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:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially? A: I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the colonization ships mission officially?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The Michael Bay Spin I'm joking, but as far as I can tell the technique doesn't really have a name. All that's happening is that the camera is moving around subjects in the foreground, and the background appears to move quicker thanks to the simple fact that it's further away. The reason I refer to it as the Michael Bay Spin is that director Michael Bay has used this exact shot (with different actors/locations, of course) in a lot of his films. In fact, the inclusion of that shot in Hot Fuzz is a direct reference to Michael Bay - Bad Boys II (directed by Bay) is bought up earlier on in the film, and if I remember correctly, the shot in question is actually shown to the audience while Nicholas Angel and Danny watch the film at Danny's house.  <sep>  Q: What is this camera effect used in Hot Fuzz?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo? A: In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her  Q: What happens in the other version? A: On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score  Q: Can you give me any other details that I might find interesting? A: This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was this the only reason for the change?
[EX A]:
No