Question: Given the below context:  In ancient times, the Amazons, a proud and fierce race of warrior women, led by their Queen, Hippolyta, battled Ares, the god of war, and his army. During the battle, Hippolyta specifically targeted and beheaded her son Thrax, whom Ares forcibly conceived with her and who is fighting for his father. Hippolyta then defeated Ares, but Zeus stopped her from delivering the death strike. Instead, Hera bound his powers with magic bracers so that he was deprived of his ability to draw power from the psychic aura of violence and death he could instigate, and only another god could release him. In compensation, the Amazons were granted the island of Themyscira, where they would remain eternally youthful and isolated from Man in the course of their duty of holding Ares prisoner for all eternity. Later, Hippolyta was granted a daughter, Princess Diana, whom she shaped from the sand of the Themyscirian seashore and gave life with her own blood. Over a millennium later, an American fighter pilot, USAF Colonel Steve Trevor, is shot down in a dogfight and crash-lands his YF-23 on the island, where he soon runs afoul of the Amazon population, including the combative Artemis. Steve and Diana meet and fight, and Diana defeats him, taking him to the Amazons. After interrogating him with the use of the Amazons' golden lasso, Hippolyta decides he is not an enemy of the Amazons and as such, tradition dictates that an emissary be tasked to ensure his safe return to his own country. Diana volunteers, but is assigned to guard Ares's cell instead since her mother argues that she has not enough experience in dealing with the dangers of the outside world. Diana defies her mother and, her face hidden by a helmet and her guard duty covered by her bookish but kind-hearted Amazon sister Alexa, participates in contests of strength and wins the right to take Trevor back to his home.  Guess a valid title for it!
Answer: Wonder Woman (2009 film)


[Q]: Given the below context:  The NSWCA appealed to Lord Harris, and in reply he said he did not blame them or the cricketers of Sydney in any way, but said that "it [the riot] was an occurrence it was impossible he could forget". On 11 February, one day after the conclusion of the match and three days after the riot, Harris wrote a letter to one of his friends about the disturbance. It was clear that he intended the letter to be printed in the press, and it appeared in full in The Daily Telegraph on 1 April, among other London newspapers, reigniting the furore. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack considered the incident of such significance that it reprinted the whole correspondence. The letter gives a detailed contemporary account of what Lord Harris thought about the riot.Lord Harris referred to the crowd as a "howling mob" and said "I have seen no reason as yet to change my opinion of Coulthard's qualities, or to regret his engagement, in which opinion I am joined by the whole team". He further added that "Beyond slyly kicking me once or twice the mob behaved very well, their one cry being, 'Change your umpire'. And now for the cause of this disturbance, not unexpected, I may say, by us, for we have heard accounts of former matches played by English teams." Harris further accused a New South Wales parliamentarian of assisting the gamblers in the inciting the unrest, although he did not name the accusee. He said I blame the NSW Eleven for not objecting to Coulthard before the match began, if they had reason to suppose him incompetent to fulfil his duties. I blame the members of the association (many, of course, must be excepted) for their discourtesy and uncricket like behaviour to their guests; and I blame the committee and others of the association for ever permitting betting, but this last does not, of course, apply to our match only. I am bound to say they did all in their power to quell the disturbance. I don't think anything would have happened if A. Bannerman had been run out instead of Murdoch, but the latter, besides being a great...  Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Sydney Riot of 1879


input: Please answer the following: Given the below context:  Genetic engineers Clive Nicoli and Elsa Kast hope to achieve fame by splicing animal DNA to create hybrids for medical use at the company N.E.R.D. (Nucleic Exchange Research and Development). Their work previously yielded Fred, a dog-sized vermiform creature intended as a mate for their female specimen, Ginger. After successfully mating them, Clive and Elsa plan to create a human-animal hybrid that could revolutionize science. Their employers Joan Chorot of N.E.R.D. and William Barlow forbid them from doing this. Instead, they are to find and extract proteins used for commercial drug production from Fred and Ginger. Clive and Elsa, however, disobey their superiors and pursue their own agenda in secret, developing a viable prepubescent female creature. Although they had planned to terminate the hybrid before it reached full term, Elsa persuades Clive to let it live. They discover that she is aging at a vastly accelerated rate. Elsa discovers that the creature is undergoing mental development such as that of a young human child. Elsa names the creature "Dren" after the creature spells out NERD, having seen the letters on Elsa's shirt. After moving Dren to a new location for fear of discovery, they find she has a dangerously high fever. In an attempt to save her they place her in a large industrial sink filled with cold water. Later on Clive fully submerges Dren in the sink, and in doing so discovers that Dren is amphibious, but remains ambiguous in whether he tried to save Dren or kill her. While studying Dren, Elsa and Clive neglect their work with Fred and Ginger. At a highly publicized presentation of their work, Fred and Ginger savagely fight to the death. It is subsequently discovered that Ginger had spontaneously changed to a male, but Elsa and Clive failed to notice because they were focused on Dren.  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++++
output:
Splice (film)