Well after the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony was deemed to be impressive (apparently), it was hard to escape the self-pitying among Brits. “You just know ours will be rubbish compared to this.”

Well it transpires that London 2012 will be okay after all. Just a day after it emerged that fireworks were faked for the television audience, it has been revealed that a pretty singer was actually miming. Apparently the girl who actually did sing munted a bit was not as flawless.

This is great news for the Brits! Because if there is one thing our media excels at (except for ridiculous hyperbole and a breathtaking disregard for privacy) it is fakery. All we need to do now is put Ant and Dec in charge of the fireworks and Liz Kershaw in charge of the music. Shoehorn in a premium rate phone-in competition somewhere and it will be brilliant.

This is another post about the new London 2012 logo. I have to admit it; I am actually becoming more fond of the logo. This now reminds me quite a lot of the time when I felt like the only person who didn’t think the Scottish Parliament building was a steaming pile of crap when it was being built.

Despite the fact that it looks like so many unfortunate things (the growing list now includes: Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob, someone getting a sex up the bum, somebody vomiting). Apart from that, I actually quite like the logo.

Anyway, I have started this post because I have seen a lot of people saying similar sorts of things, and I disagree with most of it. A popular one (too popular to link to any) is that the ideas sent into the BBC are better. But this is not really true.

The first one is actually really good; much better than the real logo. But of course, there is no way the IOC would allow the five rings to be chopped like that. Plus, it would give busybodying ethnic minority pressure groups plenty of scope to complain because, of course, it would be the black ring that has a bit missing.

Number two is just that: a load of number two. Just the sort of silly “Big Ben and London Eye” twaddle that I am glad was avoided.

Three is quite funny but, of course, couldn’t be the logo. 4 is another cheesy one that really is primary school art class standard. It also breaks the IOC’s rules concerning the five rings.

5: Bzzzp! London Eye. 6: Hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is a “no”.

7: Not really awful, but you can’t see it as the logo of the Olympic games. The Union Flag takes far too much prominence. And the outline of London is not recognisable enough (you might recognise it, but would you recognise the outline of Paris or New York for instance?).

8 is just bloody awful. Even though the real logo’s “2012″ is pretty illegible, at least you do not have to actually physically turn upside down to read it. 9: London Eye and terrible handwriting font!

10: Nice idea, but do you really want to be reminded of the London Underground the whole time? If this is the Olympics, you should be bloody sprinting to work, not taking the train.

Having dealt with that, another popular comment is, “I could have drawn that!!” Yeah, but the point is that you didn’t, did you? They did.

Bellgrove Belle compares the logo to those of previous Olympic Games. But I think it kind of proves the point that I made in my previous post. Just look at them all. They are all the bloody same! Okay, so there is a bit of evolution as time goes on. But broadly, each logo looks very similar to the previous one.

(Also, you will notice, it shows that London is not the first city to ditch the colours from the Olympic rings, as Atlanta did it in 1996. It’s not all that an uncommon thing to do anyway.)

But I am beginning to think that the biggest crime that the logo committed is just this: it bucks the trend. I’m pretty sure most people will have been expecting something pretty much exactly on the lines of the logos Bellgrove Belle featured — I know I was. To see something different is refreshing.

As for the widespread comments that it looks like something from the 1980s, this is admittedly true. But this is also one of the things that I quite like about the logo.

When I came up with the current design of this blog, part of my idea was to make it look like what the future was like in the 1980s (a prototype version was called “Ceefax”). You will also notice that the “garish” pinks, yellows and greens of the 2012 logo are near the same as the colours I use on this blog. So I think semi-consciously I am taking criticism of the logo’s colours as a criticism of my blog’s design. Sad, I know…

The most convincing arguments against the design have come from Chris Applegate, who makes several good points. He points out why the logo is unsuitable for the internet, despite London 2012’s claims that it was designed with things like the internet in mind.

Still, I do quite like the logo. While, if I had the responsibility, I probably would not have given it the thumbs-up, I am just glad that we didn’t get yet another derivative, unimaginative logo. Some bland, forgettable red, white and blue symbol with “London 2012″ written underneath is what we could have got.

What we have got is something quite different and, I would say, endearing (come on, the way it moves in that video is kind of cute). It was a risk though, and it looks like it hasn’t paid off. Maybe it would have been more suited to an album cover.

I just posted this on Twitter:

Am I the only one who thinks the new London 2012 logo isn’t THAT bad?

And pretty much instantly two people, Will Howells and Chris Applegate, told me that, yes, yes I am. (Update: And Sarah…)

I mean, I don’t think it’s a great logo or anything. For a start, it took me bloody ages to work out where “2012″ was written (everywhere, illegibly, apparently).

But I like it for being bold and different. I like it for not being yet another one of those bland, anonymous, forgettable logos that usually accompany such massive events.

Imagine if we had got one of these, which is really the most likely other alternative.

Usually these logos are shocking for just how similar they are to all the others. Love hearts, scrawly handwriting, use of national symbols. I can easily imagine a London 2012 logo where, for instance the London Eye made the ‘0′ and Big Ben made the ‘1′. Thank goodness they avoided that sort of thing.

So congratulations to the London 2012 people for not just making do with some bland squiggly emblem with “London 2012″ faux-handwritten under it.

…Having said that, the “Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob” thing is… er, unfortunate.

MatGB has collected some of the reactions to the logo. At first I couldn’t see the thing about it being a Designers Republic rip-off. (It’s not as if TDR are the only people who have ever used that kind of vibrant Japanese-influenced style.)

Then I watched the video. It has to be said that one particular part of the video reminded me very strongly of an iconic TDR-designed album cover.

Update: Forgot to include this rather funny suggested logo that ended up on the BBC’s website!