niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series?
Output: A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person
CONTEXT: The Avengers is an Initiative: a sanctioned team brought together to defend the world against threats beyond the scope of SHIELD and the world's governments. Captain America is the first Avenger not only because he was the first to be recruited (Thor doesn't even know about the Avengers until partway through the movie: even Stark was aware of their existence before then), but because the super-soldier program of the 1940's was a wartime pre-cursor to the Avengers program, albeit one that was stalled by espionage. Captain America was quite clearly the first member of the team to sign up to a government initiative to defend innocent life. Ruben Studdard was 25 when he won American Idol in the 2nd Series, and Kelly Clarkson was only 20 when she won the first series. We don't refer to Studdard as the first American Idol winner, do we?  <sep>  Q: Why do we say that Captain America is the first avenger? A: because he was the first to be recruited  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, Thor was recruited after him even though he is older?
Output: Thor doesn't even know about the Avengers until partway through the movie: even Stark was aware of their existence before then
CONTEXT: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her. At least, that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock. Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother.  <sep>  Q: What is Eurus's motive in the final problem A: She doesn't want to torture Sherlock, she wants to play with him. Specifically, she wants him to play with her  Q: Were they friends as children? A: that's what the childhood version of herself wants and it manifests in modern day as the torturous puzzling she sets up for Sherlock  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does she kill redbeard?
Output: Eurus lacks human emotion and, thus, doesn't see what she does as torturing her brother
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did he do that?
Output: during the airport fight
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with?
Output: Dwight
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Charlie take one of?
Output: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints?
Output: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park
CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did she get herself arrested?
Output: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest
CONTEXT: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning. He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing. This had two implications, first is that he wasn't like Nicky and the second, he had far too much press after he survived the bombing as he was the center of attention with the gaming board. They really couldn't kill him without proving they (the bosses) were involved.  <sep>  Q: Why was Sam "Ace" Rothstein spared by the bosses? A: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The bosses decide to eliminate anyone involved or with knowledge of the skim
Output: He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing
CONTEXT: It's not a case of Hank possibly watching Walt, it's more that the launderette was on his radar and known to him as a potential target. If he'd been watching it over any space of time, he'd start to notice who goes there regularly. If that person was someone he knew to have links to drugs, and also was a completely different race from the other employees there, then that's going to set further alarm bells of in Hank's head and confirm his suspicions that something illicit is going on (rightly or wrongly). By having Walt and Jesse come in the back of a laundry truck, it looks like a regular drop off and doesn't raise any flags with anyone.  <sep>  Q: Why do Walter and Jesse no longer come in cars to the laundry A: It's not a case of Hank possibly watching Walt, it's more that the launderette was on his radar and known to him as a potential target  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: At some point Walter and Jesse have to come in laundry trucks leaving their cars away. I understand Hank may watch Walter, but why Jesse?
Output: By having Walt and Jesse come in the back of a laundry truck, it looks like a regular drop off and doesn't raise any flags with anyone
CONTEXT: It's a nice scene just when the song Ecstasy of Gold starts. Actually the dog was not part of the original script. It was Leone's dog and it ran and escaped when the scene was shot. Elli's reaction is a natural instinct on being startled. Leone (perfectionist as he may be) liked the result so much that he decided to keep it  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of the apearance of dogs in the good the bad the ugly? A: Actually the dog was not part of the original script  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the dog just walk on set and they kept the footage?
Output: It was Leone's dog and it ran and escaped when the scene was shot
CONTEXT: There was no movie rating system in place back in the 1940's, and movies were greatly censored by the US government. In the 1920's the Supreme Court ruled that free speech did not apply to movies, and a control board was arranged where by all film studios had to submit their scripts for censorship. Movie studios were given guide lines by which they had to follow. So it's not so much that profanity is now widespread, as much as it was strictly forbidden back in the 1940's. This system of governed film making slowly started to collapse over the years and gave birth to the Motion Picture film rating system. Where the film ratings and censorship is controlled by the film industry and not by a single controlling person or government. Now that we have the rating system, films can be classified by their rating. Today's ratings are, at least by idea, implemented by our peers. So as society changes so do those who review and rate films. That is why we see more profanity in PG rated films, as parents who rate the films accept the fact that children in this age group use these profane words or acknowledge that the film works the way the script was written. New ratings were introduced including PG-13. To address the need for films that target a segment of the population that are pre-adult but seek adult style films. Still, I have to wonder who these people are that rate these films.  <sep>  Q: Era of profanity in movie scripts? A: There was no movie rating system in place back in the 1940's, and movies were greatly censored by the US government  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did that start?
Output: In the 1920's the Supreme Court ruled that free speech did not apply to movies, and a control board was arranged where by all film studios had to submit their scripts for censorship
CONTEXT: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier. That is the essence of his fear. The real Angier will be killed every time. When you download a movie what you are doing is actually making a perfect copy of the movie. Which is the real movie? They all are. This is very different from making copies of film reels where only the original have the quality of the original (each copy adds a little imperfection). Now, the question The Prestige asks is what if you can make a perfect clone of a person the way you can perfectly copy digital data? In one sense, if we don't want to get too uncomfortable we can always say the remaining copy is now the real data and the deleted copy is not real anymore. But if you really think about it and get out of your comfort zone you will realize that both people are real and what you have done is murdered yourself. In The Prestige this point is much more clearly made as the old copied Angier becomes the one who is killed. Not the newly created clone. Every time the clone will have only the memory of the surviving Angier. But every time Angier experiences death, only the Angier that experienced death has no way of passing that memory to the surviving Angier so the survivor can never know what dying feels like.  <sep>  Q: How does it work that the clones are sentient paradox? A: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the consciousness split among the various clones?
Output: They all are
CONTEXT: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them. Oogway took the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogway, the latter chose to fight Against Kai even he Helps Oogway So much. That's why kai said to betray you betrayed me.  <sep>  Q: Why did Kai believe that Oogway betrayed him in Kung Fu Panda 3? A: Because when Kai was trying to Destroy the Pandas & the panda village, Oogway took the side of Pandas to protect them  Q: How did he take Pandas side? A: Oogway took the right side  Q: We're the two close friends? A: the right side. So, while kai was like a Brother to Oogwa  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did the friendship dissolve?
Output: the latter chose to fight Against Kai
CONTEXT: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny. Having a dour anti-government personality is great for Leslie to play off of. However, Ron also keeps his job because he wants to make the government as inefficient as possible. He doesn't just see high spending as bad but everything the government actually gets done. He keeps his position so he can slow things down and so he can hire inefficient people. This is especially highlighted in his episodes with Tom and April, who he hired because they were inefficient and unmotivated.  <sep>  Q: Why does Ron Swanson work at the Parks Department? A: Mostly, Ron works in the department because of the Rule of Funny  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the rule of funny excactly?
Output: Having a dour anti-government personality
CONTEXT: I think it was worded that way for pragmatic reasons. Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast. In The Two Towers, he has a much larger role and seems sort of halfway between beast and person, but a viewer who has not read the books is still unlikely to guess that he is a corrupted hobbit. The Return of the King opens with the story of Sméagol and Déagol to shed new light on who Gollum is, where he came from, why the Ring means so much to him, and what kind of influence the Ring wields over him. It is a bit of a shocking scene; the shock would not be nearly as strong if the viewer already knew Gollum's origin. So, in the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring, that Gollum was once a hobbit named Sméagol is an extraneous detail. While "the Ring came to Gollum" is an oversimplification, it was a necessary one; it told the viewer what he needed to know at that point in the story and no more.  <sep>  Q: Why does the narrator say 'The ring came to the creature Gollum'? A: In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What wass the reason for making him appear as the beast?
Output: Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established
CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office? A: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Michael was jealous that he had a corporate position or just upset that he had authority over him in some small way?
Output: Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think John wanted to do this?
Output: we can only speculate at what John actually saw
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller  Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying? A: One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?
Output: Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life
CONTEXT: I think the similarities are coincidental. The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program, and his band is rejected for being "too loud." In talking about the filming of the scene, Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence during the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance. As a frustrated musician, I was in my glory, learning the guitar chords and lead solo arrangements, as well as working with a choreographer to mimic and incorporate into the production number the signature styles and stage moves of my rock and roll heroes.” (Lucky Man: A Memoir, p, 144) Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration.  <sep>  Q: Was the Johnny B. Goode scene from Back to The Future inspired from Top Secret? A: I think the similarities are coincidental  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the similarities between the two films?
Output: Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: A first person account of what exactly?
Output: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story
CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer? A: The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane  Q: Did he ever recover from his insanity? A: he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he innocent all along then?
Output: He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects
CONTEXT: No. The 1994 version was based off of Norse mythology, as the wearer of the mask became a reincarnation of Loki (yes, the same Loki from Thor/The Avengers fame, and a bonafide prankster) whereas the 1961 Mask was a psychological thriller/horror movie where the wearer of the mask was slowly driven insane. There is a fine line between becoming a prankster and committing murder, but the line exists, nonetheless. However, in a larger context, the 1994 movie was based on the Dark Horse comic of the same name, which shared a closer storyline with the 1961 movie. The 1994 version was also intended to be a horror series, but the story was changed along the way. So, in some cases they are, in fact, related.  <sep>  Q: Was the The Mask 1994 (and subsequent cartoon) inspired by The Mask 1961 A: No. The 1994 version was based off of Norse mythology  Q: Norse mythology, how did this shape the film? A: the wearer of the mask became a reincarnation of Loki (yes, the same Loki from Thor/The Avengers fame, and a bonafide prankste  Q: What else can you tell me about the inspiration for The Mask? A: the 1994 movie was based on the Dark Horse comic of the same name  Q: What is the Dark Horse comic about? A: The 1994 version was also intended to be a horror series, but the story was changed along the way. So, in some cases they are, in fact, related  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was changed about the story?
Output: the wearer of the mask was slowly driven insane. There is a fine line between becoming a prankster and committing murder, but the line exists, nonetheless
CONTEXT: Bran is believed to be dead. When Robb marches to war, Theon Greyjoy betrays the Starks and takes Winterfell. Bran and Rickon escape. Theon eventually has two boys slain at a farm and says that they were Bran and Rickon. As far as the greater world knows, all the Stark men are dead, which leaves Sansa (the oldest girl) as the heir to Winterfell. Whoever marries her will become Lord of that region.  <sep>  Q: Why is Sansa Stark so important? A: As far as the greater world knows, all the Stark men are dead, which leaves Sansa (the oldest girl) as the heir to Winterfell  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does she do after all the Stark men die?
Output: Whoever marries her will become Lord of that region
CONTEXT: He's merely being insulting about Xandarian society. Xandar seems to be an advanced, wealthy, industrial civilization, with a strong rule of law. From Rocket's point of view, as an outsider on the edges of the law, Xandarians seem to be busy and hard working, but he thinks their life is boring and meaningless. We also know that Rocket feels like an outsider and falls back on put-downs and sarcasm when talking to friends and foes alike - so him being insulting to Xandarians isn't surprising.  <sep>  Q: Why are Xandarians in a hurry to get to nothing at all? A: Xandarians seem to be busy and hard working  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the Xandarians?
Output: Xandar seems to be an advanced, wealthy, industrial civilization, with a strong rule of law
CONTEXT: My guess is that Vinay did not know Anjali before their meeting at the jewelry shop. I infer this from analyzing the character of Vinay. He doesn't appear like someone who will use crooked methods. Also, regarding the sog sequence, I think it was a mere coincidence, intentionally plotted by the director to create mystery.  <sep>  Q: Does Vinay know Anjali before meeting her at the jewelry shop? A: My guess is that Vinay did not know Anjali before their meeting at the jewelry shop  Q: Why do you think that he did not know her? A: I infer this from analyzing the character of Vinay  Q: Do yuo think that he was not brazen enough to sek employment knowing the owners daughter was who he was interested in? A: He doesn't appear like someone who will use crooked methods  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it possible that he knew her but played like he did not?
Output: I think it was a mere coincidence, intentionally plotted by the director to create mystery
CONTEXT: From what I can gather all sensates were born sensates, which is why people in the same cluster have the same birthday and take their first breaths together. It isn't until later when someone activates their connection to their other selves in the cluster that they become aware of them, which is what Angelica does. Will and Sarah are both sensates, who made eye contact with each other when they were children hence their connection, to one another, even though he is still unaware of the rest of his cluster, or knows what is happening. He doesn't make eye contact with Whispers or Jonas until he his older. A similar thing happens between Riley and Yrsa in Iceland when Riley was still a child. Yrsa made eye contact with her at some point which is what connected them and then used that connection to try and keep her safe from Whispers and the Biologic Preservation Organization. So even though both Will and Riley were unaware of the rest of the cluster, it is shown that they still have some sensate abilities.  <sep>  Q: Will and Sarah's connection A: people in the same cluster have the same birthday and take their first breaths together  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does being in the same cluster mean?
Output: hen someone activates their connection to their other selves in the cluster that they become aware of them
CONTEXT: You can safely watch Season 5 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. without worrying about spoiling the end of Infinity War. There are no spoilers made, and only some very vague references to the beginning of Infinity War, and none to the movie's climax. The references are slim and not relevant to the plot of the show, and are a lot less tied into the show than the Winter Soldier reveals to Season 1 (where they were essential to understanding the plot) or even the vague references to Thor 2 earlier in that season, where the agents come to play clean-up after the events of the movie. Go forth and watch safely.  <sep>  Q: Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 5 - does it spoil Avengers: Infinity War? A: You can safely watch Season 5 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. without worrying about spoiling the end of Infinity War  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would you recommend I watch it?
Output: Go forth and watch safely
CONTEXT: The planet was toxic due to the waste that humanity created. As such, any soil and water would kill the plants that grew there, and it was no longer feasible for humanity to stay. The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again. The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them. It's not infeasible to think that the ship had a seed vault in it, given its phenomenal size, and original mission was to return to Earth at some point.  <sep>  Q: How can the Axiom computer know Earth is safe based on the one little plant EVE found? A: The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again  Q: But what if the plant was poisonous? A: The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the film?
Output: It's not infeasible to think that the ship had a seed vault in it, given its phenomenal size, and original mission was to return to Earth at some point
CONTEXT: While Frollo's function was indeed divided between several characters, Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience. Hence, characters have alternate back stories that present different motivations and the nuances of the source material may be forgone, rendering certain details like Quasimodo's lineage inconsequential. As such, while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother. Honestly, this is similar to the puzzle as to why characters see a similarity between Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World.  <sep>  Q: In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Is the gyspy woman really Quasimodo's mom? A: while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think Disney added the Gypsy woman to the story when she was not in the book?
Output: Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience
CONTEXT: Whilst he lay recovering from his wounds his father, who had little regard for him and wanted to ensure his own position of power set to work. He had authority when he was hand which his father took. He had power due to his wild men who had been removed. He had influence over the Gold Cloaks and guard via Bron etc. This had been removed. All of his allies and supporters had been bought by his father or sent away whereas his enemies now enjoyed the protection and power of his sister and nephew. He now has no political authority and no muscle to back his claims. He was also given no credit for what he did in defending the city. Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable.  <sep>  Q: Why was Tyrion disgraced? A: Overall he was not so much disgraced as had his status and power taken by Tywin which left him vulnerable  Q: Do you think Tywin was a good father? A: his father, who had little regard for him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the The Hand have many duties?
Output: He had authority when he was hand which his father took
CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why doesn't she want to look like a girl?
Output: her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed
CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the cataclysmic event?
Output: the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed
CONTEXT: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach? A: perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did George mean when he asked Kenny if he was out of his mind?
Output: Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position
CONTEXT: She states in the movie that after she received a blood transfusion she could feel the ability had left her. Cage also notes this when he wakes up in a military hospital after a botched attempt to retrieve the transponder prototype, as the result of a blood transfusion. As such, it would seem the ability is something you can feel, and thus you can tell when you've lost it.  <sep>  Q: How does Rita Vrataski find out that she lost her power to "reset" her day without killing herself? A: she could feel the ability had left her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would should lose her power after a blood transfusion?
Output: botched attempt
CONTEXT: The car which they take off in at the end of the movie is the fantasy version of the car the Thunderbirds sing about during Greased Lightning and not the white car which gets torn up during the race. The Greased Lightning car, being a fantasy car, is a way of saying at the end of the movie that Danny and Sandy's dreams have come true: they will live happily ever after, or so they want the audience to believe. They ride off into the sunset together and everyone is happy for them. None of the other characters see anything wrong with it because it is a fantasy world in Danny, Sandy, and the audience's eyes, the rest of them are just seeing it as it is. At least that is my take on it.  <sep>  Q: What is the symbolism of the flying cars? A: car which they take off in at the end  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What movie is the car from?
Output: Greased Lightning
CONTEXT: It is not clear anywhere in movie to what religion she belonged. She was shown as orphan, it may be possilbe she never knew what religion her parents belonged to. As far as her name Latika is concerned, it is used by both muslims and hindus. It seems the director didn't want to show her as associated with any religion. If you look at her life, most of the time she was in kind of house arrest, so she herself may not have had time to decide what religion she wants. Regarding the logic that Muslim men are allowed to marry only muslim women, the society they belonged, I don't think rules are applied on them from any religous community. As Ankit pointed out in his answer, inter-religion marriage is not an alien concept, so she may be muslim or not.  <sep>  Q: Is Latika from "Slumdog Millionaire" Muslim? A: It is not clear anywhere in movie to what religion she belonged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I noticed she didn't wear a headscarf, does that mean she isn't Muslim?
Output: She was shown as orphan, it may be possilbe she never knew what religion her parents belonged to
CONTEXT: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them [quite, though I'd check with a lawyer] breaking copyright. As these days most people use internet searches rather than physically browsing disks on a shelf, it gives them better chance of a hit. It's also a way of saving them having to think up anything vaguely clever or amusing. In the old days, they used to have to come up with vaguely similar titles that would be recognisable to their intended audience.. Jurassic Poke Saving Ryan's Privates Flesh Gordon Sex Family Robinson ...I think you get the idea.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of "This Isn't" in porn parody titles? A: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them  Q: Is that legal for them to do? A: copyright  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: is there a way to tell the difference between a porn parody and the real movies?
Output: intended
CONTEXT: The point is that it's not about being smart.. It's about knowing what you are talking about and and having the guts to hold a position. We see, in the scene prior to the elevator sequence, that the other CIA officials are all hedging their bets about the location of Bin Laden, Chastain's character is the only one who will commit to being certain. This is why, even though, all of them are smart... he discounts that as being the deciding factor. Being knowledgeable, and committed to an opinion, even an internally unpopular one, carries more weight with him Which is why, in the very next scene, the Director talks to Chastain's character to weigh her up for himself. He's convinced, not only by her certainty but by the fact that the only thing she's done for the CIA in her 12 years...is hunt Bin Laden.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of the elevator scene in Zero Dark Thirty? A: We see, in the scene prior to the elevator sequence, that the other CIA officials are all hedging their bets about the location of Bin Laden  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is she so certain?
Output: It's about knowing what you are talking about and and having the guts to hold a position
CONTEXT: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates. This shot leaves an entry wound and shrapnel. The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side. If Bond did have a bullet proof vest on, this area is likely to be covered. The impact from the bullet is transferred through the kevlar plate/s onto a larger area of Bonds body. Rather than penetrating his ribcage, and leaving an entry wound, the vest stops the bullet. Stopping the bullet before it enters his body imparts a lot more force onto Bond, which explains him being thrown off the train. It also explains the 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage. Bullet wounds are typically puncture wounds, deep and localised. Without a vest, Bond would have suffered much more serious organ damage as the bullet tears through him. Bullet proof vests typically leave blunt trauma injuries, affecting larger areas, and are not likely to leave scarring. One direct bullet wound is not likely to break 3 ribs, however the impact through a kevlar plate definitely is.  <sep>  Q: in Skyfall opening scene on train, does Bond fake getting shot? A: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates  Q: Where was he injured? A: The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he have internal injuries from the bullet?
Output: 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage
CONTEXT: It's in Parry's mind. At the start of the scene, people in Grand Central Station are just walking, making noise, chaotic. Parry is looking for Lydia, whom he is in love with. When Parry sees Lydia, classical music starts, and the chaotic crowd is now in sync (in Parry's mind). They begin waltzing around him. Parry has a smile on his face. He follows Lydia through the sweetly dancing couples, all the way across Grand Central Station, and the universe is in harmony, for him. When he finally loses sight of Lydia on the other side, the couples go back to being a crowd, and the music stops and is replaced with the dissonant noises of the throng. Here is the scene: EDIT I also found an interview with director Terry Gilliam (below) regarding that particular scene. In the video, at 2:10, he says, "I just love the idea of Perry being so in love that, you know, the world changes to whatever dreams he has."  <sep>  Q: Why people were dancing at the subway? A: When Parry sees Lydia, classical music starts, and the chaotic crowd is now in sync (in Parry's mind). They begin waltzing around him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What makes the crowd so chaotic?
Output: At the start of the scene, people in Grand Central Station are just walking, making noise, chaotic
CONTEXT: Dev Patel plays the adult Saroo, so he is only in the movie for the last third or so. He's the main character but he's part of the resolution of the plot. It's a judgment call by the Academy, but his screen time is far less than that of the Best Actor nominees this year, so to call his a supporting role seems correct.  <sep>  Q: Why was Dev Patel nominated for Supporting Actor rather than Best Actor? A: Dev Patel plays the adult Saroo, so he is only in the movie for the last third or so  Q: So he wasn't eligible? A: It's a judgment call by the Academy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would he be better suited for a "Supporting Role"?
Output: his screen time is far less than that of the Best Actor nominees this year, so to call his a supporting role seems correct
CONTEXT: There's a longer version of this scene in the Season 4 trailer, which was cut down for the episode, that makes things more clear. Ramsay is a sadomasochist; he enjoys giving and receiving pain, especially during sex. In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it. The fact that we don't see Myranda after that, I suspect, is simply to the fact that we haven't had any reason to see her. She is on the cast list to appear in Season 5, so she's almost certainly not dead.  <sep>  Q: Did Myranda try to kill Ramsay? A: In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it  Q: Are you sure because I googled it and couldn't find anything explicit? A: There's a longer version of this scene in the Season 4 trailer, which was cut down for the episode, that makes things more clear  Q: Okay, why is Ramsay covered in blood when he arrives in the kennels? A: Ramsay is a sadomasochist; he enjoys giving and receiving pain, especially during sex  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she try and kill im by strangling him?
Output: In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it