instruction:
Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, answer a follow-up question from the paragraph. 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: I think it was worded that way for pragmatic reasons. Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast. In The Two Towers, he has a much larger role and seems sort of halfway between beast and person, but a viewer who has not read the books is still unlikely to guess that he is a corrupted hobbit. The Return of the King opens with the story of Sméagol and Déagol to shed new light on who Gollum is, where he came from, why the Ring means so much to him, and what kind of influence the Ring wields over him. It is a bit of a shocking scene; the shock would not be nearly as strong if the viewer already knew Gollum's origin. So, in the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring, that Gollum was once a hobbit named Sméagol is an extraneous detail. While "the Ring came to Gollum" is an oversimplification, it was a necessary one; it told the viewer what he needed to know at that point in the story and no more.  <sep>  Q: Why does the narrator say 'The ring came to the creature Gollum'? A: In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What wass the reason for making him appear as the beast?
answer:
Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established


question:
CONTEXT: I agree with @Paulster2 - just to make you laugh while scratching your head. But I want to add that Billy comes back to the classroom while the teacher is performing a tortured dance of anguish, so I think the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis. Adam Sandler thinks it's funny to show that a sweet Kindergarten teacher has this troubled psychological condition underneath it all. (And I remember laughing at the paste on the face, so I must think it's funny too!)  <sep>  Q: Why does the teacher put paste on her face? A: the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: There is a strange scene and the scene ends right after she does this.
answer:
just to make you laugh while scratching your head


question:
CONTEXT: Because we don't shoot people for kicking chairs! The SOE official has the gun to defend himself if attacked. Vatan isn't attacking the official (or the Army officer) he's just kicking the chair in frustration and outrage....and that's not something to be shot for! Equally, the SOE need Vatan to keep Marianne in place while they identify her handler...another reason not to shoot him.  <sep>  Q: Why S.O.E official didn't shoot Max Vatan for not allowing him to investigate Marianne? A: Because we don't shoot people for kicking chairs  Q: What do they shoot people for? A: The SOE official has the gun to defend himself if attacked  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is he ever attacked?
answer:

Vatan isn't attacking the official (or the Army officer) he's just kicking the chair in frustration and outrage....and that's not something to be shot for