So after watching HIMYM last night, I did some reading of an old interview with one of the creators/writers, old being from this past July :)
This quote kind of got to me thinking.
By the end of Season 7, Ted will wear suits and Barney’s hair will be spiky and messy.
Does that mean Ted is going to be a slut like Barney or does that mean Ted is going to be this really amazing guy that could get any woman he wants to? Maybe both?
And then this: We know exactly the ending minute or two of Season 7. It’s going to take place in the future at that wedding day and we’re going to end Season 7 there. It’s going to be something! And we’ll also end with a baby being born and then head into 8. And maybe there’ll be more.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but I sort of want to met the future Mrs. Mosby, at least several episodes, if not a full season, before. Not to just know who she is, but actually get to know the character.
I want to see her rocking on her bass, I want to see her make Ted’s draw drop when she quotes passages from his favorite books, I want to see Ted shut up and the Future Mrs. Mosby still want to listen to him.
We have spent so many years leading up to finding out who she is, it would be nice to actually enjoy her as a character and to see why and how she was/is so amazing that Ted decides this is the ONE.
I know the show is called HOW I MET Your Mother, not How I Got To Know Your Mother, but I still would like for it to be both.
I agree with this so much. I had the hardest time getting into HIMYM in the first place because I couldn’t get past the hook of it being a story Ted was telling his kids. Now that we’re 7 seasons into the story, I’m starting to worry about how they’re delaying the “…and that’s how I met your mother” reveal.
Ted is telling his kids all these amazing stories about the crazy things he did with his friends in his late twenties/early thirties like they’re the best years of his life. If the writers wait until the last episode to introduce us to the mother, what does that say about how significant she is in Ted’s life? What does it imply if the story ends when he meets the woman he’s going to spend the rest of his life with? We’ve seen Ted change over the course of several long-term committed relationships at this point (although he always seems to bounce back to being exactly the same as he was before but that’s an essay for another time/place). Ted’s whole goal in life is to find a wife and get married. Every time he starts dating someone new he says “I think she’s the one”, and if we don’t get to see his relationship with her evolve the way we saw his relationship with Stella or Zoey or Robin evolve, what does that say about the woman he eventually marries? How are we supposed to believe that she’s any different if we don’t get to see what makes her so special to Ted?
I really hope we get to meet her before the series ends. We’ve followed Ted through so many failed relationships, if we don’t get to see what makes this one work, I think it’ll be a very unsatisfying conclusion. I hope they can find a way to include her in the story and let us get to know her as a character without giving away that she’s the mother until the last possible moment. But this is all speculation so…we shall see.
buriedmyselfalive replied to your post: buriedmyselfalive replied to your post: I never…
Awwwwwww I don’t remember scrubs ever being bad unless we’re talking about scrubs interns. But yeah SPN’S been terrible since the end of 5. :(
I adddddooorrrred Scrubs, don’t get me wrong. I thought it was one of the most innovative shows on TV (until I saw Arrested Development) and I was so rooting for it to go on forever. But the 6th and 7th season were pretty bad, imo. The plot where Laverne died and then came back as Lavernagain? That was the worst. And where JD randomly had a disorder where he fainted when he peed and it only lasted an episode? And I think there was an episode where J.D. had a problem and his friends were basically like “ugh, your problems are so annoying you have to learn to just deal with them on your own and leave us alone” which is an OK lesson to learn, but it made his friends look like jerks the way it was presented. Oh and I hated that they tried to bring back JD/Elliot. I loved how the show ended their relationship and I thought it was really refreshing that Scrubs didn’t fall into the Ross/Rachel will they/won’t they bullshit that Friends did…so when all of a sudden they brought JD/Elliot back as an option I was done with the show. The musical episode and the episode where Carla gave birth were the only decent episodes in those whole two seasons that I can remember.
My issue with everything post-season 5 was mostly that in the pilot, we’re introduced to J.D. who makes it his goal to get Dr. Cox to like/respect him. At the end of season 5 when he gets Dr. Cox to come back to the hospital, he’s succeeded in his goal. Once J.D. didn’t have to try so hard because he knew Dr. Cox liked him (even though Dr. Cox pretended not to), J.D. was just kind of a selfish asshole. =/
Supernatural has kind of done the same thing. At the end of season 3, Dean goes to hell to save Sam. At the end of season 5, Sam manages to repay the favor AND save the world. Both of them are practically completely the opposite of who they were when the show started and both of them have achieved their goals — Dean to be there for Sam and Sam wanted to repay Dean for saving him and also Sam wanted to save the world after he was tricked into letting Lucifer out. Dean learned that he had to trust Sam to make his own decisions, and Sam earned Dean’s trust, which is what he had wanted in some way since season 1, really. They had both completed perfect, gradual, logical arcs of character development and in the process, stopped the apocalypse. They achieved their goal. But when literally THE END OF THE WORLD has been averted, it’s hard to know where to go with your characters.
Dean’s always been driven by orders from other people (whether he’s conforming to them or rebelling against them, he’s generally motivated by someone else telling him what to do) and after season 5, he has no one left to give him orders and I feel like his aimlessness kind of set a tone for the rest of the show. Picking up from stopping the apocalypse…I mean, where do you go from there? That’s pretty much like, the biggest thing you can stop. I know Buffy did it like a bazillion times, but those were a different brand of apocalypse, I think. I’m not saying there’s nowhere to go with the story anymore, because there’s definitely still a story to tell (ANGELIC WAR IN HEAVEN? MISSING ANGELIC WEAPONS? WHAT HAPPENED TO JESSE? AHEM, PLOT HOLES!), but I think the writers overcomplicated themselves in trying to bring the story back to basics because to do so, they had to ignore a lot of the world they’d opened up by introducing the angels.
We’ve seen Sam and Dean at their very best and very worst. How much more can we see from them that we haven’t seen before? The writers haven’t really established new goals or character arcs and the characters have basically flatlined.
I could go on forever probably, but yeah. That’s my
two five eight ten cents. Once the characters achieve the goals established at the start of an overarching plot or theme, the writers need to introduce something new (but not necessarily more complex) that contributes to the development of the characters. Otherwise it just gets boring.
Sorry I rambled. Apparently I have strong ~~feelings~~ about all of this. ^^;;;
“The REASON why I hated Tangled so much was because unlike the other princesses, she did not develop at all. There was absolutely no internal conflict except in the beginning where she debates whether or not she should rebel, but that was obviouly quickly resolved.”
I just think it was a generic and bland story with an equally bland cast and crappy music. Gorgeous animation… but I’m not really so impressed by a bunch of computer graphics. But everything about the actual story was awful. AWFUL.
Everything about it was basic. Very telling, considering its popularity.
But you know…what I liked about Tangled was that you saw her and Flynn becoming friends and then falling in love, I liked that she proposed to him, and I liked that she made her decision to fight back against her mother even when she still thought that Flynn had betrayed her. She didn’t make her decision because of him, she didn’t make her decision so that she could be with him, and she didn’t make her decision because she was in love. She made her decision because it was the right thing for herself and the fact that she fell in love and gained a friend was just kind of a nice bonus.
I think that, isolated, Britta Perry is a wonderful character. She’s flawed and wants attention and love and is kind-hearted and kinda silly and she makes lots of mistakes. I don’t know ANYONE that is actually upset with her characterization.
But there is literally just no reason why she needs to be a punching bag. She takes more shit than anyone on that show — they have Pierce to kick around, but they consistently still turn to Britta for insults. There’s no reason for it. Why should a spunky, independent lady have to take so much crap for being vocal about her beliefs and messing up every once in a while?
#meanwhile jeff is a dick every week but he is worshipped by all
Exactly, this is totally my point. In another setting, she’d be a great character exactly as is. I just get irritated with the constant Britta-bashing by other characters who never seem to really get called out on their own shitty behavior. Besides, didn’t Harmon base her on an ex-girlfriend of his? Seems shady, tbqh.
except jeff hasn’t been “worshiped by all” since, like, the first season? (i’m assuming that “all” refers to the study group since their dynamic is the most important and lbr dean pelton is always gonna worship jeff.) everyone is aware of each other’s flaws and they all call each other out on their shit from time to time. it’s my opinion that britta gets the brunt of it most of the time because without the group knocking her down a few pegs, she would become insufferable to us, the audience — hell, she actually was insufferable early on in the first season when dan harmon & co. kept putting her on a pedestal and the show/group hadn’t found its rhythm yet. i don’t think she’d be a good fit for parks because there would be no one around to give her shit when she gets on her high horse, so she would turn into an annoying, sanctimonious asshole that the audience would hate.
I just feel like people continuously side with Jeff, and when I watch the show, the lack of people to push him down a few pegs DOES make him the annoying, sanctimonious asshole that you fear Britta would be elsewhere. I almost can’t stand to watch Jeff because Britta was the one who kept his ego in check, but lately she’s too busy getting hers burnt. I used to like their specific dynamic because she got to bring him down and he got to lift her up a little. I personally never found Britta insufferable — I’ve always liked her? So honestly it’s entirely personal preference. I happen to enjoy a character a lot but the way she’s treated makes me a little upset. Just. It happens. And every character on that show has the means to be a raging asshole with the exception of Abed and maybe Troy, so I just don’t personally see that as an argument for the treatment of Britta.
Maybe it’s because I identify with Britta a little bit, but I’ve always seen her as Community’s Jerry. Like, she gets shit on all the time but it’s because she has the best intentions and often the biggest heart. She legitimately fucks up more often than Jerry does (because the joke of Jerry is often that he hasn’t actually fucked up at all) but that just makes her flawed and realistic as a character. And Jeff, who does stupid shit and has really selfish intentions is often worshipped even though he doesn’t deserve it.
So, maybe it’s just how I interpret the characters, but I’ve always seen them as a satirical commentary on the fact that that sometimes the assholes win and the kind-hearted people fail because they aren’t as cool-looking or because they can’t give killer motivational speeches on the fly, or whatever. I don’t think you’re supposed to side with either of them, because individually they’re rarely 100% right on any issue. I think their characters are just supposed to be caricatures of those types of people — the good looking asshole who has always coasted by and the passionate activist who wants to be the best damn moral compass in the world — and how society reacts to them whether they deserve those responses or not.
Also, I think everyone knows that Britta cares about them because she is so kind and so into everyone being a study group that they feel safe making fun of her without worrying that she’ll abandon them or turn on them. Britta is a totally formidable opponent but I think it’s part of the joke that none of the other characters see her that way. I certainly hope she gets an episode to prove that to them, though. That’d be awesome.
The character was designed to be a one off, but I got along really well with the cast. We had a lot of fun and they told me that the actors wanted to have me back. And they have very large trailers, so, you know… they might have the power to convince them to have me back. They told me that there was a character… C- C… Castiel, and that recently they moved beyond and that they may have me for, uh… another Supernatural character that might come and help them every once in a while, so… it MIGHT be me. […] It depends on the writers actually, if they feel like they need another Supernatural character. They might have eliminated Castiel because they didn’t need THAT, but if they do, I hope they call me, I had a lot of fun in doing that.
James Marsters on the possibility to come back on Supernatural. (Panel from Wizard World Comic Con)
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? I love James but epic amounts of DNW for him to replace Misha.
I adore James, but between his character&Cas? Cas any day! Also if the writers&showrunner really can’t see by now that Cas is a) wanted and b) not superfluous/unnecessary, then I really don’t think they’ll be able to write something that gets me to once again enjoy this show. As it stands it’s currently depressing the fuck out of me! -_-;
James, I love you, but this statement is a gross miscalculation on your part. Sure, you being back on the show would be cool. But you have no IDEA the loyalty the character they “eliminated” inspires in this show’s fans. Just to give you an idea my good sir, imagine if they’d killed Spike for no good reason. And insinuated that he was only ever a tool and a plot device. Yeah. Sure, I’d like to see your character again. But neither he nor you could EVER replace Castiel and Misha Collins. And for the writers to phrase the possibility of your return in that manner is frankly depressing and offensive.
Everything about this is bullshit and I hate it. There is literally nothing, in my mind, that could replace Misha Collins as Castiel and as long as he’s not on the show, I will not be satisfied by any of the stories or characters the writers can come up. Castiel’s story wasn’t finished and the fact that the show seems determined to whitewash him from its history without a decent explanation is an insult to all of the characters who have apparently forgotten the sacrifice made by one of their closest friends and allies, despite the fact that the most valued currency for the first five seasons of the show was loyalty. It makes no sense and as a viewer I’m insulted that the writers seem to think I can be so easily manipulated and distracted by flashy guest appearances and false promises of Castiel’s return.
ryanlrussell asked: Strictly just curious, feel free to ignore if you don't want to answer; I see a lot of passion from you on rights issues. Does this come from things that have affected you personally?
That’s a really interesting question…it’s not something I’ve really thought about, so this is going to be kind of rambly, but bear with me.
I was bullied a lot as a kid. A lot. I went to the same small school from K-8th grade which meant that stupid things like a comment that my 3rd grade teacher made about a friendship I had with a boy about how if boys and girls tease each other it means they like each other stuck with me, and I kid you not…the last time I heard shit about that was in my sophomore year of college. But as bad as the bullying got, and no matter how many times I came home crying, my parents always taught me that my value as a person was in no way tied to the way the other kids perceived me.
When I was learning to read, my mom would go through books that said things like “The farmer and his wife” and cross out “and his wife” and turn it into “the farmers”. And she would explain to me how silly it was, because if they both lived on the farm then they were both farmers. The woman wasn’t defined by her husband or her appearance, she was defined by her career and her skill set; this lesson was applied to everything — skin color, religion, parentage, etc.
I have a weirdly vivid memory of asking my mom if I could go see Charlie’s Angels and her telling me, “You know, you don’t HAVE to wear a spandex bodysuit to fight crime. Women fight crime every day and they wear kevlar, and boots without heels, and protective gear just like the men do.” But she still let me see the movie.
What I’m getting at in saying all of this is that I feel very fortunate in my life to have been raised in such an open home. Even though my mom disagreed with me seeing Charlie’s Angels, she still let me go see it because that was my decision. But she still gave me the tools I needed to watch the movie with a critical eye and say “well, it was fun, but who the hell can fight crime in high heels?”
To answer your original question, it is because I was raised to be smart, and to think critically, and to embrace who I am and what I like despite what the media or other people tell me that I feel very strongly that other kids should be raised with the same sort of open-mindedness in their lives. I can’t even begin to imagine how much harder my life would have been if, when kids were calling me a lesbian in 5th grade, I had come home and told my mom and she had said “Well I hope you’re not a lesbian, that’s unacceptable” instead of telling me that it doesn’t matter what the other kids think of me.
I know how much it means to me when my parents tell me they’re proud of me, and I already know that they’re proud of me. To think of all the kids out there being raised by parents telling them they’re inferior or not good enough or that there is some fundamental part of them that is simply unacceptable…I really feel for those kids because no one deserves to hear that from anyone, let alone from their parents.
Kids are incredibly impressionable and a whole lot smarter and more observant than a lot of people seem to think, and I think that if more kids were given the tools, the critical thinking skills, and the opportunities they needed to make informed decisions as they grew up, there’d be a much brighter future ahead for everyone.
I boggles my mind that there are people out there who want to restrict the rights of other people because they’re gay, or women, or black, or muslim, or WHATEVER. Because we’re all just people. It’s the same reason why I don’t understand how people can say to atheists, “but without the bible, how do you have a moral code?” My response is always “if you need a 2000 year old book to tell you to be a nice person and not covet your neighbor’s donkey, you probably have bigger things than my moral code to worry about.” People are people and I feel very strongly that we all deserve equal opportunities for success and I think that our society and our government don’t always do enough to promote those ideals because it’s often more profitable to conform to stereotypes than it is to break them.
tl;dr we’re all people, and none of us are more equal than others.
Does that answer your question? ^^;;;
This article “Why This Year’s Doctor Who Finale Was (Mostly) Better than Last Year’s” by Charlie Jane Anders (io9) has some interesting thoughts about River and Amy’s characters.
“River Song was such a shiny character, full of endless possibility, and she hit her high point in some of the early Matt Smith stories. Jumping out of spaceships in flight, carving messages in ancient cliffs, and generally being badass and mysterious. Now, it seems like her mystery is gone, and it’s been replaced by… I can hardly bear to type the words.”
“So in order to get River to restart the universe and set things right, the Doctor has to marry her — you’ll notice the Doctor never says he loves her, and he makes fun of her for saying she loves him. Soon afterwards, the Doctor tells River, “I don’t want to marry you.” And then, right before he does marry her, he tells her, “You embarrass me,” and he genuinely seems to be full of loathing for her in that moment. During the actual quickie wedding ceremony, River asks, “What am I doing?” and the Doctor replies, “as you’re told.” Awwww… so romantic. Finally, the Doctor tells her, “Now you’re the woman who marries me,” as if she’s won the jackpot.”
“Meanwhile, there’s Amy. It’s now safe to say that the Silence didn’t brainwash Amy to stop caring about the fact that she’ll never see her baby (as a baby) again — she just got over it really, really quickly.”
“In today’s episode, Amy finally does deal with the fact that her baby was stolen and abused by monsters, by inflicting a painful death on the bubble-universe version of Madame Kovarian. It’s a nice enough moment, but no substitute for seeing Amy actually deal with the enormity of what’s happened to her child. After two seasons, Amy remains a bit of a cartoon character-“
I really have to agree with both of these sentiments, first I was really troubled with how Amy vengefully assisted the murder of Madame Kovarian. While there was some relief at the end of the episode when Amy speaks about her shame for her actions there is really, hardly any discussion about the emotional ramifications of having your BABY STOLEN! If there was any doubt that Amy’s pregnancy was a Mystical one, then this is further proof.
While I enjoy Amy, and in fact really adored her in the fifth season, I completely agree about the cartoonish aspects. The writers haven’t really developed her character much at all and we have very little reason to really care about Amy or even like her that much other than the snarky jokes. Plus this latest season met with way too many “Save Amy” moments to describe her as empowered.
I don’t really have issues with Amy killing Kovarian. Amy has always been more interested in shooting first and asking questions later and she’s always been driven by her emotions. In the dream world, when Rory died last series, she made the choice to kill herself and the doctor because she didn’t want to live in a world where Rory didn’t exist. Not because she knew it was a dream. She did the same when she shot the astronaut, only to later realize there was a little girl inside. So when faced by the woman who took her daughter and turned her into the woman who would murder Amy’s best friend…it made sense for her character that Amy would be that ruthless.
What I take issue with is the fact that we didn’t see the development of Amy’s pain over the loss of her daughter until that scene. Amy was clearly traumatized when the ganger!Melody burst into goo all over her shouler at the end of ”A Good Man Goes to War”, but after that, she and Rory just accepted that River was gone and there was nothing they could do about rescuing her? We had 6 or 7 episodes after “A Good Man” in which Amy, Rory, and the Doctor went on all sorts of adventures and Amy and Rory never once mentioned, even in passing, that their daughter was still out there somewhere being psychologically conditioned into some sort of killing machine. That emotional distance made Amy’s anger harder to believe. I found the finale in general really hard to connect to emotionally and I think it’s because of the way Amy, Rory, and River’s relationships with one another were handled. So many huge things happened to all three of them this season and those huge, life-changing events didn’t seem to have any impact on them as characters unless it was relevant to the plot. It would have been a lot easier to believe how ruthless Amy was in killing Kovarian if we had seen the emotional development of her relationship with River (or the development of her anger over the fact that she doesn’t have a solid relationship with her daughter because her daughter was taken from her) over the course of the season.
(Also the rest of that article from io9 is really great and I think everyone should read it.)
The first two episodes of Doctor Who set up a season with so much potential and I feel like Moffat tried to overcomplicate things to keep the fans guessing and accidentally boxed himself into a corner that he couldn’t quite write his way out of.
It’s like he tried so hard to keep secrets from us that he forgot to put some of them back in where they were supposed to go.
I dunno…I just expected something…more. I expected the twist with the doctor being the robot and I didn’t appreciate that we saw the robot people ask the Doctor if they could help and the scene cut before he accepted — it made the reveal at the end feel cheap and obvious. I was really rooting for there to be like 4 or 5 different incarnations of the Doctor working together — a ganger doctor, a robot doctor, past doctor, present doctor, and maybe an alternate time-stream doctor?
I don’t understand WHY River loves the doctor…and why he felt compelled to marry her. Is it like a weird obsession = love thing? I also really resented the Doctor referring to her as “hell in high heels”. River rarely wears high heels and she’s so much more than just a woman. I really wish Moffat would stop with the latent sexism.
At least the Merlin season 4 premiere kicked ass. I’m so glad that show has finally found it’s tone and a plot to carry the characters forward. That show had a tendency to get really repetitive, but I feel like season 4 is going to be just…amazing. My one hope is that…if Uther has to die, I want Arthur to find out about Merlin’s magic before that happens. I think the story is so much more interesting if Arthur has to decide what to do with that knowledge while Uther is still alive.
But that’s just me.
bagofshit asked: That's fair, I'm not as invested as I once was either. I think that the characters have changed as a result of everything they've been thru, but I don't think the writers have done a good job of exploring or explaining the ways they've changed, or how the people they are now are still products of the people they were. I really really want them to look at the way the relationship btwn the brothers has changed. MORE CHARACTER STUDY ALL THE TIME. Also, do you know a good livestream link for Friday?
[SUPERNATURAL SPOILERS BELOW]
I think through season 5 the characters had changed in a very logical and well-reasoned way, but I think in season 6 the writers tried too hard to do too many things and to do too many fun one-off episodes that only loosely tied in to the overarching plot and the characterizations suffered as a result.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved The French Mistake and thought Frontierland was a great concept, but it was a bit of a stretch to explain how the hell they fit in to the whole angelic civil war thing. Plus, it was endlessly frustrating to know that Cas was up to *something* and then not find out until the third-to-final episode when it was too late for anything to really change. In some ways I think it’s really cool how the writers plotted that — it made The Man Who Would Be King that much more heartbreaking — but I really do wish they’d shown us more angelic civil war and less Dean and Sam being brothers because we’ve seen Dean and Sam being brothers for 5 seasons, and we know what they’re like. Castiel had the more interesting story and more interesting, dramatic character development, and it took a backseat to a relationship that’s already been shown from pretty much every angle imaginable. And Dean’s reaction to Cas’s behavior was so out of character and hypocritical, I can’t even. I just can’t. =/
And no, I haven’t found any good livestream links for Friday. If I see one, I’ll pass it along. :-)
I support the blackout, not because I’m complaining about the amazing free services Tumblr provides (I love free shit! And Tumblr!), but because of the way that the Tumblr staff have been treating Jeremy Cutler, the creator of Missing e.
Missing e is an amazing dashboard extension that fixes a lot of the problems created by the dashboard redesign recently implemented by the tumblr developers. Their legal reasoning for asking him to shut down the extension seems (to my inexperienced legal eye) weak at best and I have to wonder where Karp and Co. will draw the line on banning (or copying) other extensions once a precedent has been set. They refuse to work with Cutler and they refuse to let Missing e continue. I want to know why. Are they hoping to implement some of Missing e’s features into the standard Tumblr dashboard without having to pay him or credit him for the coding?
One of the things we all love about Tumblr, and the fact that it is free, is how infinitely customizable it is as a blog. From layouts to URLs to dashboard themes, each of us has a completely unique Tumblr experience. It seems hypocritical and decietful to me that the Tumblr staff can’t give Cutler a clear and logical reason for asking him to remove Missing e. When a message like that comes from a site that prides itself on its infinite customizability and acceptance of open-source plugins and coding, I can’t help but be disappointed.
And that’s why I support the blackout.
Also, I’m going to be out of town that weekend anyway. Might as well help take a stand.
EDIT: To anyone who says that Tumblr won’t notice if a few thousand fewer people visit the site even for a day…I work for a web video production company doing online video distribution and one of my jobs is tracking our video stats on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. If I see even the slightest unusual dip or spike in traffic, I immediately go look for what might be causing it. Tumblr boasts millions (or billions) of unique viewers a day. We certainly don’t pay to use Tumblr, so a lot of the money that they get comes from investors and venture capitalists, and those people won’t be as inclined to give Tumblr their money if they think Tumblr is going to fuck around with its users or do anything that would cause the popularity of the site to drop. So if even a very small percentage of users band together to stay off the site for one day to support Jeremy Cutler and Missing e, believe me, the Tumblr staff will notice it. Whether they choose to do anything about it is another story entirely, but if enough people participate, they’ll definitely notice it.
Reblogging myself to remind you guys not to expect any posts from me this weekend. I’m a) supporting the blackout and b) in Boston without internet access.
I support the blackout, not because I’m complaining about the amazing free services Tumblr provides (I love free shit! And Tumblr!), but because of the way that the Tumblr staff have been treating Jeremy Cutler, the creator of Missing e.
Reblogging myself to add:
To anyone who says that Tumblr won’t notice if a few thousand fewer people visit the site even for a day…I work for a web video production company doing online video distribution and one of my jobs is tracking our video stats on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. If I see even the slightest unusual dip or spike in traffic, I immediately go look for what might be causing it. Tumblr boasts millions (or billions) of unique viewers a day. We certainly don’t pay to use Tumblr, so a lot of the money that they get comes from investors and venture capitalists, and those people won’t be as inclined to give Tumblr their money if they think Tumblr is going to fuck around with its users or do anything that would cause the popularity of the site to drop. So if even a small percentage of users band together to stay off the site for one day to support Jeremy Cutler and Missing e, believe me, the Tumblr staff will notice it. Whether they choose to do anything about it is another story entirely, but if enough people participate, they’ll notice.