Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
--------
Question: 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  Q: What movie is the car from? A: Greased Lightning  Q: Who are the star characters in the movie? A: Danny and Sandy  Q: Does anyone think the flying car is notable? A: None of the other characters see anything  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this car symbolic of anything?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book. And re-telling a book story in movie form, when you've got to get all the key details on screen in just 2 or 3 hours, means you have to omit many minor details. The core story of The Great Gatsby is about Gatsby and the world he lived in, not about Nick or Nick's potential attraction to Gatsby. In book form, there is plenty of room for the subplot suggestion that Nick is gay -- and the author Fitzgerald introduced the suggestion so subtly that most readers miss it. In the movie, however, throwing "Nick might be gay" at viewers along with everything else, in just 2 or 3 hours, could overwhelm them and/or distract from the core story -- and I'm not sure how it could be done as subtly on-screen as Fitzgerald pulled it off in the prose.  <sep>  Q: Why did the Great Gasby (2013) movie erase the hints of Nick Carraway's homosexuality? A: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would the writer include this subplot in the book?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: It's not the same attack. In the first movie, Neo enters Smith's code and basically decompiles him from the inside, which presumably destroys him (though we know enough of him survives to resurface with "upgrades" taken from Neo). In the third movie, Smith overwrites Neo's RSI, which, because Neo is hooked into the Matrix directly from the machine city at the time, gives the machine city the opening they need to pump an antivirus into the Matrix and cleanse all of the Smith-infected code. This purges the Smith code from the Matrix completely, but has the side effect of killing Neo.  <sep>  Q: If Neo survived in the first movie, how come he didn't in the third movie? A: It's not the same attack  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What attack was it?

Answer:
Yes