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: Firstly, there's a chance Wednesday would sense them coming, and would get away. They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal. However, in the room Wednesday and Shadow were kept, Media, World, and Technical Boy were able to enter unobstructed, through the only exit, so it was very much their ground. Secondly, it was a show of power. Wednesday is on the wrong side of the law (after the robbery), but the new gods aren't - or at least, they're useful to the law, with the satellites and all the like. They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement, to be aware of. Thirdly, I think it's the matter of not getting their hands dirty. Gods, both in the novel and in the series so far, operate through proxies - Wednesday has Shadow, Technical Boy had those dumb henchmen. It's possible (though unlikely) that the New Gods don't want to be on the wrong side of law enforcement as well, and the law enforcement was looking for the bank robber anyway. In this case Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power).  <sep>  Q: Why did Mr.World need to involve the police? A: They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal  Q: Why did Mr World have to be so violent? A: Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power  Q: Why not just go to the motel room? A: They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did this achieve?

Answer: It's possible (though unlikely) that the New Gods don't want to be on the wrong side of law enforcement as well, and the law enforcement was looking for the bank robber anyway


Question: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Charlie take one of?

Answer:
If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these