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: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  Q: When did he do that? A: during the airport fight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does captain America no longer need his shield?
No

CONTEXT: He starts walking as soon as he pushes her, and he's halfway up the stairs by the time bystanders notice she's under the train. He walks quickly but calmly, he doesn't run away. In unremarkable clothing, it isn't strange that no one stopped him. As for security systems, if you watch more of the series, you'll notice that Frank is always aware of when he is being recorded. I don't believe his action was spur of the moment. He chose to meet her there and do the deed because he had an way out where any recording of him wouldn't be enough to identify him, especially with the hat and glasses. Would that be possible in the real world? Could there actually be a blind spot all the way out of the station? Unclear. Her death was likely ruled an accident because metro police departments are overworked, and there isn't any immediate evidence to the contrary. The fact that they wouldn't find the angle and direction of her fall suspicious bother me too, I don't have an answer for that.  <sep>  Q: How could Frank escape the crime scene without any witnesses? A: He walks quickly but calmly, he doesn't run away. In unremarkable clothing, it isn't strange that no one stopped him  Q: Was the subway station empty? A: bystanders  Q: We're they in a 'blind spot'? A: Unclear  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there important details after the first episode?
No

CONTEXT: The movie is an adaptation of Peter Shaffer's play of the same name, which suffers from the same criticism of historical accuracy. I can't find any references to hand, but I imagine that Shaffer was using the historical setting to stage a story of artistic genius and professional rivalry that makes such a good story, and that accuracy was somewhat secondary. It is true that Salieri and Mozart were professional rivals, and that Mozart fairly obviously was the more successful - but it is also clear that their rivalry did not descend into hatred nor that Salieri had any part in Mozart's death, despite rumors. On a positive front the movie makes it very clear that Salieri admires and respects Mozart's abilities, and you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills.  <sep>  Q: Why is the Salieri-Mozart relationship projected falsely in the movie Amadeus? A: you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills  Q: So, are you saying it wasn't based on factual events? A: It is true that Salieri and Mozart were professional rivals  Q: Is there any particular reason why Salleri is projected as a character who despised Mozart? A: I imagine that Shaffer was using the historical setting to stage a story of artistic genius and professional rivalry that makes such a good story, and that accuracy was somewhat secondary  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Shaffer the director?

Yes