Does What the Bleep Do We Know have any close cousins?

Hey WaveDancer,Yes "What the Bleep do we know" has some pretty close cousins. First of all "What the Bleep" itself is atrociously awful and not a single word of it has any realistic content regarding quantum mechanics.The site Imagining the Tenth Dimension is also complete unmitigated nonsense. It is essentially just a fictional universe invented by the author, not really connected to anything experimentally verifiable or with preexisting physical theories.However these two sources are the biggest culprits of misinformation in the internet age. I could tell you all the other sources of misinformation, but instead how about the sources of actual information.For reliable sources, Wikipedia is pretty good although probably incomprehensible. Their articles are usually too mathematical.
The good sources for physics are really what I would call "non-technical, non-casual science". A perfect example is "The Second Creation" by Charles Crease and Robert Mann.* Also the books by Brian Greene and Kip Thorne's "Black Holes, Wormholes and Time Machines".*I've recommended this book so many times, I just want to emphasise that I am not affiliated with the authors. It is simple that the modern physics community sees this as the best book for the average person.

The collapse of the wavefunction and what it means pretty much depends on what you think of the wavefunction itself.
In truth there are strong arguments both against
(a) Taking an entirely non-realist view, that it is just a mathematical thing
and
(b) Taking a totally realist view that collapse is an actual physical process which occurs literally.Of course there are several things to suggest that there are elements of both in collapse.First of all "observation" or "measurement" in quantum mechanics means one thing, a quantum object leaves a trace or evidence of some of its properties in a large/classical object. The large classical object can be a measuring device in a lab, it can be a cloud of gas, it could be the retina in the back of the eye or it could be a stone. Measurement is a quantum-classical interaction.Of course this leads into all the issues you normally hear about.
Why does interacting with classical objects cause quantum objects to restrict their possibilities(to use loose language)? This is the wavefunction collapse question.
Also, when does something count as a classical object?
Is dividing the world into quantum and classical things not totally artificial?For some more info perhaps my old posts will be of help:
EvC Forum: Quantum physics: Copenhagen vs decoherence interpretations

Yes, it is the reason. Literally anything could measure the entangled pair, the air in the room, the ciruitry of the computer, e.t.c.
This is why quantum computation people are today focused on finding objects or physical systems which are highly resistant against measurement.Of course there are other issues. For instance like classical computers have and,not and or logic gates, quantum computers have quantum logic gates. For most systems which resist measurement these gates are hard to build.