Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,273,674
Something I never understood about that film - was the implication supposed to be that Robin Williams' character was sexually abused as a kid and the abuse was photographed? If yes then fine, but if not then the movie makes zero sense to me.
boof (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,273,676
yeah his friend was a hamster and he imagined having a family of his own and was really angered when found that the man of the family was fucking around, casually jeopardizing what he never was lucky enough to have, like it was nothing important
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,273,680
It's like it didn't just jeopardize the husbands family, it jeopardized Robin's fantasy of being in that family, he needed the family to continue existing for his fantasy to continue as well.
> Think he was just lonely and broken, just waiting to be tipped over.
Then what's with that bizarre outburst to the police at the end when he screams about children doing things that children shouldn't do and "sick disgusting pictures" being taken of it? Are we meant to believe hardcore child pornographers have for years been bringing their pictures to Walmart's 1-hour photo booth to be developed and it's finally pushed him over the edge?
I worked in photo development between 2015 and 2022, and I have had two occasions where I have developed what turned out to be hardcore child pornography. For this reason I am inclined to believe that it was much more common in the late 20th century.