't like. For example, the eyes - why cyclopses? Iris say that the eyes are supposed to be reminiscent of cameras which document everything they see, but this is a very weak link - surely any eye can have the same linked application? Secondly, I think Wenlock's character is a little too fluffy and nice. He is supposed to be a fun loving, innocent, eager thing, but I think it has been taken a little over the top and the description matches a cuddly toy better than it does for the metallic lump that it is.

Overall, they are resonably good designs, which definately suit the logo which are not too cheesy or predictable. It is entirely possible that they will stand as memorable mascots, but this obviously depends on how the public react, and I predict largely on their digital success.