Some aspects of the Original version remain, however-the imbalanced serifs on the foot of the T and the tighter letterspacing as compared to the movie title. 3 The Fawcett version also removes the T-h ligature, separating the first two letters of the title. Second, the Fawcett version seems to have the first chronological instance of what I’ll call the “skylight,” referring to the open “roof” between the G and d. This “defanged” trend will become standard. First, overall, the longest serifs are all less prickly the serifs on the bar of the T, off the terminal of the r, and on the finial of the e are no longer the needles they were in the Original version. Three things stick out about the first paperback edition (the “Fawcett” version), above on the right. 2 The temporal proximity did not mean the logotypes were identical: Putnam’s Sons, there looks to have been a softcover edition from Fawcett Crest. Along with the hardcover edition, published by G.P. But I do have the Internet, which is pretty good, so let’s give it a whirl. I certainly don’t have access to any archival material or primary sources. I am admittedly not a super-fan of the book or movies-I’ve only seen the first film, and have never read the books. 1 I’m not sure why the Random Internet version is so-angular, I guess? I doubt I’m seeing all the differences, or that I’m articulating the changes in the best way, but they’re different.īut is the Random Internet version is unofficial? Or has the logotype changed over the years? I got curious. There’s more breathing room between the letters the “house for God” has a skylight the serifs are more triangular and generally only on the right side of the stem and some of the letters are just plain different, like the e and r. Something obviously got lost when someone digitized the logo for the Random Internet version. Let’s look at the original book cover (the “Original” version) juxtaposed with the first image I swiped from Google Images (the “Random Internet” version): I expect that many of you know where I’m going with this, so I’ll cut the games. Fonts In Use claims a typeface called “Bellows” was the basis, but I don’t know where that came from (nor do I know if Larchmont existed, what it looked like, or if it was a clone of Fujita’s version). It’s unclear whether Fujita adapted an extant typeface for this, and if he did, which he used. But I do like the aligned slanted tops to the “th”, and how it is the same angle as the nearby “f”. The T-h ligature, personally, is not my cup of tea-that left serif on the stem just seems unbalanced to me.
The kerning is claustrophobic, with the serifs curling under the bowls of their neighbors.
There are many nice touches in Fujita’s design. By taking the “G” and extending it to the “D,” I created a house for “God.” The way the word was designed was part of the logo and so was the type design. I designed the book jacket for Putnam in 1969. In an interview with Steven Heller, Fujita hints at one of the ideas behind the design: Let’s take a look at the original cover of The Godfather, thanks to a listing from the Manhattan Rare Book Company: The “Original” version Neil Fujita, a Hawaiian-born graphic designer who created, among other things, record and book covers. It’s an iconic design that has been “borrowed” by many many people- mainly restaurants, it seems. Or even smaller things, like two different R’s on a sugar packet.Īnyway, I was recently considering making a silly parody thing of the Godfather logo for one reason or another. When a Big Green Sign I drive by uses a typeface that’s not in the FHWA Series or isn’t Clearview, I like to think I notice. When Arial gets substituted for Helvetica or another typeface, I hope I catch it. I know enough to see how much I don’t know, if that makes any sense. I don’t have the training, the practice, or the talent. I read Brand New and the Fonts In Use blog, though, and I own a copy of The Elements of Typographic Style. I love looking at letterforms, and have a modest collection of photos of signs I’ve stumbled across that I find aesthetically pleasing.
0 kommentar(er)
