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: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do films feel like they need to add humorous elements that are not true to the book?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: The wiki states that the smaller portals were inter-dimensional "wounds" that would close/collapse quickly after forming, and that only the Demogorgon could make them because they took a lot of energy to create. Presumably the "demo dogs" are too weak to make portals like this, which is why they dig the tunnels instead.  <sep>  Q: Why is the portal so hard to close in Stranger Things 2, when the monster opened many in the first season? A: the smaller portals were inter-dimensional "wounds  Q: So what makes them easier to close? A: would close/collapse quickly after forming  Q: Who made these portals? A: only the Demogorgon could make them because they took a lot of energy to create  Q: Is there anything else you can tell me about these portals? A: Presumably the "demo dogs" are too weak to make portals like this  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do the demo dogs do in stranger things?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? A: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who caught the killer?
[A]:
Yes