Talk:Doctor Who logo

Current logo
I have updated the main image to reflect the fact the new logo is now being used (DWM starts using it tomorrow, and the BBC is in the process of redesigning the website). That said, we still don't know for certain which version of the logo will be used on the TV show itself, so the present image may need to be changed to the horizontal version or even another variant once the show begins. For now we should just use the "vertical and TARDIS" version that was released by the BBC. 23skidoo 01:13, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Font
Does anyone know what font the 2010 logo uses and if it is available anywhere? Tardis1963 09:47, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, search for 'Matt Smith Doctor Who Font' on Google and there should be a link to Dafont. Go to it and click download... hope this helped! Yamhamdan 11:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

@Yamhamdan - Although it's not the exact same font (the proportions of the letters are off) it's still really close and a great find, thanks for sharing! Lolzwat 12:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome 82.37.21.170 01:20, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

oops, sorry, its me yamhamdan, i forgot to login :@

Logo 11 variant
Although basically the same, the on-screen title card version of the logo has a number of noticeable differences, enough for the version launched in 2009 to be considered a variant. I added it back into the mix since the October 2009 "variant" is being widely used on merchandise such as DWM. The version that appears on screen, however, should remain the definitive version. 23skidoo 13:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's debatable. Don't know about "a number" of variations. There's only one; the size of the icon is larger in order to match the animation of the TARDIS itself. Whether we can call the texture of the thing an actual variant is less clear, in my mind. The reset of what you might be seeing simply is a trick of the eyes. You're not used to it being on a light background so it looks a bit "thinner", but there's no actual difference in the font.
 * The whole section needs a top-down re-write, because information has simply been added as it has come along. It's basically a list of events as they happened, rather than a coherent history of the graphical device, written from the perspective of today. Section really needs a picture of this "two level wording" logo, cause that bit's really quite confusing without actually seeing a picture.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 17:07, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the grammar is atrocious. Several words repeated. Several sentences are actually fragments.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 17:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think someone messed around with the section at one point because there certainly weren't these problems the last time I edited it. In any event, I gave it a tweak because there was some outdated information. I agree we need to include the two-level variant which was the version widely circulated back in October. I'll dig around and see if I can find it. Either way, my point still stands that there are at least three variants of the logo in circulation: the two-level version the BBC released in October, the blue-on-black version being used for the books, DWM and DWA, and now the see-through version being used on TV. Whether the lettering is thinner or not is irrelevant. 23skidoo 03:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the 2-level variant image. I'm aware it carries a BBC watermark but it's the only version of this variant that I could find. If anyone has a non-watermarked version, feel free to replace it. 23skidoo 03:41, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for upping the vertical one. Somewhere I read that that version had been officially retired, but I'll have to find that source.


 * As a point of graphic design nomenclature, I'd rush in to point out that all versions of Logo 11 are transparent. The color of the background is irrelevant to their transparency. Were they not transparent, you couldn't apply the lighting effects with precision to the logo; the entire black background would have the same effects splashed across it. The light on the "TARDIS icon", and over the "W" in version one, are the only things that're semi-transparent — and that's only because that was in fact animation. If you'll remember the original 30-second clip that was released, these two elements moved. (What you've got up for the "2-level" design is a single frame in an animated sequence.)


 * The fact that the black is merely the background, and not a part of the logo, is proved by the books, DWM, and DWA. You say, above, that the "blue on black" logo is being used for the books, but that's evidently not true when you actually look at the books. They aren't blue on black. They're blue transparency with a black drop shadow, much like the new Tardis Index File logo. DWA's logo has a whisper-thin drop shadow, and DWM is somewhere in between the two. This "blue on black" version is really better described as the "blue" version, or maybe the 2D version. Graphic artists wouldn't consider shadows to be a part of the design, because those are actually applied contextually and on-the-fly. The thing that's interesting about this logo is how potentially versatile it is. Unlike the RTD version — which, save its use on Confidential, was always used in an orangey way because it would have been a nightmare to change — this Moffat version can easily be any color you want it to be. It's kinda like the Tom Baker era version, which could be taken apart and re-colored as much as manufacturers wanted to. It was orange, black, blue, purple, and green on Target novelizations, for instance. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see something similar being done to this Moffat logo as we progress through the Matt Smith years — especially since the TV logo has already broken with the coloring they gave to manufacturers. I bet money that within the next year, we're gonna see a non-blue logo on DWM or DWA — unless they're contractually obligated to use blue.


 * As yet another aside, every logo ever used since 1963 has been transparent to some degree. Even the most "solid" of them — like the RTD era (9 & 10) and 74-79 (5) ones — have had weird angles that could only have been achieved through transparency. It would be relatively insane to make a non-transparent logo, because that means you couldn't easily change it as needed.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 00:43, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting points. In the category of "it was right in front of us all the time but we didn't notice", however, the TV version of the logo is undeniably a variant because of the size of the "Doctor Who" words in relation to the DW. The "blue version" has the letters almost as tall as the DW, while the TV version (silver version?) has them considerably shorter. I honestly didn't notice until I was casually reading the article over just now! It's interesting that the "two-level" version was retired. That places it in the category of "abandoned logos" -- if you can find the source, please do add it. As far as the other two version (TV and merchandise), I think calling the non-TV one the Blue Logo might be a way around the nomenclature issue; the TV once could be called the Silver Logo. (This assumes of course licensees don't start messing about with the color the way DWM and others did with Logos 9 and 10). 23skidoo 01:35, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Logo 11 criticism
It's fair enough to say the new logo has been criticised -- has any logo been universally accepted -- but we need to include a source to back this up. Is there a fan site, blog, BBC News story, magazine article supporting this? 68.146.81.123 23:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Confidential Logo
I have noticed that the 11th doctor's logo that is featured on merchandise is in fact used on screen, as the confidential logo, albeit a different tecture and confidential wording underneath. I am wondering to edit the article, as it may cause a few disputes. Yamhamdan 11:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Logo Nine and Ten are the same
If you call the updated Series 6 title version "v2" of last year's titles, then the Logo 10 is "v2" of Logo 9, they used that version before they changed it in the titles, it should be counted as the same logo, in the same way there are two versions of 11.