@ Harry: what??? what’s the point here? Should I be a director, designer, creative or something like that to get the chance to express my opinion? come on….
who allow you to say that I’m a fx-fan? do you know me?? do you even actually read what I wrote???

I never wrote I don’t like handy cam like shooting or simple shooting or poor quality if this would *really* serve the right cause. In these idents the basic look is just a fault due to a strong concept that’s missing . It would exactly the same if we would see a cool fx and design work on a poor concept clip: in that case the fx wouldn’t not save the final critique from being negative. So, please, don’t talk about fx, movie stuff and other amenities, but talk only about the real concept and how the brand here is being treated.

No, really, let’s examine it.
It’s often difficult to see what’s actually is happening. The final trick is so tiny or subtle or cheap, that one needs to watch the clips at least two times. This is not good for a communication job, that should be straight. If the intent is to tease the viewer, this doesn’t mean that the viewer has not to be caught at his first glance.
And by watching the clip two times is not due to any catch at all: because the second time I watch the clip and understand what the hell is that final trick on the screen, then I feel disappointed, because it’s less then what I expected.

The quality that theoretically should mimic a poor/actual shooting, simply looks cheap and dirty.
Lastly, do they in some way reinforce or communicate the channel brand? I don’t think so at all.
Look at the ‘repeat’ movie: what’s the sense? it is so poor and weak…
That’s just my opinion.

Being different from the mass, from the common things we daily see, doesn’t mean that’s good regardless of any other principle.

Very well executed.