Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, generate a relevant question to the topic of the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`.

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible  Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible? A: this is a common trade-off in movies  Q: Why does the film have so much humour? A: The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing  Q: Why do films feel like they need to add humorous elements that are not true to the book? A: Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book 

Ex Output:
Did the director choose to change anything else about the books?


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: There's a longer version of this scene in the Season 4 trailer, which was cut down for the episode, that makes things more clear. Ramsay is a sadomasochist; he enjoys giving and receiving pain, especially during sex. In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it. The fact that we don't see Myranda after that, I suspect, is simply to the fact that we haven't had any reason to see her. She is on the cast list to appear in Season 5, so she's almost certainly not dead.  <sep>  Q: Did Myranda try to kill Ramsay? A: In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it  Q: Are you sure because I googled it and couldn't find anything explicit? A: There's a longer version of this scene in the Season 4 trailer, which was cut down for the episode, that makes things more clear  Q: Okay, why is Ramsay covered in blood when he arrives in the kennels? A: Ramsay is a sadomasochist; he enjoys giving and receiving pain, especially during sex 

Ex Output:
Did she try and kill im by strangling him?


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself 

Ex Output:

Why do you think John wanted to do this?