Historically, it was decided that it was not required to have read a book/watched a movie to ask a question. This, of course, led to its own issues: the dreaded General Reference.
Of course, as a policy, it was decided that we should not use General Reference as a close reason, and more recently, it and "Too Localized" were removed as close reasons.
The conversation here brings these topics back up again, though.
Keen initially closed the question as off-topic
because it is exceptionally trivial. It's not unclear at all what happens during that scene.
The community, however, voted to re-open it.
The most upvoted answer to the "I haven't read the book/watched the movie" question explains
Yes, you can ask a question about material you have not read/watched/listened to.
However, that does not exempt you from any of our other rules.
General reference is still general reference. You can't claim "I didn't read the book, so it isn't general reference to me".
Questions that demonstrate a lack of research should still be downvoted. Posting a question about material you haven't read isn't sufficient research on its own.
This becomes a little confusing as it's stated that it's OK to ask a question about something you have basically no knowledge of - but that General Reference still applies (of course, there was always the discussion of what constituted General Reference).
BUT, this question/answer was from a few weeks before meta decided to "burninate general reference"
At this point, Beofett wrote (and was quoted in the accepted answer)
Why is it not sufficient to say "if a question is trivial, boring, and demonstrates little to no research, downvote it"? Note that the hover-text for downvoting states quite clearly that a question or answer should be downvoted when it "does not show any research effort" or "it is unclear or not useful"!
For truly useless questions, most of them will likely fall into other closure categories (Gilles has mentioned on a couple of occasions that "too localized" in particular can usually cover some of the most egregious examples of "General Reference" questions.
In the answer referenced, Gilles wrote
I do not find the GR close reason absolutely necessary, because too localized can fill its role.
Fast forward to today.
General Reference is gone. Too Localized is gone.
How do we want to handle questions like these in the future?
I downvoted the question that brought this back up. It is poorly researched. I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret that scene any other way. But do we want to close questions for being "too trivial"? General Reference and Too Localized were the two close reasons that "too trivial" would have fit into (based on specifics), but those are no longer valid close reasons.
If we DO want to close these questions, what should the correct close reason be?