- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,723
She's a murdering scumbag who doesn't give a damn about tigers. She abused them and used them the same way he did. She just failed at it. She only changed her scheme because she was a failure. She obviously doesn't care about the cats, and only runs her little charity ponzi scheme so she can reign over her little manor like a queen. Yes, she can certainly be argued to be worse than Joe.
But that's missing the point. Because, no, that doesn't redeem him. He's attempted murder-for-hire, and he's also a megalomaniacal scumbag who doesn't care about the animals. Know what that means? It means that both Carole and Joe are exactly like every other major player in the big cat world they showed in the documentary. The people like Bhagavan Antle and Jeff Lowe.
How do you guys manage to miss the point?
The documentarians laid it out for you in the first minute of the first episode: foreshadowed everything that was to come. This was not an accidental editing choice. It's like a 5-point essay: Introduction, Body, Conclusion. You summarize your grand idea in the introduction of the essay. They articulated this through the testimony of one of the show's minor villains: James Garretson.
"You know, the monkey people are a little bit different. You know, they're kind of strange. But the big cat people--- are backstabbing pieces of shit."
