They only have one pair of eyes between them and look like Sonic the Hedgehog crossed with a character from the Disney film Monsters Inc.
But you had better get used to these strange blob-like creatures because Wenlock and Mandeville, as they are known, are the mascots for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics respectively, and will be all over Britain for the next two years.
Following the ridicule over the £400,000 Olympic logo, their creators will be hoping that Wenlock and Mandeville get a more favourable reception - even though they too carry the much-mocked 2012 image.
I'm really not getting how they think anyone is gonna catch the tiny little taxi lights on the tops of their heads. If they think that is the most memorable thing that represents London why don't they make a cartoon black taxi as the mascot?? Those things look more like aliens than anything else. I think they are going to end up doing a HUGE amount of explaining because there are going to be 5643212345648 people that ask "What IS that thing?"
London unveils creepy-looking mascots for 2012 Olympics
When the official logo of the 2012 London Olympics was released three years ago, the odd puzzle-piece design was the object of so much scorn that organizers were desperate to avoid similar criticism when they unveiled the mascots for the Games on Wednesday. With the introduction of Wenlock and Mandeville (above), London 2012 organizers realized their goal. The criticism of the mascots won't be similar to the complaints about the logo. No, they'll be much, much worse.
Look, I don't know what to say. Olympic mascots have always been the object of scorn (remember Izzy?), but these two, uh, things take the absurdity to a whole new level. There's a complicated backstory to the characters which was written by a children's author. It explains why the mascots have one eye (it's a camera lens to see the world) and yellow lights on tops of their heads (an homage to London taxicabs), but fails to tell the tale of why they look like early rejects from a Pixar movie. Plus, the fact that some details are explained only makes me wonder about the things that aren't. Why does the one on the left look like it's wearing an oven mitt? Where are their feet? What, are both those design features a metaphor for how we can't run away from global warming?
Officials boasted that focus groups of children helped form the designs of the mascots, which makes total sense because this looks exactly like something a bunch of second-graders would create as a class project. It's like Wenlock and Mandeville were pieced together from every child's suggestion. "They should have one eye!" "It'd be cool if they did karate!" "Make them fly!" There was no filter. Instead of simple (like the only good Olympic mascot in history, Barcelona's Cobi) London went for a design as complicated as can be.
The natural defense of the mascots is that they're not designed for adults, but for the children who will convince adults to buy them a bunch of merchandise with said mascots. That's a cop-out. Pandering to children isn't an excuse for an uninspired design. The aforementioned Pixar caters to kids, yet its films still resonate with the older set.
Wenlock is named after Much Wenlock, a village in Shropshire which held an event in the 19th century which inspired the modern Games. Mandeville is named after the hospital at which the Paralympic Games were founded. Though both sound like Tolkein characters, the names are quite good and are the only thing that makes the mascots distinctly British.
London 2012 released a video explaining the pair's origins as well. Somehow, it makes them look even weirder than before: (see article link for video)
I have to say when I saw them I did wonder what on earth they were thinking but then I watched the "back story" video and it was actually very cute children (or adults) will have the chance over the next couple of years to vote on what sports they learn next so I think the organisers are trying to get people to interact with the Olympics in the run up to the 2012 games. Video is here
I thought it was on your marks because it was referring to the marks on the track that athletes had to have their feet on before the days of digital blocks.