I'd like to ask for a specific detail in the plot of a movie that I am not likely to be able to view, would that be that on-topic?

Question

My 2nd question ever here was Was Nancy Pierpan a spy? (Page Eight) and the first comment that appeared almost immediately was something like "Have you even seen the movie?" to which I could happily reply "Of course I have!" in that case.

Now there is a movie I have not seen and am not sure I will be able to any time soon. There is a line in the synopsis in Wikipedia that intrigues me, and I'd like to track down its veracity.

From Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran; Plot:

As the activities begin, two local spies of the CIA and ISI are alerted and they bug Ashwath's guest house to get the information on the nuclear test. Ashwat and the team manage to prepare the setup for the tests while distracting the Lacrosse satellite. When the material are arranged, Himanshu tells Ashwat to stop the tests due to the political climate. Ashwat nevertheless convinces him to greenlit the tests and distract media attention from Pokhran. This gives Ashwat and team time as they now struggle to complete the tests within a shorter deadline. One day, when a sandstorm exposes the setup, Ashwat and other officers rush to cover it before being spotted by the satellite. They manage to run to the bunker before being spotted, but the spies learn of the test when they view satellite-clicked photographs of Ashwat's vehicle parked oddly. They try to convince the CIA about the tests, but they don't believe them. The ISI Agent calls Ashwat's wife and tells him he's in Pokhran with a woman, after which she arrives at the guest house and mistakenly believes Ashwat to be having an affair with his teammate Ambalika. Ashwat tries to defend himself but she leaves, following which Ambalika learns of this and believes it to be a setup.

I found out about the film while reading about the Lacrosse series of US government spy satellites which use synthetic aperture radar to image the Earth in high detail. Lacrosse (satellite); In pop culture

Question: Would asking "Did the main character of this film really "distract" a US spy satellite? If so, how?" be on-topic since I didn't actually see the film? Would what's shown here likely be sufficient prior research in this case? Distracting a spy satellite is an extraordinary plot device, and I'd never heard of something like this in fact or in fiction before.

---

Here is a trailer of the film, the Lacrosse satellite can be seen after 00:26

Answer 1

I agree with Paulie_D that it's problematic when the entirety of the question ultimately hinges on Wikipedia's specific plot-synopsis, which for all we know might be terribly incomplete or inaccurate. What this comes down to is basically reading a plot summary and asking "does this really happen in the film?", to which the obvious answer is either "yes, or it wouldn't be in the summary" or maybe "no, the summary is wrong". But all in all it is more a question about the summary and its accuracy than the film. And if the question is "how did he do that in the film", then not having seen the film is really just a lack of fundamental research and an answer would simply be a more accurate plot synopsis.

We are (or try to be) not terribly strict on prior research and for some questions you indeed don't even have to have seen the film necessarily. But when you're ultimately asking if or how some specific plot element happens in the film, not having seen it would seem rather odd. If this is all based on a summary you read or heard somewhere, I'd likely be in favour of "unclear"-closing it, since it wouldn't be too different from just asking us for a better plot summary.

But the question doesn't run away. If you happen to watch the film one day and it's still unclear, you can always come back and flesh it out into a precise and relevant question about the film's story. And even better, you have a great reason to seek out the film now and can even take specific notes during the scene and form a really good question out of it (or none if it's explained obviously and satisfactorily in the film, but then you at least spared yourself an embarrassing question ;-)).