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:`.

[Q]: CONTEXT: I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the film yet. However, in the novel Jack's father is Old Nick - the man who was holding Ma and Jack captive. Ma's father would not look at Jack because doing so would make the father think of Old Nick - thus leading to anger, etc at the the kidnapping of his daughter.  <sep>  Q: In the film Room, why was the Grandfather Unable to Look at Grandson? A: I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the film yet  Q: DId the grandfather make eye contact with the son? A: Ma's father would not look at Jack  Q: Why not? A: because doing so would make the father think of Old Nick - thus leading to anger  Q: Who is old nick? A: Jack's father is Old Nick  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does he get angry about him?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth.  <sep>  Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story? A: the whole movie is an origin story  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, we learn about this character?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  Q: What was the cataclysmic event? A: the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed  Q: Oh I see, were they able be safe in Odin's Vault? A: The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Heimdall able to see the whole universe in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
[A]:
No