BBC BLOGS - Roger Mosey
« Previous | Main | Next »

London 2012 mascots - what's your view?

Post categories:

Roger Mosey | 19:00 UK time, Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Well, it's not a lion. That was the preferred choice of people who contributed to my last post - but that was, of course, before Wenlock and Mandeville were unveiled before the nation.

Now we can see what they're like:

Wenlock and MandevilleMandeviile and Wenlock

We also know the story of how they came into being - from steel being manufactured in Bolton for the Olympic Stadium. You can see the film telling the tale on the London 2012 website.

Now the mascots feel the need to be in London for 2012 - and the creative teams are working on the journey they'll make to be there in time for the Games.

As I've said before, the mascots are entirely owned by the London Organising Committee (Locog). But we've been aware for some time of what was being planned and - if creatures made from steel can be said to evolve - we've followed their evolution.

So do I have a view on them? Well, in this case it's irrelevant what I think. The judges are the people of Britain and beyond.

But what I would say is that, as a principle, we should encourage innovation. The point about many of the things we now take for granted - like the very idea of mascots - is that they were once pioneering and fresh ideas.

Whatever you think about London 2012 so far - and I note that many people are still not won over by the logo - it's showing a willingness to take creative risks.

As our sports editor David Bond commented in his blog, after the controversy over the logo there might have been a temptation to play safe.

But the organisers haven't done that. Instead, they're talking about something they hope will inspire children in particular and bring home the message of sport and 2012.

Anyway, it's now over to you. Tell us what you think - and I suspect our friends over at Locog will be having a look at your reaction, too.


Page 1 of 16

  • Comment number 1.


  • Comment number 2.

    Appalling! This is what you get with design by committee!

  • Comment number 3.

    First impression - yeah, I'm sold on them.

    Like all these things, how you build the brand is crucial, but impression without analysis the 'what hits you?' test: surprise, interest, pleasure. In that order.

    Hope they sell lots, make great animations and that furry exemplars are wandering round the track to hug the winners. But not to drop them into a hurdle!!

  • Comment number 4.

    Bloody awful

  • Comment number 5.

    I really like the idea- they are both bold and innovative designs rather than simply trying to cash in on a cute/fluffy image. Well done to the designers for showing a willingness to put so much effort into something to take us through the games!

  • Comment number 6.

    MANDEVILLE????? How on Earth did the French sneak into co-hosting the games?

  • Comment number 7.

    Absolutely bleeping awful.

  • Comment number 8.

    I thnik the Mascots are very funky, modern and stylish.

  • Comment number 9.

    These mascots are the most hideous things ever. Congratulations London 2012! You have now officially become a global laughing stock!

  • Comment number 10.

    Initial gut reaction is one of wonder & bewilderment. If only because the thing that I keep wanting to say is for once, why not listen to the people of the UK and do something traditional ... seeing as we are the ones funding the games, it would be nice to have had some input.

    Let's see how I feel after sleeping on it.

  • Comment number 11.

    My eyes!!

  • Comment number 12.

    Okey. Now for the World Cup

  • Comment number 13.

    it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry...

  • Comment number 14.

    They are awful beyond belief.

    Fits in quite well with the logo I suppose.

  • Comment number 15.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 16.

    Too clever by half. Same as that awful logo. How many different ways will the 2012 people find to make us look small time?

  • Comment number 17.

    While the mascots have little to no impact on me, I don't see how a blob with one eye can inspire children at all. There's a reason that mascots are normally animals, such as Berlino the Bear, and that's simply because it works.

    Indeed, the green mascot (Mandeville?) reminds me of a certain Disney film quite a bit. I expect to see Monsters Inc. comparisons somewhere along the way.

    What I'm wondering is how they'll translate the mascots to the track, because CGI, I get the impression, will fail miraculously. But we shall see.

  • Comment number 18.

    Your a bit late for April Fools.....

  • Comment number 19.

    A modern twist on the standard mascot, I say, why not?

  • Comment number 20.

    They should have chosen something uniquely British, like a Spitfire or Lord Nelson. Then we should make athletes from enemy, er, opposition nations salute it.

  • Comment number 21.

    They have got to be joking. Whoever designed those needs testing to see what they have been eating/drinking/smoking.

  • Comment number 22.

    Rubbish how much did they pay for the design of these hidious things

  • Comment number 23.

    i dont really lie them what so ever

  • Comment number 24.

    On the plus side, at least they aren't the logo.

  • Comment number 25.

    Can't help but think i will be one of the minority who really likes them. Better than a run of the mill Rory the lion or whatever mediocrity we could have played with.

  • Comment number 26.

    I LIKE IT!! They can be moulded into any sporting shape you want. With a hint of The Simpson's.

  • Comment number 27.

    Utterly woeful. I had thought that the risible 2012 logo could not be surpassed in dreadfulness but now I see I was wrong. Is this what passes for creativity these days?

  • Comment number 28.

    Very Monster Inc like. Bit scary with the one eye for kids maybe....

  • Comment number 29.

    First the logo and now this ? this is what happens when you listen to kids !

  • Comment number 30.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 31.

    First the logo and now this ? this is what happens when you listen to kids. !

  • Comment number 32.

    I think they're alright. Visually they're an awful lot calmer than the logo. I think they'll work well.

  • Comment number 33.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 34.

    Why did they have to be 3D?

    Seriously, terrible, based on these mascots I will be boycotting anything associated with the Olympics including London itself.

  • Comment number 35.

    Wenlock and Mandevill? I hate to imagine how much money and time went into dreaming up these mascots. Did they pay no attention to Berlino at the 2009 World Championships? He was the star of the show.

  • Comment number 36.

    I actually like them, makes a change from the generic furry animal. I trust Michael Morpugo to come up with a good story too. My only worry is the lack of any really distinctive features that will instantly catch the eye on any marketing/merchandise they are used for.

  • Comment number 37.

    Also, dirtydonki, if you did you research you'd know that Mandeville is named after the hospital where the Paralympics were in Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire...which last time I checked wasn't in France.

  • Comment number 38.

    I personally think they are clever and imaginative.

    Thought has gone into the design with a clever animation as well as getting the Children's Laureatte to right a back story.

    The fact that the names come from Britains historic links to the Olympics - Wenlock where de Cobertain first thought of the Olympics and Stoke Mandeville where the para olympics were both held - demonstrates intelligence and thought.

    There will be some naysayers, but I suspect they would have complained whatever the mascot was.

  • Comment number 39.

    great!! good fun for the kids and we seniors also think it very apt!!

  • Comment number 40.

    Surely the designers were given details of all previous mascots for the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and World Cups etc.

    The fact is cute and fluffy works and sells well.

    Why on earth then would someone come up with the idea for these two? My daughter claims they would give her nightmares if she woke up and saw them and they look like a weird cyclops.

    So for £6 million we get a laughing stock of 2 mascots and people are expected to say they are great. First a terrible logo and now this.

    Come on 2012 - put some pride back into this games, your ideas are a joke and making us a laughing stock with other nations.

  • Comment number 41.

    It's only got one eye so it should be called Morefield not Manderville.

  • Comment number 42.

    Why are the design committee focusing on these silly 'quirky' 'modern' ideas when we should go for something iconic and simplistic! Did they learn nothing from the huge negative response from the logo!?

    They are nicely designed and would fit nicely on a kids TV show but they lack any association with London, apart from a 'taxi light' which I'm sure was probably rushed into the design when even they realise it had no association with the city!

  • Comment number 43.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 44.

    I like them. Wasn't sure at first but totally warming to them now. I think they'll be a success.

  • Comment number 45.

    Oh no!! no!! they look awful!! and what is with the ONE EYE??

  • Comment number 46.

    Ha ha absolutely epic! Like no other mascot I've ever seen before.

  • Comment number 47.

    Mandeville is badly drawn,rip off, of Sonic the hedgehog.

  • Comment number 48.

    Having watched the video on the website they're not actually as bad as I thought they might be, but they're still pretty vanilla. I certainly would have preferred an animal, or something REALLY extraordinary rather than a pretty lazy pair of extra-terrestrials which were apparently created by some guy for his kids anyway.

  • Comment number 49.

    Three words - utterly beyond belief !!

  • Comment number 50.

    So what do they look like? I mean actually look like not just a CGI version but the finished product!

    First impression of the images we have so far is good, I like the union flag styled ones on the bottom of the official page.

  • Comment number 51.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 52.

    I am not a fan. I had no idea about what they were until being told and even then didn't understand the link until I read it again. I'd have also preferred something similar to Berlino (loads of ties to the City and cute as well).

    At least it isn't as bad as the logo.

  • Comment number 53.

    To anyone who thinks they are rubbish *please* take a look at the accompanying video on the official Olympics site! It definitely won me over :)

  • Comment number 54.

    What would have been the problem with a giant inflatable Boris Johnson?

  • Comment number 55.

    Wenlock and Mandeville...welcome to London, the UK and the world. You will make us proud. Really good, modern, wacky and on the ball, well done to the entire LONDON2012 team.

  • Comment number 56.

    Absolute rubbish. Why?!?! Why why why??? So bad... almost as bad as the logo. Whoever is in charge really needs to be fired.

  • Comment number 57.

    LOCOG has taken a risk and pushing the boundaries of design. The mascots' target audience aren't the folks reading this blog, and if due dilligence by research has been performed then there's nothing more to say.

    I'm amazed by the creativity of the idea if nothing else, and certainly gets points by being mould-breaking and daring.

  • Comment number 58.

    This is the worst misuse of £400,000 I've ever seen. It's worse than tat. What is it meant to be? It looks like a chrome plated bogey. I could have thrown up on a plate and offered my services for a mere £40.

    Going by the designs we as a country have managed to muster up this is going to be one of the worst Olympics of recent memory.

    It's just embarrassing. Utterly terrible. I hope LOCOG read this. You couldn't present a cat.

  • Comment number 59.

    They're fine, calm down people. They're not even aimed at you for goodness sake. And just for the record, my 5 and 6 year old nephews think they're amazing. I look forward to seeing the animated stories, and if they manage to get kids interested in sport then I'm sure that some random person's negative opinion on a BBC messageboard won't mean diddly squat.

  • Comment number 60.

    Lets be honest. The greatest mascot EVER was...Berlino the Bear! We were never going to be able to top that. He was the best bear since Yogi.

  • Comment number 61.

    I honestly think its SUPERB!

    Its a very modern out look on the "mascot", and for me, I prefer this 3d story background then to just a 2d drawing!

    I think so far, the planning and preparation of the games are going very well! If these come available to buy as an ornament I will be purchasing them!

    Being from London I am excited about the games! You are never going to please anyone! I am just glad the organisers have gone against the typical "boring mascot"!

    It can be whatever it wants to be, and I am sure we will see it in many forms from now up until the big event!!!


  • Comment number 62.

    I do like them!!! Wenlock and Mandeville though???

  • Comment number 63.

    They look horrible...first the logo now the mascots, looks like my kid can design something more suitable, cried at the first sight of how ugly these things look!

  • Comment number 64.

    I think it is pretty clear these have been designed by children... There seems to be nothing British about them which is what I was hoping for. Mybe we could have made a loveable Cartoon British Bulldog in the way that the US used the Eagle in 1978. These are truely awful and the only thing worse is the Logo. I bet these cost more aswel pretty fancy graphics used....

    Sorted we need CHURCHILL. 'England get Gold' Churchill: 'ooooooo YES!'

    Recon we should petition for this to happen

  • Comment number 65.

    They look like some kind of cyclopean pokemon rejects.

  • Comment number 66.

    I was expecting something far worse, to be honest. However my first impression is that the designers have spent too much time watching trendy American cartoons. To explain: These mascots are a cross between Roger the grey alien out of American Dad, and Leela the cyclops from Futurama.

  • Comment number 67.

    The 1996 Atlanta Games are looking better all the time.

  • Comment number 68.

    actually like them they look eye catching and modern but still cute for the kids not sure how this whole interactive thing is going to work with there eyes meant to be cameras? but seem well thought out however although the names mean something they arn't exactly easy to remember and as much as you say they mean something because they have a back story it is a completley made up one so not sold on that but al in all

    YEAH ill go along with it and if it means seeing less of the lisa simpson logo then im well behind them

  • Comment number 69.

    So blobs of steel with one huge eye are the 2012 mascots?

    There's a reason these things are usually "cute/fluffy", they're meant to appeal to kids. The olympic mascot is a friendly and easily recognizable face of the games and will feature on hundreds of items of merchandise. And London comes up with blobs of steel, cute but a bit scary blobs of steel at that!

    You have to laugh!

  • Comment number 70.

    First we have a hideos logo

    Then came the awful pile of red scrap metal - some unpronounable tower

    and now this - two alien blobs

    god knows what the poor athletes will look like if more of these idiots are designing their kit

  • Comment number 71.

    Although I'm not too sure about the names I think they are great mascots and after watching the video I can see these two as being a great hit. As the mascot is more focussed towards kids than adults the idea of building up a story on them is a great way to gather interest. What they need to do now though is keep them in the public eye and start building up the hype for the Olympics.

  • Comment number 72.

    Thank goodness that it is not a lion or any other type of 'representative' animal. My very first reaction was 'oops - they're not going to be popular in BBC forums' and I was right. People see something different from the norm and the first reaction is that they don't like it. I think its just a knee-jerk reaction (especially in the UK!) but hey, we all have to respect those opinions.

    I actually like these mascots - and I think kids are going to love them! Time will tell.

    But I think time will show them to be more inspired then those of the last 20-30 years put together!

    Well done from Spain!

  • Comment number 73.

    I'm sorry, these are absolutely appalling. How many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds will it have cost to produce them?? Corporate rubbish!!

    Why do we persist to deny our national identity in this country at every opportunity??

    Next time you look at them ask yourself this: Are they the result of an unfortunate smelting accident involving Sonic and a Pokemon??

  • Comment number 74.

    That is beyond terrible.

    Just when I thought it wouldn't be possible to come up with anything more embarassing than that pathetic excuse of a logo for the 2012 games, you do this. What exactly does a one eyed shiny monster have to do with the 2012 olympics ? Nothing.

    Please change the design house before we become any more of a laughing stock. I'd be happy to point you towards some professionals.

  • Comment number 75.

    Only surpassed by the Olympic splodge, sorry logo.

    Are these really the best we can come up with?

  • Comment number 76.

    They look like Pokemon....Ugly Pokemon

  • Comment number 77.

    All the designing for the Olympics has been one great big disaster. The Logo was absolutley hideous, and now the mascots are just as ridiculous. On the whole, its all pretty embarrasing. I just hope it pays off.

  • Comment number 78.

    It seems that the organisers are hell bent on coming up with designs that are just plain weird. Would I want to wear an olympics T shirt or cap with these mysterious shapes on? No. After the negative reception the logo received, they have gone for broke and left the country behind them with their adoption of this futuristic whimsy. These characters are characterless - they do nothing for me. I'm not excited or amused or teased with anticipation. Devoid of emotion, lifeless and forgettable. A missed opportunity to connect with the audience, especially youngsters.

  • Comment number 79.

    Wenlock and Mandeviile?

    Boris and Ken would have been far better!

  • Comment number 80.

    Are they havin' a laugh?

  • Comment number 81.

    Fantastic, as if it wasn't bad enough that our logo looks like some paint that fell on the floor and left to dry, we now have squeeky dog toys representing our country.

    London, you do our country proud in so many ways.

  • Comment number 82.

    I think they are great. Stylish and original

  • Comment number 83.

    ...What *are* they? I'm afraid they dont inspire any sort of pro-Olympic feeling in me at all. Just a bit of confusion.

  • Comment number 84.

    Y'know what? I really like them! I thought the logo was awful, but I think they've redeemed themselves with these mascots - they're quite charming and I think they'll appeal to both adults and children.

    Obviously the usual moaners will slate them simply for the sake of slating them, but look - they could have been the usual cuddly animal, but they've something instead that's quite modern and stylish.

    Nice job guys!

  • Comment number 85.

    I like them, and I think more importantly my 4 year old boy knows what the Olympics are now as a result of watching the video. I don't think they are meant to appeal to grumpy men who read the Daily Mail and are seething with anger and hate because of property prices.

  • Comment number 86.

    Someone has spent too much time watching Monsters vs Aliens, Monsters Inc and similar films. Suppose it could be worse ... they could have taken the image of the logo and turned that into the mascots. And if you look at the logo ... it kinda looks ... well ... you look! All I'm gonna say is that the first 2 looks like someone's belly and the 1 looks like his leg. you work the rest out!

  • Comment number 87.

    OK so when I first saw them I wasn't convinced, but after hearing the story behind them I think they're fab! What a great idea and what a unique approach to mascots!

  • Comment number 88.

    These look like poor people's mascots. At my Private school we not only attend chapel on a regular basis but also have the money this country does not have to make some bloody good, damn impressive, toffing spiffing mascots. I am outraged, this is a disgrace to the country, my peasants could have designed better mascots.
    My father will have something to say about this......

  • Comment number 89.

    Is this supposed to indicate/replicate British character and or personality?

    If so...I'm insulted!

    If it's supposed to indicate and replicate Seb Coe's character and or personality ...Ok I'm intrigued....No, confused.....No, perplexed....No, sad.....

    What exactly were they thinking?

  • Comment number 90.

    Everyone has their different opinions, to me they look like something that was knocked up in the space of 5 minutes. When I think of London, a bunch of camp cycloptic robots doesn't exactly spring to mind, I'm intrigued to hear how exactly they are relevant.

  • Comment number 91.

    I cant believe how narrow minded the majority of comments are! The mascots are cutting edge innovative and my 4 kids under 12 think they are great.

  • Comment number 92.

    it's Mr Hankey the Olympic Poo!


  • Comment number 93.

    Look a lot better and a lot less cutesy than Bei Bei, Huan Huan, Ying Ying and Ni Ni to be honest!

    I like them.

  • Comment number 94.

    In principle theses are terrible. But it is always hard to come up with something different and relevant. Anybody who watches cartoons will recognise the type of characters selected. I am concerned that designers of such as these try to shock to justify their fees and there is the belief that matters must be avent garde. These mascots are totally forgetable. I have on the other hand never forgotton "World Cup Willie" from 1966. A British Lion in football kit. QED. But of course, "World Cup Willie" would never get past the censors these days.

  • Comment number 95.

    Better than Lisa Simpson doing something unspeakable which is on the current logo.

    Having said that, I feel for the good citizens of Much Wenlock & Stoke Mandeville who are to be associated with such rubbish for the next couple of years!

  • Comment number 96.

    Absoulutely disgusting.

    This is what all these years of labour has given to us. A government completely out of touch with the people due to their own selfishness and ignorance.

    And now a whole generation of representatives and civil servants who also are completely ignorant and disillusioned.

    These mascots are the most disgusting things ive ever seen. In no way are they cute, have personality or appeal to children with such bland and emotionless persona.

    Their design is also way out of touch. What kid would want these characters on a poster above their bed when they look like a heap of molten lead with a cyclops eye??

    This is frightening to see how out of touch with the world the people that control us are....

    RIP Great Britain

  • Comment number 97.

    i never knew we had any steel works in london. how odd. i do like them tho. So out-there that they're bound to catch on even if in an ironic kinda way. at least they don't reference spitfires, nelson, churchill, multiculturalism, london buses, the Queen, punks, the rolling stones etc etc zzzzz.... and all that tourist guff. they're not REALLY called Wenlock and Mandeville tho. As we can see they're blue and orange so they're obviously Dave and Nick. And as they've only an eye each they have to help each other al the time. Brilliant!!!!!!!

  • Comment number 98.

    So this is the best that the self styled centre of the British creative industry (London) can do ,what a joke!

    Please stop listening to children so much....!!!!

    Seriously a melted sonic the hedgehog and a one eyed monster......very olympic, very London

  • Comment number 99.

    I wonder if they realise they've essentially designed a phallus? Ann Summers sponsorship deal, maybe?

  • Comment number 100.

    Typical of people posting negative comments on the designs. We need to lighten up. Perhaps some of us do not know how lucky we are to have the olympics come to London.


Page 1 of 16

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.