#because I want to see characters filtered through a more accurate lens of their ages

[king0fcrows]

.

[bigskydreaming]

I’m writing this scene between Lilith and Bruce right now, and I just cut a whole segue their conversation took because it derailed it too far from where I meant to take it and was more of a meta thought anyway.

So I’m just gonna verbalize it here so as not to waste that thought. You’re welcome!

But purely on a pet peeve note (and this seriously isn’t a response to something I read lately, I feel like people always think that’s what prompts everything I say but honestly, sometimes shit just pops into my head and this is one such instance lol) - anyway like, lemme just express real quick how much I LOATHE the term ‘mindrape.’

Like. Please stop forever with that, sci-fi and fantasy themed media and entertainment. That’s not a thing. Stop trying to make it a thing.

To be perfectly clear, like, the idea of a telepath or someone via some technology or magic being able to go into your head and view or pluck out your most private, carefully guarded thoughts? Abso-fucking-lutely something that can and should be viewed as a violation, in universe.

Its just....not rape. Its literally not.

I honestly do think that the rise of this particular term was because people thought about it and just HOW intimate and personal one’s thoughts can be, especially someone who is used to being closed-off and emotionally guarded, and when trying to come up with a way to describe this that captured the INTENSITY of the violation people were picturing when they imagined this.....that’s how people ended up linking it to rape as a way of conveying just how awful a violation it was?

But like.....rape is a very specific act, is the thing. It has specific context, it has specific catalysts, framing, fallout. Rape has its own name rather than just being described as a violating assault or an act of violation, because rape is a SPECIFIC act that carries its own connotations in our society. And those connotations aren’t something that entertainment should feel comfortable borrowing just to use as like, a benchmark for how awful a completely fictitious concept might be.

Because that dilutes the very purpose of giving rape its own name in the first place. The more its likened to an abstract sense of violation that feasibly encompasses pretty much anything that falls under the umbrella of personal violation.....the less it stands out as notably different from other forms of violation and calls to mind the things that MAKE it different, and thus warrant it being treated differently or approached in a specific way.

And here’s the thing about WHY rape has its own terminology:

First....there’s the fact that whether we like it or not, the simple reality is our society is obsessed with sex. We live in a very heavily sexualized world, where its often difficult to completely separate ANYTHING from sexual connotations. Its easier to make just about anything ABOUT sex than it is to make anything that’s remotely sex-adjacent about something OTHER than sex.

Now combine that with the fact that while rape is about power, and taking it from a victim or exerting it over a victim.....rape is INTRINSICALLY connected to sex. True, rape is not sex, its an act of aggression, not a sexual act. There is no way to engage in rape without simultaneously engaging in violence. There is no way for someone to consent to what is inherently by definition a stripping away of consent.

Rape is not sex. But sex is the VEHICLE by which a rapist takes or exerts power SPECIFICALLY. While at the exact same time, a HUGE part of why survivors struggle so much with getting the support they need in recovery.....is because due to how SEXUALIZED rape is in our society, in our media and just our very conversations of it, most rape survivors face the stumbling block of their assault and violation being viewed as more about sex than it was power.

Essentially, even though on the surface even most people ‘know’ that rape isn’t sex and rape is about power.....lots of people fall into the trap of looking at rape and thinking of it as sex gone wrong, or sex someone regrets, or tons of other thoughts that have more to do with sex than rape. Because from a pretty early age, anyone who doesn’t ALREADY have their own view and awareness of rape....has their view of rape then informed pretty much just by how its depicted and presented in media and entertainment. Where its of course heavily filtered through a very sexual lens.

So even while consciously KNOWING that rape isn’t an act of sex but one strictly of violence, entitlement and power....lots of people still have to contend with and push back against a foundation of it being more closely associated with sex in their minds, as the easily visualized IMAGE of what rape LOOKS like on the surface.....than other things it has more in common with once you look at anything OTHER than the visual of it, such as focusing on the motivating factors for rape and WHY rapists do what they do.

Theft, coercion, other crimes and concepts that more accurately reflect a rapist’s desire to TAKE what they were told was not theirs to take or to just degrade or humiliate someone in the most intimate way possible, or to turn a person’s very body into a weapon against them or to injure someone in a way that is meant to be more lasting or permanent in its effect on a person than just inflicting a physical wound.....any and all of these things have far more to do with why rapists rape than a simple desire for sex.

Rapists don’t rape because its the only way for them to have sex, even. Because even when rape is very much attraction based....its STILL not about just wanting to have sex with the person of their focus....its about wanting to have sex with them even despite being told no, or without giving them even the chance to say no. Even when a rapist ONLY targets a person because of their specific physical attraction to that person and their desires/fantasy to have sex with that specific person and not someone else.....the crime itself is still ABOUT stripping that person of their personhood in order to simply act upon them as the OBJECT of their focus/attraction...rather than any kind of a partner in a mutually beneficial or engaged-in act.

But despite all of that.....ask any non-survivor what springs to mind first when they hear the word ‘rape’....and chances are the resulting thoughts are more instinctively geared towards sex than power.

All of this is directly linked to our tendency as a society to view and treat and even talk about rape in terms of it most commonly being sex that got out of control. Despite the fact that no act of rape was EVER going to be an act of sexual partnership......because the very thing that turns something FROM sex INTO rape....is the MOMENT a rapist determines or feels that sex with a person is off the table or simply not what they’re interested in.....because they either don’t have or don’t WANT their victim’s partnership in what happens. They simply want to take. To steal. To use. To abuse.

Without exception.

Honestly, this got a lot more indepth than I was intending to go when I was just riffing off of a thought that popped into my mind about how I just really don’t like the term mindrape.....but a big part of the problem I have with the term is how indepth you basically HAVE to go in order to fully convey just why the term is so.....not a valid comparison to make to rape, with anyone who doesn’t already have an instinctive or reactive understanding of rape that’s more based on what rape TAKES than with how its usually depicted or talked about, where its in terms of what rape LOOKS like.

Because alllll of the above connotations and how important and central they are to any actual examination or discussion of rape....they simply do not carry over into a concept like someone reading your mind without permission.

Again, its not that such a thing wouldn’t be extremely violating IMO. It absolutely would be.

My point is simply that rape is always a violation, but violations are not always rape. SEXUAL violations are rape. But there’s a ton of ways a person or even something like a law or concept or even a freaking BUSINESS contract can be violated. And these aren’t interchangeable.

Are a person’s most intimate thoughts something incredibly personal, something no one should be allowed to take without permission? Sure. Absolutely. But imagine how else such a scenario could take place even in our real world, without needing a concept such as telepathy to make it feasible. Think about anything from someone reading a person’s carefully guarded or hidden diary or journal where they record thoughts they NEVER expect or want someone else to be privy to. Think about someone being tortured to give up information they’d be willing to give up their life to keep secret. Think about a burglar breaking into someone’s home when they’re not there and going through all their most personal belongings, leaving evidence that some stranger has been there and seen and touched all of that and you now don’t feel like you have the ability to keep anything safe and hidden from others, even in the safety and security of your own home.

Are all of these things different kinds of violation, most of which carry a great degree of intensity and personal betrayal or harm?

Absolutely.

But are any of them interchangeable with RAPE?

Or are they a bit easier to separate from from that concept once laid out to this degree, to see as completely separate and distinct things that may have some overlap but not necessarily even in the same ways or places they’re usually viewed as overlapping with rape as a concept?

Since I began this as a fandom related concept, lemme bring that back for a final thought.

Instead of likening other things TO rape, imagine if we did the same thing in reverse, and likened rape TO other things instead.

In terms of even just Batcharacters.....think about how often its been raised as an actual STORY point, that many Bat characters have shown a willingness or even tendency to cross all kinds of ethical boundaries and illegally surveil someone or intrude upon boundaries in the name of ‘the greater good’ or because they feel the ends justify the means.

Now imagine if all of those instances, no matter how large or small a violation....from a simple breaking and entering job to get inside a Rogue’s secret hideout in order to steal the location of their next crime....to putting bugs and cameras into someone’s home without their knowledge or permission and even just being able to spy on them naked or when revealing extremely personal information while thinking there’s no one else around to hear it, regardless of whether or not that’s what the character intends those to be used for or never actually uses them in that way.....

Imagine if all of THOSE violations were considered, viewed and talked about as not just breaches of privacy but as RAPE, specifically....with any relevant Bat-characters thus by extension specifically being rapists for having engaged in such violations.

And then, let’s flip the script back AGAIN, and now look at those instances where characters intrude, surveil, cross boundaries or invade privacies in the name of trying to save people or prevent tragedies or in the name of that always handy alleged ‘greater good.’

Try using that ‘in the name of [...]’ clause in regards to when and why a rapist rapes, and see how......not good that is. Has any of the above EVER been an ACTUAL justification for why someone rapes someone else? COULD it ever be? I know there’s the fuck or die trope and there’s more than a few variations of it in which one hero is forced to essentially rape another one or someone innocent or else the villain will kill them both, or kill the other person, or something like that....but even then, the actual RAPE is still on the villain or person exerting coercion, so no, not even then is rape being done in the name of saving/protecting someone or some supposed greater good. Its still the villain that’s doing the actual violating, that’s making the CHOICE to set up this scenario and limit the hero’s options to either ‘participating’ or signing someone’s death warrant....and just like sex is the vehicle by which rape occurs, the ‘raping’ hero is in this kind of scenario STILL just being used as a proxy by the actual person with the actual intent and desire to violate and assault the other person, and in being used in such a way, and in an inherently sexualized way themself.....it simply makes the ‘raping’ hero still not an actual rapist, but an additional rape victim of the ultimate villain as well.

See how complicated and messy this all gets, and how quickly?

And especially given that it doesn’t ever NEED to get there, in either direction, since there’s plenty of ways to describe varying types and degrees of violation with specificity, without resorting to ‘rounding up’ to refer to them as rape as a shorthand for expressing it was a particularly intimate or sensitive violation - and without losing sight of the fact that violations that result even in the THEFT of sensitive, personal information or secrets.....still only result in things like pieces of INFORMATION being what’s stolen, rather than someone’s entire bodily autonomy and personal agency.

Anyway, in conclusion the point is really just that we come up with the terms we do for specific reasons, and while language and contexts do evolve, grow, and even wholly change over time for a variety of reasons, it is important to take note of when that happens so we can determine if that change SHOULD be happening or if key contexts or connotations are being left out or overlooked in the process or wake of language changing.

And while I kept my point here limited to the example of rape and ‘mind rape,’ it applies to a ton of other stuff and topics as well. This just happened to be the one on my mind at the moment, but this kind of awareness can and should definitely be applied to a lot of other discussions involving sensitive or emotionally charged topics as well.

We come up with specific words and terms with INTENT. The creation of a specific term or phrase almost always involves having seen a NEED for such specificity in the first place, in order to denote key differences between something and other things it might be similar to but not fully described or encompassed by previously existing words or phrases.

Before treating concepts as interchangeable, we should always take care to make sure that they are, in fact, actually interchangeable.

[charger-batteries]

Voigtlander Nokton 21mm F1.4 Aspherical Review

Voigtlander sells its Nokton 21mm F1.4 mirrorless lens in two versions—one for Leica M cameras for $1,049, and another for Sony E models for a bit more, $1,199. Both sport the same optical formula, but there are some cosmetic and technical differences that separate them. Regardless of the camera you pair it with, the Nokton combines a very wide angle with an f/1.4 aperture and offers loads of character.

Throwback Fit and Finish

The Nokton 21mm F1.4 looks and feels a bit different depending on which version you buy. We tested the M-mount edition, which works natively with Leica rangefinder cameras, giving it some time on an older Leica M (Typ 240) camera body and, via an adapter, a Sony a7C.

The version of the lens sold for E-mount cameras looks a bit different, but houses the same optical formula. It focuses a little closer, and includes electronics so it triggers focus assists automatically, and also records the set aperture, options you don't get with the Leica M edition. Of course, it costs more, and it can't be used on M cameras.

The optics required to net a wide 21mm focal length and bright f/1.4 aperture are on the large side—as are both editions of the lens. The M comes in at about 2.7 by 2.7 inches (HD), while the Sony E version sports the same diameter, but is a little longer (3.1 inches). Each weighs a bit over a pound and supports 62mm threaded filters.

Regardless of the edition you buy, you'll get a lens housed in a metal barrel, finished in piano black. The manual focus ring offers an ample grip, alternating between curved finger hold valleys and ridged peaks. Aperture control is manual too—with the M lens you get third-stop adjustment, while the E lens can be set to turn freely (for video) or with detents (for photography).

Dust and splash protection is omitted from both versions of the lens. It's not something we've come to expect for M lenses, but is a standard feature for Sony glass, including the autofocusing FE 20mm F1.8 G.

Rangefinder or Mirrorless?

Using wide lenses with a rangefinder camera is a bit of a chore. Photographers still cling to models like the Leica M10-R because of its optical viewfinder and double-image manual focus patch, but the viewfinder doesn't show as wide a view of the world as a 21mm lens. For most M cameras, that means you'll need to use the main viewfinder to focus, and an accessory finder to get a properly framed image.

There are some older 35mm film models, notably the Voigtlander Bessa R4, with extra-wide viewfinders that show the 21mm angle of view; I didn't get to try the Nokton with an R4, but the viewfinder blockage is likely substantial. If you're an R4 owner, you know the drill.

It's not an absolute necessity. You can always eyeball it, use the entirety of the viewfinder, and enjoy images that show a bit more of the world than your eye sees through camera optics. You'll have to deal with a partially obstructed view, though—the lens itself juts into and blocks a good portion of the viewfinder.

To frame images accurately, you'll need to add an external viewfinder. With any M camera, film or digital, an optical accessory finder is an option, but you'll still need to switch your eye from one finder to another to go between focus and framing. While you can get pretty close using the distance scale on the lens to estimate focus distance by eye at narrow apertures and with further subjects, working up close or making photos at f/1.4 really requires precise focus.

Some digital M models also support electronic viewfinders. The add-on option for my aging Typ 240 isn't very good by modern standards, but M10 models support a much clearer add-on EVF.

When you use the lens with a mirrorless camera—you can put the M-mount version on any mirrorless system with a $20 adapter—you'll use an electronic viewfinder full-time, of course. I went this route when testing the M lens, using the Sony a7C as my camera in the field.

Close focus isn't a strong point for most rangefinder lenses. The M version of the Nokton focuses to about 20 inches (0.5-meter), but M cameras can't actually check focus through the viewfinder that close—rangefinder coupling doesn't work any closer than 27.6 inches (0.7m).

The Sony E edition focuses closer—rangefinder coupling isn't a concern after all. It can lock onto subjects at 9.8 inches (0.25m).

In the Lab

I tested the Nokton with the 60MP a7R IV and software from Imatest, an application that measures resolution, distortion, and vignetting—all characteristics of note for a wide-angle lens.

At f/1.4, the pair nets very good resolution through much of the frame (4,100 lines), but edges lag behind quite a bit. Field curvature comes into play—our resolution tests are shot at fairly close distance with a flat target.

This leads to muddy results in lab tests. In the real world, much of your frame will be naturally defocused at f/1.4, and while you can expect subjects framed off-center to show less contrast and detail than those near center, it never limited my choice of framing.

Central resolution is excellent at f/2 (4,625 lines), and field curvature lessens as you narrow the aperture and increase depth of field. For landscape use, the Nokton delivers excellent results from center to edge at f/5.6 through f/11.

Images are softer at f/16, a result of optical diffraction. With some lenses you'll need to live with that to get defined sunstars, but the Nokton draws sharp sunstars by f/8. By virtue of its 12-blade design, the aperture draws stars with 12 points when stopped down.

There is some distortion, a complex mustache pattern that's a little tricky to compensate for on your own, but can be addressed via software; Adobe includes a correction profile for the Nokton for photographers who process images in Lightroom. If you're thinking about the lens for architectural work, keep this in mind. For day-to-day imaging, the effect is modest to the point where you won't notice it.

You're certain to take note of the vignette. Corners are visibly dimmed at f/1.4 and f/2, and while the effect is lessened at f/2.8 onward, it's never really gone. It's something that you can compensate for when processing your photos with relative ease.

Wide Aperture Sets It Apart

A lens this wide and this bright, with full-frame support, is a rara avis. While it's fairly common to find 24mm F1.4 lenses, the Voigtlander Nokton is one of only two in-production 21mm F1.4 lenses for the sensor format.

The other, the Leica Summilux-M 21mm F1.4 ASPH., is a direct competitor, also available in M-mount. It's significantly more expensive, $8,295, nearly eight times that of the Nokton. I've not had the opportunity to use it, though, and its asking price is high, even for Leica.

Voigtlander also still sells the Ultron 21mm F1.8 in M-mount for around $900. It's been on the market for some time—we reviewed it six years ago—but it remains an appealing option if you want to spend a bit less.

Leica M photographers are locked into manual focus lenses, but Sony owners thinking about the E-mount edition will also want to mull the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G. Its styling is more modern—it sports a composite polycarbonate barrel and autofocus, after all—and its optics are outstanding. The FE 20mm F1.8 G may not scratch specific itches, though. Photographers who prefer the handling and aesthetics of purely mechanical, manual focus lenses are likely to prefer the Nokton.

[simplemlmsponsoring]

New Post has been published on http://simplemlmsponsoring.com/attraction-marketing-formula/internet-marketing/the-ridiculously-useful-guide-to-snapchat-ads/

The Ridiculously Useful Guide to Snapchat Ads

Advertising on Snapchat has proven to be highly lucrative and, honestly, a lot of fun. Our team of paid acquisition specialists are particularly well versed in the importance of locking down a swipe up in six seconds or less. Though we may have originally underestimated the value of Snapchat, as the fast-moving social media introduced advertising for SMBs through a self-serve platform, we got back onboard the Snap bandwagon.

The 18- to 24-year-old age group continues to be drawn to Snapchat, despite rumors that the platform was being vacated by influencers. In fact, 186 million people use Snapchat every day, creating 3 billion snaps per day.  If you are trying to advertise to this younger demographic, start with Snapchat.

In this guide, you’ll learn everything you need to know about Snapchat ads, including how to:

Define your campaign goals Choose a Snapchat ad format Target your audience on Snapchat Measure your success

Define Your Snapchat Campaign Goals

Like other social platforms, Snap has a few different advertising offerings to choose from. Depending on your goals and budget, Snapchat advertising provides different attachment types to effectively increase your ROI. Here’s a breakdown of each campaign goal that Snapchat can help you accomplish.

Brand Awareness and Video Views

This is the simplest way to advertise on Snapchat, because you’re only asking users to watch a video – an action they are already in the app to do. Keep it short and sweet! Insider tip: Snapchat advertisers report that ad fatigue is far higher on Snapchat than other social advertising platforms. To avoid this, make a few different versions of your video ads.

Web Views and Conversions

Pushing prospects to your website and down the sales funnel to a conversion through Snapchat advertising is probably the most popular way to advertising goal for this platform. If you are a Snapchat user, you’ve absolutely been served ads that encourage you to swipe up, read more, or check out the site.

Lead Generation

For those trying to expand the top of your marketing funnel, Snapchat advertising has you covered. You can create ads within Ad Manager to drive users to download, form fill, or register.

App Installs and Engagement

Snapchat advertising is uniquely targeted to mobile users in ways that Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and others can relate to but never quite imitate. Use this to your advantage when building out a Snap advertising campaign! You know that if a user is opening, viewing, or swiping up on a snap, they are on their phone. Your prospects are inches of touchscreen away from the app store – or a tap away from a deep link placing them right where you want them in-app, but more on that in a minute.

Importantly, Snapchat advertising recently introduced down-funnel event tracking, from app installs to opens and conversions in-app. Use this with your third-party tracking platform to accurately measure the success of your campaigns.

Deep Linking in Snapchat Ads

Deep linking! A phenomenon that swept the mobile advertising world a few years ago, deep linking allows a user to land in a section of a mobile application. Snapchat advertising allows marketers to deep link from their ad into their app, bringing users exactly where you would want them. Be sure to test deep links against your run-of-the-mill links; you might be surprised at the results.

Brand Engagement

Almost half of college students on Snapchat would open a snap from a brand they didn’t know; almost three-quarters would open a snap from a brand they did know. Most of them are looking for discounts or promotions and are open to purchasing after viewing a product via Snapchat. The door to brand engagement is already wide open, your social media acquisition specialists just need to walk through it.

Catalog Sales

I’m not talking about your mother’s Land’s End in the mailbox – Snapchat advertising is bringing catalogs into a whole new age. With the release of Collection Ads, Snapchat now allows advertisers to drive catalog sales through a phone screen. Shoppers officially spend more time on their mobile devices than a desktop. Don’t fall behind the times!

Snapchat Ad Formats

When Snapchatters see advertising within the app, it feels seamless, which is a nod to their brand designers. Once you’ve determined your goals for Snapchat campaigns, you should consider which types of ads would work best to reach and engage your audience. The good news? Each of these formats is versatile! Pick your poison.

Snap Ads: The Basics

Snap Ads come in a variety of flavors, but what you should be thinking when you hear “Snap Ad” or “Top Snap” is your typical advertisement that prompts you to swipe up. Whether it is in a snap story or in the discover tab, the main point of action that snapchat advertising drives is a swipe. These live within stories and can drive users to a website, an app, a video, AR lens, or the app store.

These ads are 3-10 seconds in length, and make sure to follow Snapchat advertising restrictions when you set them up:

Upload a 1080 x 1920 px JPEG or PNG image, that will be converted into a 5 second video for a photo to video conversion Remember that if you add an attachment to your Snap Ad, Snapchat will apply a call to action and caret at the bottom of the advertisement Always include a brand name that matches the paying advertiser and a headline Format for full screen and vertical Make sure your ad is appropriate for viewers 13 years old and up

Story Ads

Snapchat Story Ads allow advertisers to place a branded tile in the Discover section of the Snapchat application. When users tap the tile, it opens into a collection of ads, anywhere between three and twenty placements. For this type of ad, Snapchat lays out the design for you, based on assets you deliver. You’ll need:

A headline, up to 34 characters A brand name, up to 25 characters Attachments, if you’re optimizing for a swipe up And individual files for each Snap Ad within the story

Snapchat Story Ads are a branded content experience, not unlike playable or rewarded ads. Creating a narrative that will quickly engage users is your highest priority; don’t bother with an introduction! Dive right into it!

Snapchat Filters

I would bet that every Snapchat advertiser wishes that they could have designed the dog-face filter; imagine the reposts that drive monumental brand awareness. Though native to Snapchat, that filter is a fitting example of what advertisers should emulate when creating their own. These filters should represent your brand in a fun, relevant way. When designing and purchasing Snapchat filters, keep your customers in mind: Where will they will be using these? Why should they?

And remember these specs:

1080 by 2340-pixel image 300 KB or less PNG with transparent background 210-pixel buffer zone at the top and bottom of the screen for larger phones 74 pixels for the send arrow 32 pixels for the “sponsored” designation Portrait orientation Should occupy less than 25% of the screen

Finally, KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Try not to fill the Snapchat filter with dense, deep graphics. Give the people what they want!

AR Lenses

Lenses are monetizing a classic Snapchat interaction. Users were first drawn to Snapchat because of the amusing (and flattering) filters at their disposal – who doesn’t want everyone to see them in perfect lighting?! This ad type allows brands to create interactive moments through augmented reality. Snapchatters can flip up sunglasses, stick out their dog tongue, shake their head to reveal a robot underneath, all with a brand logo stuck in the corner.

There are two types of lenses, the Face Lens and World Lens. Face Lenses feature innovative technology to recognize a user’s eyes, mouth, and head to transform into the characters your brand creates. A World Lens detects your location to map the environment around you. Users can use the rear-facing camera (aka the normal camera) to view their world through a different light. 

While there are some logical restrictions on the content of your lens (don’t use profanity or change the user’s race or skin color, etc.), the world is your oyster when it comes to these Snapchat ads. Some best practices to keep in mind:

Lenses must feature your brand logo or name, but make sure not to obscure the face of the user. Snapchat recommends placing it in the top right or left corner. Snapchat will add a “SPONSORED” tag to the ad, which will appear for two seconds before disappearing.

Collection Ads

In Snapchat’s most recent development of their programmatic offering, they rolled out Collection Ads! These ads allow advertisers to showcase a series of products. This ad type also gives users a fun, seamless way to shop and buy. If you haven’t seen a Collection Ad in real life yet, it is a basic Snapchat video ad with a ribbon of thumbnail-sized products at the bottom.

Collection Ads can be created based on a product catalog, allowing the products featured to be dynamic, or they can be created manually with uploaded tile images. Because this ad type has more pieces than just a simple Snap Ad, there are more requirements to fill out within Ads Manager. They’ll ask for unique links, calls to action, and swipe up URLs, and then Snap will apply the “AD” denotation.

Targeting through Snapchat Advertising

Now that you’ve defined your campaign goals and started to create your ads, you’ll want to set up audience targeting so that these ads appear for your ideal prospects. Like Facebook, you can reach Snapchat users based on a crazy number of categories. Unlike Facebook, Snapchat will tell you exactly where this data is coming from – whether it is Comscore, Nielsen, Placed, Datalogix, or any other data provider. This means that you can get super specific: you can target Fox News viewers, moms with kids in high school, recent visitors of an autobody shop, people with an interest in craft beer – there are countless possibilities.

For Filter and Lens ads, you’ll be prompted to select a location, but you can layer location onto other Snapchat ads, as well. Snapchat Ads Manager allows you to select a state, city, or zip code, or you can set a radius around a certain location.

Finally, like their social advertising counterparts, Snapchat allows marketers to create custom audiences and lookalikes. Lookalikes can be based on a file from your own CRM of prospects or website visitors. Custom audiences can target the same people – visitors or prospects – and retarget Snapchatters that have already engaged with your ads.

Measuring Success through Snapchat Advertising

While every platform advertises a suite of analytics, Snapchat’s might be my favorite. While staying on brand – everything is yellow! – they highlight segments that interact with your ads, even if you did not include those specific segments in the campaign. By increasing the relevance of your campaigns, you are improving the user experience and saving money. Basically, the platform helps you improve your campaign targeting and cut down costs. It’s a win-win-win for advertisers, Snapchat, and Snapchatters.

Pay attention to these stats! In the campaign highlighted above, Snapchat let us know that Shoppers, Liquor & Spirits Drinkers, and Shopping Mall Shoppers (how specific is that?!) were most likely to swipe up on the advertisement. By narrowing our scope to those specific segments – and cutting down on females and android users – we were able to decrease the cost-pe-swipe up by a couple of cents. Two pennies don’t seem like that big of a deal, but two pennies 600,000 times? That makes a dent.

Now, Go and Get Snapping!

All in all, Snapchat has a robust advertising platform, through which you can control your own destiny using their Ads Manager. If you’re a direct-to-consumer brands, give it a try. It’s cheap, fun, and maybe you’ll see success!

Read more: wordstream.com

[theragamuffininitiative]

Christian Films and Misc Rambling Thoughts on the Subject that Might or Might Not be Actually Connected

@cogentranting​ At some point, years from now, when all else is turned to dust and the sun has set for the last time, a post for this reply, stating I will reply in a longer fashion later (which would actually be now) shall appear. I will likely delete it out of pure spite. Stupid mobile app uploads.

I haven’t seen God’s Not Dead. Or God’s Not Dead 2. I should. Not because I just want to, or because It Is The Inspired Word Of Our Lord™ (hahahah it’s not guys, ok), but because of my overall interest an involvement in the world of film. I should be informed.

Also, I appreciate the sarcasm. XD I hope that was sarcasm or now I look really stupid but you’re going to get an earful either way, so it works out.

So let’s get to it:

I hate the Christian Film Industry™

Whew. There. I said it. Pray for my salvation.

Why? So, soooo many reasons.

1. The Sacrifice of Art in the Name of ‘Message.’

I, for one, want to know why the Christian church is constantly smashing down on the creative outputs of their members for not being enough about God, or published by Thomas Nelson, or advocated by Willie Roberts. Why. We would rather squelch the heartfelt, beautiful, God-given art produced by our brothers and sisters for not showing a clear Conversion Experience rather than be amazed at the ability God has allowed us to have to make such fantastic, whimsical, thought-provoking, emotionally-resonant things.

This is point number one because it. is. my. biggest. issue.

“Message films are rarely exciting. So by their very nature, most Christian films aren’t going to be very good because they have to fall within certain message-based parameters. And because the Christian audience is so glad to get a “safe, redeeming, faith-based message,” even at the expense of great art, they don’t demand higher artistic standards.” ~ Dallas Jenkins, movie reviewer and director of The Resurrection of Gavin Stone??? (Imma have to check back with you later on this, but the quote still stands on its own.)

“We have the makings of a movement that can change this culture. I honestly believe this. But I also believe the first step toward establishing the groundwork for a vibrant, relevant cultural movement based on scriptural thought is to stop producing “Christian films” or “Christian music” or “Christian art” and simply have Christ-followers who create great Art.” ~ Scott Nehring, in his book You Are What You See: Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens.

“If we are trying to evangelize, the fact that most Christian-themed movies are torn to shreds by non-Christian critics becomes an issue. If, however, we just really want to see our fantasies validated on screen, then we will write-off these poor reviews as “persecution.”” ~ Andrew Barber, in his article “The Problem with Christian Films.”

On a similar note, I want to know what the Mormon church is doing that the Christian church is not. Every time I turn around, I discover that another of my favorite artists, whether it be in film or elsewhere, is a professing Mormon:

musicians Imagine Dragons, the Killers, and Lindsey Stirling

authors Brandon Sanderson, Shannon Hale, Heather Dixon, and Brandon Mull

animator Don Bluth

actress Amy Adams and actor Will Swenson (both formerly)

etc, the list goes on

Hi, my Mormon friends. What is your secret. What ways of encouraging art and artists do you employ that my Baptist upbringing, and the Conservative Christian community in general, is so sorely lacking in?

2. The Christian Culture’s Subsequent Villainization of Hollywood.

This past Christmas, my sister gifted me a book titled Behind the Screen, “Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film, and Culture.”

I sat down after all the gift-giving was done and read the first three sections before the holiday meal was served. But let me quote from the introduction which had me “Amen!”-ing and punching my fist to the sky every third word:

“We obsess about “the culture” endlessly; we analyze and criticize. But we can’t figure out anything to do but point an accusatory finger at Hollywood... Blaming Hollywood for our cultural woes has become a habit... Casting Hollywood as the enemy has only pushed Hollywood farther away. And the farther Hollywood is from us, the less influence we have on our culture. We’ve left the business of defining human experience via the mass media to people with a secular worldview.... In pushing away secular Hollywood, haven’t we turned our backs on the very people Christ called us to minister to - the searching and the desperate, those without the gospel’s saving grace and truth?”

Btw, if this subject is something you are interested in, I highly recommend this book. Written by creatives and executives in the film world (including one of the writers from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the producer of Home Improvement, and even the multi-credited Ralph Winters, among others), it’s a frank, beautiful, and challenging read for artists, Christians, and film buffs.

The point here is that the church culture says if it doesn’t come from Sherwood, or have Kirk Cameron or Ducky Dynasty in it, or have a conversion sequence, it isn’t Christian and therefore Christians should not view or encourage it in any way. This. Is. Crap. Pardon my French.

Beauty can come from imperfection.  Even unregenerate hearts still bear the image of the Divine and are capable of producing so much worthwhile and significant art. Which leads to...

3. Guess What? Secular Film Companies Make Quality Faith Films Too??!

Idk what I should even say here, but I’m just going to go with the one shining example I always think of: Dreamworks’ Prince of Egypt. It is purely a work of art from any standard, and that is the epitome of what Christians should be looking for in their endeavors to create good film. PoE is gorgeously animated, seamlessly directed, well-scripted, morally driven, more Biblically and historically accurate than you would believe (and where it falls down on direct representation, it remains true to theme and character), etc. etc. etc.

I could go on for ages about how much I adore this film. (Joseph, King of Dreams, is also noteworthy, but nearly up to par with the craftsmanship of its predecessor.

I mean

just look at

the art

4. I Do Like Some Films Made By ‘Christian’ Companies

Idk, I might step on people’s toes or surprise you by which of these I actually approve of, but here we go:

I like Fireproof. I have many issues with it, but overall it is a fairly well-made, Hallmark-style emotional flick. The acting leaves much to be desired, but it’s a decent bit of showmanship, story, and truth.

I do not like Facing the Giants. Give me Blind Side any day of the week, except don’t because... sports.

However, both Courageous (some actual real life dialogue and not a completely happily ever after, whaaaat???! Oh, but token conversion experience, of course), and the early-and-forgotten Flywheel (which, although low in camera quality and acting, is actually an enjoyable story), come in as films I would sit down and watch at least a second time.

Risen is well-made and acted and has some establishment of genuine Craft. However, as far as story plots go, a lot was sacrificed. The mountain-top encounter with Christ was, while perhaps the most generally cliche piece of story, to me the most heartfelt and provocative. After that...the film kind of ended in mediocrity. Like...what did the characters do after the credits rolled.

I actually really enjoy Mom’s Night Out. The manic theme almost kills me, but the quiet and the reveal at the end is worth sitting through to see.

And I appreciate Luther. I don’t watch it often, because I personally can’t stomach the more violent aspects (the reason I haven’t/don’t watch The Passion or End of the Spear.) But Luther is a great biographical film, and I would encourage anyone studying Catholic and/or Protestant history, especially Martin Luther, to watch it. This is a Film in both art, message, and class.

Tbh, I’ve been avoiding most of the other Christian films, which is why I won’t talk about them there.

5. You Don’t Have To Slap A Jesus Fish Bumper Sticker On It To Be Christ-Honoring

Walden Media is a prime example, I believe, of what Christians in the film industry should be doing. I mean, they’re not perfect at all, but they are not sacrificing art for message - or vice versa for that matter. While not strictly a Christian Film group, Walden is founded and run by a majority of Christian Conservatives who are actively seeking to make quality and wholesome films for people of all diversities. They’ve had a few flops and several more that just didn’t quite live up to their potential, but they also brought us

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, as well as

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, and the one I will never stop talking about:

Amazing Grace.

Well-crafted films, put out by *gasp* an assortment of believers and non-believers. Art. Good films. Not Messages dressed up in makeup with a classy Instagram filter and a 30-day challange booklet to get your revival outfit on.

In looking through this stuff, I just found this article, which is a superb read and really gets at the heart of what I feel, and am very badly trying to communicate:

Why Faith-Based Films Hurt Religion

So.

When Christian Films start being an actual representation of creative community and the artistic talents God has given to us as personal and spiritual gifts, rather than a cheap way to try to force morality on Hollywood and on our neighbors without ever leaving the confines of our Bible Boxes in case we might get soiled, I may start appreciating the Christian Film Industry™. Until then??? I’ll stand behind my fellow creatives and my fellow believers and hope and work for the best.

Lastly, two things:

Christians Can Enjoy Secular Film Productions.

I would even argue that they should. We were created by a Creator God, who takes pride and joy in making beautiful things, in making each of us. And we are made in His image. We are creators as well, we make art all the time. Scripture tells us to worship God in everything we do. The movement of making “Christian Films for Christian Audiences because of Christian Reasons” is missing the point entirely. We as creatives are not here to make God Art, we are here to make art that glorifies God

Christ Does Not Need Hollywood. However, Hollywood Does Need Christ.

“While many missionaries travel to remote villages in Africa or South America to spread Christianity, [Karen] Covell believes her calling—her mission field, if you will—is right here in Los Angeles, in an industry that many of her fellow Christians find immoral or even downright sinful, both for its on-screen depictions of sex and drugs and the real-life sex, drugs, and other temptations that exist behind the scenes. Covell, who was a film producer in the early 1980s, says "the church did not get how I could justify being a Christian in Hollywood, and Hollywood did not get how I would follow God. It was a divide." It was nearly impossible to meet other Christians working in the industry, let alone ones who would express their faith openly. "I said, 'The church hates Hollywood, Hollywood hates the church. There's got to be some way to bridge that divide.'" - in an article by Jennifer Swan.

As I said in my original little “about me” tag response, I have felt called to ministry in this world. Whether it be film or live theater, that world is calling to me, both in its creative endeavors, and in its desperate need for the hope, truth, life, and light of Christ. Actors and directors in Hollywood and on Broadway are in as much need of the grace of our Lord as the starving orphans in the unreached people groups on the other side of the planet - same as your next door neighbor.

If Christians continue to tie themselves down, and group themselves together, cutting themselves off from the culture and the culture off from them, then we are doing absolutely no heavenly or earthly good to anyone.

So, you see, it’s not just the artistry (or, so often, lack thereof) in the Christian Film Industry™ that gets to me.

It’s the fact that the film media culture is a people group that the church as a whole is ignoring. We are ignoring the impact Hollywood has on the world around us and still trying to be relevant to that world, which is counter-productive and just plain silly.

It’s the fact that I see actors, actresses, producers, writers, who are obviously searching for the Something that will fill the void in their souls, and their primary exposure to Christianity and Christ - the only One who can satisfy them - is the Christian Film Industry™, which is largely full of broad and meaningless substance because heaven help us we should talk about something real, and then just plain bad art.

I believe God has called us to higher things than this.

Higher art, loving to create as he lovingly created us.

High impact, going deeper into the issues of our culture and our nature to address and satisfy problems and needs felt be every human, not just the church-goers who will show up for Sherwood’s next big thing.

So, yes, my pet peeve cracked from its proverbial nutshell:

I have issues with the Christian Film Industry

[aion-rsa]

Catherine Hardwicke on Don’t Look Deeper’s #BlackLivesMatter Metaphor

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This contains spoilers for the season finale of Quibi’s Don’t Look Deeper. Content warning for discussion of violence against Black bodies.

As director Catherine Hardwicke told Den of Geek in a recent interview, Quibi’s science fiction thriller series Don’t Look Deeper is a coming-of-age story “on steroids”—that is, it takes the existential questions about identity and power seen in other teenage stories and filters those questions through the metaphor of protagonist Aisha (Helena Howard) discovering that she is a robot. Over the course of the feature-length season (released in 7-to-10-minute episodes), Aisha asserts her autonomy to her human creators, challenges her peers who see robots as nothing more than property, and—most importantly—tries to save her robot brother Calian (Tyler Ghyzel) from a similar fate.

However, while Aisha’s identity as a robot provides the most action-packed stakes for the series, it is not the most important lens through which to view her story. Equally vital to take into account is that she is female, queer, and Black. The latter aspect of her identity especially makes the season finale, which is intended to end on an optimistic and open-ended note, take on a much more disturbing context—especially considering the latest #BlackLivesMatter protests and anti-racism activism that have mobilized the country since June.

While the first half of Don’t Look Deeper concerns Aisha coming to grips with the revelation that she was created by scientist Sharon (Emily Mortimer) and raised by well-meaning father figure Martin (Don Cheadle), partway through the series there is a shift when Aisha remembers that she has a younger brother. Sharon created Calian for her lonely cyborg daughter, who wanted someone who would be just like her; thus her younger brother, whose name means “a warrior of life,” shares her inner hardware and her biracial appearance.

While Sharon had managed to escape with Aisha, they had been forced to leave Calian behind at the tech company where Sharon originally created both of her robot children, with the intention of returning for him once they were safe. Brothers Noah (Kaiwi Lyman) and Abel (Harvey Zielinski) consider both Aisha and Calian property of the company: invaluable patents, intelligent machines, incredibly promising for the future of robotics, but nothing more than that.

This dehumanization of two Black children seems an intentional metaphor for how Black humans are treated in the real world. When Den of Geek spoke with Hardwicke in early June, the George Floyd protests had been going on for a week, making it impossible to ignore this juxtaposition.

“OK, that is fascinating, that’s fantastic,” Hardwicke said when asked if there were a social commentary aspect to the casting choice. “Of course, this was written and conceived and cast a year and a half ago, and at that time we were doing research on what did people think the future of humanity would look like, and so we found all these cool images that would be a mixed-race person, would be the future of humanity. We found images and scientific data, popular scientific magazines that had images that looked something like Helena looks, and so we thought that maybe our scientist [Emily Mortimer’s Sharon] would be thinking that way too, like the future of humanity is going to be genetically diverse.”

While Hardwicke didn’t specify which images they found, it’s likely that they were referring to something like the 2013 National Geographic portrait series that celebrates multiracial diversity and visualizes a future in which there might be fewer limitations in discussing race and biracial people’s experiences.

“That was the reason [for our casting choices] originally,” Hardwicke said, “and then the different level that you’re talking about are—yeah, that is fascinating—because now we hope that you feel from the very beginning that you love her, that you love Aisha, that you’re sympathizing with her; and that you feel her quote-humanity, you feel empathy for her, even though she doesn’t look like every viewer that’s going to be watching. I hope that you really care about this person because we start with her, we end with her. I hope that translates to extending humanity to somebody else, to the ‘other,’ to a person that doesn’t look like you.”

While the creation of the characters comes from a well-meaning attempt to envision a future with less racial prejudice, Don’t Look Deeper unfortunately ends on incredibly violent imagery that more accurately reflects our present state of brutality against Black bodies. After appealing to Abel—who as a trans man understands the dilemma of being someone other than society says you are—to help her reach Calian, Aisha is devastated to get only a few minutes with her brother before they are both taken offline. Despite his sympathies, Abel still sees them as a faulty experiment gone wrong, and activated a computer virus that shut both robots down.

The final episode of Don’t Look Deeper opens on the truly disturbing visual of Aisha and Calian’s bodies being destroyed by a machine, broken down into spare parts, their remains oozing black goo. The tech company has disposed of its supposedly faulty property, and believes that they are rid of their problem. However, Aisha’s ex-boyfriend Levi (Jan Luis Castellanos) and best friend/love interest Jenny (Ema Horvath) discover that Aisha backed up her consciousness with fellow robot William (Brandon Win). When they restore her backup to William’s body, the three make a plan to track down a new body for Aisha. As the final moments of the episode reveal, one of the tech company’s former engineers had fled to China, where he is creating unauthorized copies of the robots—including one with Aisha’s face.

It’s intended as an ultimately hopeful ending, but it follows the aforementioned scene of particular violence against Black bodies. With the final episode airing August 11, while the George Floyd protests and other #BlackLivesMatter protests are ongoing, that story choice cannot exist outside of the current cultural context.

When asked how the ending might be perceived in light of current events, Hardwicke answered, “I’ll probably have a better answer tomorrow when I think about it a little more deeply, but I can see that it is symbolic. It can have resonance to the destruction of lives, of innocent lives that we’re seeing right now, especially a little boy… Both of them are innocents; they didn’t ask to be made, they didn’t ask to be the way they are, and then somebody else feels like they are a danger to society, so they are eliminated. It seems like there can be a lot of parallels.”

Don’t Look Deeper sought to present a queer, biracial protagonist who could be seen as relatable even if she were not an exact mirror image for every single viewer. As Hardwicke said ahead of the series premiere in July, she interprets the series’ title as what not to do, that viewers should challenge themselves to consider what’s beneath the surface, whether it’s about robot identity or systemic racism: “Intellectually we do need to fight that phrase, ‘don’t look deeper’—yes, look deeper; yes, think more deeply; yes, care more,” she said. “Dig into the details and the truth.”

In this case, the truth is complicated: The series had good intentions in its casting and in its metaphorical journey to acceptance for Aisha, including her optimistic second chance at reclaiming the body that was taken from her. But Calian is not offered the same opportunity for a future, and represents an unnecessary casualty both in the world of Don’t Look Deeper and in the real world, where Black people are murdered because they are not seen as human. Unfortunately, the latter loss resonates more than the former win.

Don’t Look Deeper is available on Quibi.

The post Catherine Hardwicke on Don’t Look Deeper’s #BlackLivesMatter Metaphor appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3iqDqwY