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:`.

CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was his first director's cut?
No

CONTEXT: The purpose of the end scene of the movie is to have the Narrator finally conquer his 'problems' in the form of killing Tyler. He cannot simply shoot at him as he is just a hallucination of his own mind and the bullet would just fly off into nothing. While before beating him up would have worked, it was just a physical representation of a mental battle. By bringing in an actual object into the fray, his attempts at Tyler's life are pointless. We see the Narrator finally realize that he has been in control all along and this is why he is presented able to take the gun from Tyler, because he is the one actually holding the gun. It is then he realizes that he must follow Tyler's own advice and "hit bottom". Only by doing so, is he able to control his own body and "kill" Tyler. To hit bottom he realizes he must do something life-threatening and plain insane. Whereas the bullet only blew a hole in his cheek, it was his mental F--- You to Tyler, showing him that he can take care of himself now, which is why the bullet is shown to have gone through the back of Tyler's head, killing him.  <sep>  Q: How/Why did Tyler Durden got shot in the head? A: The purpose of the end scene of the movie is to have the Narrator finally conquer his 'problems' in the form of killing Tyler  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, that is the reason he was shot in the head?
Yes

CONTEXT: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie. We know that the nazis had the wrong length staff because they only had one side of the head piece. Other posters have argued whether or not the nazis obtain the head piece from Marion without him...let's assume they do... I don't remember where I heard this but there's a scene that's not in the movie. The second side of the head piece contains more info than just the 'correct' staff length. Also written on the back side are instructions not to look into the Ark...this is how Indy knows to 'KEEP YOUR EYES SHUT' when the Ark is opened. Indy learns this when he and Sallah have the head piece translated...don't know why this was left out of the movie...bad dates, maybe. Anyway, without Indy, either a) they never find the ark because they don't get the head piece without him, or b) they obtain the ark with the complete head piece but aren't killed by it because they have the instructions not to look at it. Sorry, Amy.  <sep>  Q: Is Amy right about Indiana Jones being irrelevant to the outcome? A: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie  Q: Why isn't Amy right though? Even Sheldon accepts that she is A: We know that the nazis had the wrong length staff because they only had one side of the head piece. Other posters have argued whether or not the nazis obtain the head piece from Marion without him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Amy enjoyed the movie?

No