instruction:
Given scene/plot descriptions from movies or TV shows, and given a specific question about the scene, summarize the question into a title
question:
Can anyone tell me what percentage of the new (2016) Doctor Strange movie is devoted to detailing his origins? Or, can this film as a whole be considered an origin story?  Believe it or not finding out this answer is harder than it sounds without also being exposed to spoilers and impossible without being exposed to (unwanted) reviewers opinions. I just want a neutral answer.  As for what constitutes origin story being opinion: I'd say if the movie starts with the viewer having to accept he has powers somehow and no more than 15% of time is spent on short flashbacks that hint at his origins: that is not an origin story for the purposes of this question. Anything more that that about origins is.
answer:
How much of Doctor Strange is origin story?


question:
Hitler was definitely shot to death by the Basterds but he would have died in the fire anyways. Shoshanna had everything planned well to trap everyone in theatre including her, there was no escape. So when looking at this movie if the parts with the Basterds were removed her plan would have still worked. So were they even needed?
answer:
Did the Basterds actually change anything?


question:
In Ex Machina, If Caleb had already reprogrammed the security protocol, why did he attempt to get Caleb drunk again? Or perhaps Caleb tried to get Nathan drunk again because he thought that Nathan had been listening in on his conversations with Ava during the power outages, and thus Nathan would have been expecting Caleb to try to get him drunk, and to not do so would have made Nathan suspicious and possibly led to the whole plan to free Ava to be foiled?
answer:

Why did Caleb try to get Nathan drunk the second time?