Frosty the Snowman is Kinda Terrible

Rankin/Bass quite honestly did more harm than good in the longrun. No, I'm not citing stuff like sexism or racism in that. I mean we have a bunch of fundamentally flawed Christmas specials that are heralded to this very day from constant television airings. How else did Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory get its following?

I know no movie, show, special is ever perfect, but there's a limit, especially when it comes down to how its executed. It's a hard pill to swallow, but Rankin/Bass' animated specials, a majority at least, just don't hold up as well as they should. Exceptions apply, but without the rose tinted sunglasses you can't possibly see past the faults many of them have, especially if the remainder has little to show for it. Of all the Rankin/Bass specials, I consider Frosty the Snowman to be the worst of the bunch, bar none. If the only defense you can raise for it is nostalgia, it proves my point. Not to say you're not allowed to like it, if you enjoy the special you have the right.

There's a certain order when it comes to Frosty specials and their reps. Ironically, the few Frosty specials I kinda like, emphasis on kinda, are the two that're considered the worst, as contrarian as that sounds. Funnily enough, the worst specials tend to have more thought into character motivations, keep that in mind as I get into the 60s special. Frosty Returns at worst is an environmentalist pamphlet, but if so it's at least better than others like it. I get the picture, Holly wants to prevent the mass removal of snow if it means she has to lose Frosty forever, and to its credit the snow removal is done out of pettiness, so you can err more to Holly's side especially if you as a kid enjoyed snow days.

As for Legend of Frosty the Snowman, let me put it like this, the only takeaway people took from this is that it burns its ties to the Rankin/Bass special, that's all anyone ever says about it. What is this movie like in a vacuum? Honestly still not good, but not as bad as people claim it to be. At large it tries to be quirky, but it really lacks the staying power that something like Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer had.

But What the Hell is Wrong with Frosty the Snowman?

To put it simply, it had little thought put into it, you ironically feel more bad for the villain because he was essentially wronged and now forced to get the shaft, the jokes are bland and at this rate you'd wish it were stop motion because the cel animation looks like ass, lacking the stylization Peanuts had. It's not much, but beyond the songs, they essentially encompass the entire special. 

The plot can be easily summed up. Hack magician gets rid of hat that he believes doesn't work, kids find hat and use it for a snowman they made, snowman comes to life, hijinks ensue between their fun and the magician trying to get the hat back, snowman dies, Santa says it's no longer his hat because Christmas. You could argue that the plot was made as it were to go along with the song of the same name, but look, a little liberty can go a long way. High risk high reward.

I mean is it too much to ask for the plot to be about a girl finding an old top hat in her attic or buy it from a store, it turns out to be magic and Frosty is born. You'd probably argue that there'd be no conflict if it were that way, and if so, why not make it so the hat is valuable, and Hinkley had been after it in order to improve his career, thus he tries to snatch it. As for that emotional Frosty death scene at the end, why not have it as a noble sacrifice, where Hinkle falls under thin ice and Frosty dives in to save him, melting to nothing. Realizing the noble effort, Hinkle is unable to take the hat and lets Karen keep it as a sign of good faith, and hey, Christmas is the time to give so it checks out.

One thing that always bothered me about this special is that Karen basically stole a hat, whether intentional or not. Whether it landed on the snowman or in the vicinity of the kids, they just took it for themselves basically. In an era where parents were more prudish, this would've raised a lot of red flags, don't take what may be personal property, it's basic morality. It's not even like this was intended to be groundbreaking or subversive, this was just not well thought out.

And it gets especially bad at the end, where Santa comes in and says "Oh, you want your hat back? Tough. I'll put you on my naughty list and give you a punishment." What were they going for with that? This sounds like something Phelous would mock. This is what happens if you never grew up with the special, the faults take the forefront.

And look, this isn't to say all specials from this timeframe held up poorly, Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol was the first Christmas special and it aged gracefully, so have most others. It's possible, but Frosty's issues are too big to ignore if you never grew up with it. It's certainly one of the more faulty Rankin/Bass specials, and what makes it worse is that while it's technically more competent than cheaper offerings, that means you can see the film more objectively, flaws and all.

You can do much better, especially with a dumb story or an over the top saccharine tale, or perhaps one with both. They're not any better, but they're certainly a lot more fun to watch.

My Question to You

If you still enjoy this movie, then answer me this. What do you see in it? You can still enjoy it, but I want to know your mentality, if it's anything beyond just being nostalgic for it.

My Most Overrated Movie

It's The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, it is what it is. To be perfectly clear, this is all just my personal opinion, you're welcome to disagree, just as much as I'm welcome to share. Otherwise what's the point? So let's get into it.

Personal Background

As another clarification, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, and I have seen this movie plenty of times before. I was a SpongeBob fan, and I remember actually being hyped for this movie when it was gonna come out. I got the movie's video game for GameCube, I believe I saw it in theaters then time later I got it on DVD and saw it however much I could then on. So I never went into the film as a hater, it was a slow burn leading to now.

Fallout

But what happened? As history shows, people like PIEGUYRULZ and MoBrosStudios effectively killed the SpongeBob fandom, and it's never gonna get better. As a consequence, SpongeBob fans had rallied in the name of Stephen Hillenburg, attacking anything they deem to be violating what they deem to be his wishes, and basically not understanding that the show stopped being his once the series made it to air, and there was nothing he could do even when he was alive.

Before you think I'm talking shit for the hell of it, keep in mind that Stephen was the director of The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. He'd be dragged into this no matter what.

Textbook Defintion

Everything he did was essentially put on a higher pedestal than it was before, though ironically while he created SpongeBob he didn't always write every single episode, just saying. So, you have Stephen's work pushed to high heavens to honor him or shun later seasons. Now, combine that with the fact that the first  SpongeBob movie has become a nostalgic film, with those who saw it growing up now infesting the internet, and you have what is essentially a cold disaster. Nothing serious is happening, but there is the lingering sense that one side or the other is going to set off the proverbial nuke.

The big thing is that people are making this movie seem better than it actually is. Like others before and after it, this was just a film made by Nickelodeon to expand upon one of their brands. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just business as usual and people are allowed to enjoy it. When you take away the SpongeBob elements... you're left with a few things.

1: A Quite Frankly Ordinary Plot

Had this not been a nostalgic movie nor was it released when it was... how well does the plot hold up? The jokes have always been the high point of SpongeBob, at least back then, so what happens when you take them out? You're essentially left with a quite frankly generic plot, kids can do anything, so we've heard. You could say "Well isn't this just a kids movie, why are you being so hard on the plot?" Two things, one, people made it a point to fight the stigma that cartoons are for kids. Two, you'd probably say that in defense of a movie you love that I don't like. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what.

But I'm going at the plot like this, because previous Nickelodeon movies honestly handled things better, Rugrats in Paris with its humor and the framework of Chuckie wanting a mom, and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, with kids being kids and realizing what their parents mean to them. If it doesn't sound like much in writing, you have to see the movies themselves to really understand how well their plots are executed. SpongeBob feels basic by comparison, which you can forgive if you enjoy the film, you have the right. But remember, this is a film that has been praised more than I feel it deserves, and I have to hold it to some level of scruitiny.

2: Some Quite Frankly Basic Animation

So that was one big hot take on the plot, how about another? Sorry to say, but the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie's animation could be a lot better. It's not bad, but when you stack it up against other Nickelodeon movies before it, it looks sorta cheap. To its credit, it's not something a lot of people can pick up on right away, but since SpongeBob was becoming Nickelodeon's golden cow at this rate you'd think they'd put more money into it. Just saying, the Rugrats movie trilogy The Wild Thornberrys Movie each have better animation, and those came out before. The animation here is almost lower quality than that of Hey Arnold!: The Movie, and that was intended for television.

You could say, well those movies were made with traditional animation, the SpongeBob movie was made with digital ink and paint. You could also say that the animation direction was intentional because the characters are integrated into live action scenarios, but I'll get back into that in a bit. If you have those previous movies in mind, this sticks out like a sore thumb, and you can practically see characters snap between stances.

At best, this serves as a good example of the difference between digital animation and traditional animation. It's not bad, but it could be a lot better, especially given how big SpongeBob is, and that it has been a standard that went as far as Sponge out of Water. You have the money, the resources, the relevance, you were not in any trouble, there was only one other film coming out that year, just saying.

A quick thing about continuity.

For those who've had aneurysms over minor continuity errors, you could question how SpongeBob and Patrick didn't change into props when they entered the surface like in the episode Pressure, and this was by Stephen Hillenburg. I mean then again because he was involved people will turn a blind eye.

I dunno, it's just funny how this oversight was never really brought up. If you complain about continuity, but make exceptions for certain offenses then why should I take complaints like that seriously? You can complain, but be consistent.

#3: Also has Celebrity Voice Actors

This one will be brief. A lot of people complain about celebrity voice actors in kids movies. So I take it nobody knew who Alec Baldwin or David Hasselhoff were?

It's Not Culturally Significant

I know that seems like a stretch, given how highly people hold this film, but we have to be real. Had this not been associated with SpongeBob, people probably wouldn't remember it that much. Even back then, the most this got was a 68%, which while good, isn't to the level people claim it to be, not helping that there're people who complain about the rating.

I can accept people loving the movie no matter its issues or what not, but people don't know their limits. Case in point, time ago someone attempted to copy what Shrek Retold did by reanimating the entirety of the SpongeBob Squarepants Movie, it got claimed by Viacom, and naturally people got salty. Listen, when it comes to fair use, it can only be considered as such if the video provides commentary, criticism or is a parody. Rehydrated wasn't a parody, it was just the same story told with different voices and animation, you can get the intended experience either way.

You could say that was one of many contributing factors to a parasocial relationship people made with Stephen, and he can't even say anything about it now.

To describe how little cultural significance this show had, I want to compare this to a more accurate example. Shrek. Like SpoongeBob, Shrek is one of the most memed properties on the internet. You can credit Shrek for forever changing animated cinema. It was one of the first films, or the first to truly catch on with the masses, to subvert common tropes, incorporate pop culture references and commentary, and show how lucrative the computer animation industry was.

What did SpongeBob do to the movie industry? Nothing the TV series hasn't already done. Beyond starting out as a children's book, Shrek managed to become its own thing. The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie can be considered a cash-in on the show's success, or better yet, an extension of a corporate property. There's a serious implication if you ask me, but I guess it just so happened to be a more likable film than other examples.

Final Thoughts

I never wanted to hate this movie. I grew up with it, I'm not even saying it's a bad movie, but let's face it, the fandom ruined it by making it seem bigger than it had any right to be. Whether running Stephen's name through the mud or playing dumb when it comes to a lot of the film's faults, I've had my fill, and I'm sure a lot of people are gonna hang me from a tree, or just post a comment and block me like they typically do.

Rugrats Go Wild: A Disappointment

 I've had old Nickelodeon movies on my mind for a while now, as weird as it sounds. In my defense, I did grow up with most of them, the first two Rugrats movies and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius to cite the bigger examples.

Nickelodeon Movies has truly evolved into its own little empire, covering everywhere they could, and even if most of their movies aren't much to write home about you gotta respect their commitment, though I prefer their more humble beginnings. Nickelodeon Movies wasn't just an extension of Nickelodeon, they wanted to get anywhere they could, whether it be book adaptations like with Harriet the Spy, their own SNL movie with Good Burger (because All That was essentially a kid friendly SNL), a screwball comedy with Snow Day, a science-fiction flick with Clockstoppers, joining in the computer animation boom with Jimmy Neutron, and expanding upon their popular Nicktoons like with their two Rugrats movies, Hey Arnold! and The Wild Thornberrys.

And also The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie I guess. I don't hate the movie, but fuck me is it overrated as hell.

While a lot of these older films aren't amazing by any stretch, they have their fans and I'd watch them. I wanted to give each classic Nickelodeon movie the benefit of the doubt, I can see kids back then enjoying it or just some dumb fun movie with an interesting idea and well enough execution, and of all of them... Rugrats Go Wild was the one that broke me.

Background

Rugrats Go Wild is both a threequel to the past two Rugrats movies, and a sequel to The Wild Thornberrys Movie. In the past, Rugrats was Nickelodeon's prime cash cow, and they went all out with their milking of it, from the show itself to that of its production company Klasky-Csupo. The Wild Thornberrys can be seen as another symptom of the milking, not that it has to be a bad thing, we got a lot of good stuff out of it, but it was clear Nickelodeon were struggling to keep everything afloat.

When it comes to Rugrats Go Wild, I can see the reasoning behind it, but to demonstrate I have to go into the previous films. The first Rugrats movie, while not a critical success, did gangbusters at the box office. You could say it in the right place at the right time. Rugrats in Paris was better than the previous film, and it also killed at the box office. As for The Wild Thornberrys, it was a critical and commercial success, and you can see why Klasky-Csupo became Nickelodeon's money printer, they can turn a profit every time.

However, as history shows it was clear that Rugrats was starting to run out of steam, hence why they had to add a lot to the original show, also spin-offs. Not to say the additions were a problem, Dil can be seen as the lesser of the two evils in the show's more radical changes, and Kimi and everyone else came in at what is generally considered to be the best Rugrats movie of the three, but then again they would've been better suited for a single appearance to mark the end for a long journey for Chuckie Finster finding a new mom, and even more. Just saying.

When it came to Rugrats Go Wild, there really weren't any stakes. Nickelodeon just wanted to get more money out of their bigger shows, or just their biggest contractee, and what better way to do that than with a crossover? All three films mentioned did great at the box office, so Nickelodeon would assume people would go to see it no matter what. It's all part of what I dub the threequel curse, where companies deem make a third film typically to cash in on their own property and thus it loses some of the punch prior entries had, especially if they do without some key personel.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Jurassic Park 3, Sponge on the Run, you see what I mean? Then again I don't think the former two films are that bad but unfortunately they suit my point. It's there that a movie becomes a brand and it's fair game for anyone in order to turn a profit or further existing projects. I mean, why else did they decide to make a crossover between shows that've been going on for a decent while that gets the most view time? Not helping that one of them had been going on for over a decade by this point.

Ignoring critical reviews as they've typically been low for Nickelodeon movies, I'll focus on the film's commercial success... which is hard to really describe. I heard that a box office success is a film making double its money back. In total, against a $25 million budget it made $55.4 million, which is a little above double but that's accounting for worldwide sales. In the US, it made $39.4 million. But if you want layman's terms, this did worse than the previous Rugrats movies.

Either the movie was that bad or people were starting to get sick of the property altogether. But I have a little theory to why this flopped.

While a lot of Nickelodeon movies were made to cash in on properties they owned, this one felt a lot more cynical compared to previous films. Exceptions are made because the experiences they provide can override said cynical elements, or the properties themselves are already so beloved to begin with people would just eat that shit up no matter what even if they contain elements that people complain about in kids movies like musical numbers, celebrity guest voices, pop culture references, mid animation, dumb jokes and the involvement of a guy people formed a parasocial connection to, *cough* SpongeBob *cough*

Cynicism

The best place to start is the opening logos, and it's not the logophile in me. Prior to late-2004 with the release of Lemony Snickets: A Series of Unfortunate Events, every Nickelodeon movie had their very own Nickelodeon Movies logo. Along with unique movies, they had unique identities, the executions equally so. It's a subtle trick, or perhaps it's just some extra creative juices flowing. So, what Nickelodeon Movies logo did they use for this film? The same one that was used on Hey Arnold!: The Movie, just with a different song. Not that it's a bad logo, but seriously, couldn't spring for something that either suited the movie or was just unique. It wasn't even a synonymous brand, otherwise it would've been used on more movies.

I'm harping on this, but it's really only because of a dire implication. I won't deny past Nickelodeon movies were made to promote the network's brand, but with Rugrats Go Wild and just using a straightforward logo it feels a lot more cynical, or just obvious. It doesn’t help that Klasky-Csupo also has an opening logo here, which does look cool and reflect their growth, but also reflects how they essentially became a brand themselves, Nickelodeon essentially had them under thumb at this point. Of course it’s something kids don’t pick up on, and the logos are good, it’s just a subtle red flag that usually indicates where a movie will stand.

Okay enough logo talk.

One interesting thing about this movie is that it made use of its own stab at Smell-O-Vision, remember that weird shit? Though credit where it's due, rather than forcing the odor into the viewing rooms, viewers got scratch and sniff cards, see the number on the screen, scratch and have a whiff. You know, the only other film I know of that came with scratch and sniff cards was Spy Kids 4, and if you want my opinion on that film, it made me less ashamed for being nostalgic for Spy Kids 3D: Game Over.

Regarding that, you could say this movie was made as a testing ground for a new gimmick, but they didn't want to base the film entirely around it, half hearted commitment. If not, you could say this is meant to act as a promotion for whatever, whether it be a new actor, new artist or a brand new television series... I tell ya I wish the SpongeBob fandom wasn't so broken that I can approach criticizing Sponge on the Run with good faith-

But What do I personally think of the movie?

In short, it's more like a 5 out of 10, not the worst thing ever, but up against other films it does not land on its feet.

When it comes to the previous two films, there was some kind of standard set, a grand adventure with some emotional moments along the way. From a brotherly quarrel reaching a fever pitch and Spike seemingly giving his life to save his babies, to Chuckie dealing with the lack of a mother, continuing on a defining character element. For Rugrats Go Wild, either more emotional moments are far and in between, or stuff like gross out humor outweighs it. Not to say the previous films didn't have it, but they were sorta better about it.

The story doesn't fare as well either, at least in my opinion. A crossover between the Rugrats and the Wild Thornberrys could be done well, and who knows, maybe to a lot of people it worked, but it doesn't feel like it does, it feels a bit too basic. A major problem here is the influx of characters that get the spotlight. By this point, Rugrats' main cast has inflated considerably, and with the addition of the main cast from another show, it's too many characters to get invested with. If you focus on every character the story would be all over the place, if you focus on a few characters then it would feel like something was missing. I feel like the movie was backed into a corner on that one. 

One cool thing that was utilized at least was, as this is a Wild Thornberrys crossover, this means Eliza could potentially communicate with Spike, and she does. But perhaps this was done to get in a big celebrity cameo, Bruce Willis. At first I thought it was kinda nice we can learn how committed Spike is to his babies, but we kinda got that already in the first film, a good example of show don't tell in that regard. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of hearing Spike talk, but if it's just for the sake of a celebrity voice or dumb jokes, then it lowers the impact considerably. Of course I don't expect Spike to be stoic, but a little balance can go a long way, just saying.

Moving onto what I recall, in this movie Susie has a bigger role here than in previous films, and she is a very 50/50 character, or I just don't like her. I get it, she was meant to be a foil to Angelica, but she left a lot to be desired. If you don't like Susie this won't be too fun. This movie is also a musical. I mean, so was the first movie, but they went further with it, or just didn't do it as well.

Let's close this off by going over the underlying points behind each movie. The first Rugrats film was meant to introduce Dil, i.e. a new character to spice up the show which had been going on for seven-eight years by this point. A movie would be a grand entrance for a new character, while working out new development for existing ones. The second Rugrats film was meant to close off an ongoing story for Chuckie, who wants a new mom while learning to be brave, and he would not only get a mom, but a whole family out of the deal. This would also introduce more characters to the main series, but it provided a perfect closing to an ongoing deal with Chuckie.

Though in a better world this would've been a great finale.

So what was the point behind Rugrats Go Wild? At best a neat crossover idea. At worst, just a glorified promotion of Nickelodeon's most successful shows at the time that contains a laundry list of popular kids movies cliches with very little nuance. As if, the more you look into it, the worse it gets. There's the prospect of world building, yes, but this would've worked better if it was established in the past that the shows are connected in some way, build up anticipation and make the crossover hold more weight.

Nostalgia

Now, this can be considered a nostalgic movie for a lot of people, and that's perfectly fine. If you enjoyed it as a kid and still find enjoyment in it now, you have the right. I never saw this film when it was new, which is why I'm approaching it the way I did. I can't possibly speak for how kids would feel about this film, nor was it a part of my childhood, but if it was, would I speak more highly of this film? Maybe. Keep in mind, the first two Rugrats movies are nostalgic to me.

Final Thoughts

At best, Rugrats Go Wild works best as a freebie movie, coming in a multipack consisting of the previous two Rugrats films, a little bonus that you may not go for, but it's nice to have the option. A lot of people consider this better than the first Rugrats movie, I don't know why, not trying to be mean I'm just curious about that line of logic. They have the right, but personally I consider the first movie better for having more humble intentions and not going as hard on worser tropes... or maybe I'm just more nostalgic for it.

Sometimes it's easy to tell when a film is made as little more than a money job, especially when valuable IPs are on display. This could've been made better if the connection between both shows was made clear early on, if they cut out the common trappings of profitable kids movies, try to put in more emotional moments and either cut the cast down or make something work for a larger cast. Perhaps have a majority of them held prisoner and the rest try to save them. I dunno. Was nice to hear Spike talk though, but that's about it.

Who knows? Maybe all of this can change. Maybe one day I'll revisit the film and I'll have a better time with it. I wanted to like it, but I should've seen it when it was new. I'm well out of bounds now, but I don't want that to remain set in stone.

LTA: The End of Zaid Magenta(?)

 This was a surprise, to say the least. For those who're not in the know, Zaid Magenta, or MisAnthroPony, he was a content reviewer. You may've heard of him through his less than pleasent discussions of Doug Walker, The Last of Us Part 2, the new Star Wars movies, and if there was anything else he did it pales in comparison.

Those of you who followed me way back would know I didn't particularly like him. While I'm no fan of toxic positivity, that owed to something more personal, Zaid fit the opposite extreme to a T. I felt like he embodied the worst aspects of those who support the causes he preached, referring to his views on media. He's essentially what those on the other side consider that side to be, negative, aggressive and petty as fuck.

When it comes to progression and how far you push your support, it can come off as disingenuous at best, as if you just took an idea at face value and ran with it without any sense of what you are fighting for, or you just took a kernel of what's going on and sought to inflate it based on the words of others alone... or you were just trying to be cool and thus put little thought into how to present yourself, or worst case, you're hopping onto a bandwagon to cover the fact that you're attached to something ten times worse than what you're trying to confront.

Zaid isn't a predator, he just has a fixation on par with Star Giant Productions.

Throughout his heyday, it was clear that Zaid had no filter, and he had the idea that if someone tried to talk him down he took it as a personal attack, and he stuck with that mentality no matter what. It doesn't help that a lot of his comments came off as immature, I mean, compared to parody accounts where he comes off the most like a self-parody, it's hilarious, no cap.

He had no self-awareness, it was his way or no effin way when it came to what he wanted to talk about. Naturally such behavior got him in trouble. Case and point, Cartoonshi. Cartoonshi to me is a mixed bag, but I will never deny that he has faced constant harassment because of his opinions on cartoons people enjoy, and that neither he, nor anybody, deserve that. But if you want the full scope, I'll provide a link to the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l7CsbPDc5A&pp=ygUMemFpZCBtYWdlbnRh

And somehow, in spite of all that, he kept a devoted following. I mean then again anyone could get a following so why complain. For a time, Zaid had managed to get into a circle of friends consisting of LioConvoy, Tek-No, among others. It began earlier, but really began to set in following a call between Lio and meat puppet Rosa Rey Ramsey regarding constant discussions of Star Wars.

Don't get it twisted, I'm not here to justify either side here, Ramsey especially, because keep in mind, she was complicit, she had turned a blind eye to not one but apparently two predators in Star Giant's Discord server, and I say apparently in the event it's on Star Giant's head for the second, Sean Sohn.

Because of his connections at this point, as well as the fact that Zaid's biggest enemies happened to be total goons like Crimson Mayhem and Star Giant, in a way Zaid felt like he was essentially untouchable, that if anyone tried to criticize Zaid in any way, it would be met with a counter-attack. When it comes to the internet, never make anyone feel like they are invincible, because chances are you're gonna slowly destroy them.

Of course he even had the bright idea to make a documentary relating to his haters, a documentary that surprisingly I was not considered for given how much shit I talked about him. While it would've been funny to see it come out... it didn't, and it's never going to.

Fallout

To nobody's surprise, Zaid's attitude and actions would soon cause him to collapse in on himself. To make matters worse, these events came after he claimed he would try to improve himself. But bad habits die hard, his continued negativity, and we're talking destructive negativity here, even making burner accounts to harass those that blocked him, the message was clear. Zaid can't change.

He would make a community post and a video vowing to be better, with the latter featuring a blatant case of emotional manipulation. If I were his father and he was holding my heart, it would surely ignite from the anger in his soul. And then, after all that, he quit. He lost everybody that stuck with him, with the big one being LioConvoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nstv_VQlBLE

And with that, he's gone. His YouTube, his deviantArt, his Facebook, his Twitter longer ago, they're all gone. All that's left is his now empty Patreon profile, along with any burner accounts he forgot to delete, hypothetically.

Is he ever going to return?

To reiterate, what led Zaid to finally close his account, beyond the negative comments he got, was his own friends telling him that he's fubared, he burned his bridges and cannot possibly restore any good faith, and that all he can do is just leave.

Worst case, he would frame this as him leaving the internet for a while to clear his head... or just hope the drama died down long enough to trick newcomers into backing him up. Maybe he'll come back under a more discreet identity, who knows?

I'm going with the majority on this one, he's not ever gonna change for the better, and we'll be better off if he never comes back. Any good he has done is easily overshadowed by the bad, and if we supported him in his more toxic episodes, we'd give him validation and make him believe he'd never do anything wrong.

So what's the lesson here? If you see a fire, keep an eye on it, otherwise it will grow out of control.