Given scene/plot descriptions from movies or TV shows, and given a specific question about the scene, summarize the question into a title

Input: Consider Input: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? After the killer has been caught by the police, we see in the last scene a very suspenseful, cliffhanger sex scene. Can somebody explain the ending of that to me? Does it mean the real killer is not caught after all?

Output: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean?


Input: Consider Input: In the 2011 film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, there is a scene where Caesar escapes from the house, attacks the neighbor, and during that attack he bites the man's finger.    During that sequence, we can clearly see that he does not lose his finger, but it is bloody.   Was this a mistake in the film?  Every time I watch this film, and that scene comes up, it seems to me that Caesar bites off the mans finger. But in the next shot, he has his finger back.  Later in the film people are discussing if it's safe to continue to have Caesar in the house, and one person mentions the attack. If I remember correctly, it's stated that the neighbor lost his finger.  It seems like an important plot point, because the neighbor mentions that he's a pilot. So loosing a finger would be kind of a big deal for him.  What is the correct result of Caesar's attack? Or was there some kind of last minute change in the editing room to keep the finger.

Output: Was Caesar supposed to have bitten off the neighbor's finger?


Input: Consider Input: In the movie adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo (2002), Edmond Dantès lands at Elba, kills some British soldiers and knowingly accepts a letter from Napoleon Bonaparte. Whereas in the book he doesn't accept the letter directly from Napoleon and has no reason to believe it has anything to do with Napoleon.  To me having this scene at Elba was unnecessary (in more ways than one), it makes it hard to believe that he was just naive and does the meaning of his betrayal by Mondego and Danglars.   To put it in a more modern context, had a terrorist leader passed him a letter which was said to contain a letter to family but actually contained plans for an attack, then Mondego and Danglars would be considered heroes and Edmond's quest for revenge would not be justified.  So, can Edmond Dantès really be considered innocent of treason?


Output: Was Edmond Dantès Actually a Traitor?