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: Dev Patel plays the adult Saroo, so he is only in the movie for the last third or so. He's the main character but he's part of the resolution of the plot. It's a judgment call by the Academy, but his screen time is far less than that of the Best Actor nominees this year, so to call his a supporting role seems correct.  <sep>  Q: Why was Dev Patel nominated for Supporting Actor rather than Best Actor? A: Dev Patel plays the adult Saroo, so he is only in the movie for the last third or so  Q: So he wasn't eligible? A: It's a judgment call by the Academy  Q: Would he be better suited for a "Supporting Role"? A: his screen time is far less than that of the Best Actor nominees this year, so to call his a supporting role seems correct  Q: Is he the main character or the protagonist for the movie Lion? A: He's the main character but he's part of the resolution of the plot  Q: Who is the main character? A: Saroo  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did the movie Lion come out?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book. And re-telling a book story in movie form, when you've got to get all the key details on screen in just 2 or 3 hours, means you have to omit many minor details. The core story of The Great Gatsby is about Gatsby and the world he lived in, not about Nick or Nick's potential attraction to Gatsby. In book form, there is plenty of room for the subplot suggestion that Nick is gay -- and the author Fitzgerald introduced the suggestion so subtly that most readers miss it. In the movie, however, throwing "Nick might be gay" at viewers along with everything else, in just 2 or 3 hours, could overwhelm them and/or distract from the core story -- and I'm not sure how it could be done as subtly on-screen as Fitzgerald pulled it off in the prose.  <sep>  Q: Why did the Great Gasby (2013) movie erase the hints of Nick Carraway's homosexuality?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: Regardless of whether Sully is the only one that has a real nose, Pixar did minimize noses for a reason, as discussed in the question comments. The monsters are meant to look inhuman and unfamiliar. Taking off noses makes them distinctly non-mammalian, and makes the world monstrous instead of just populated with animals. Sully, however, has to walk the line between a teddy bear and a blue Sasquatch so that Boo can both be terrified of him and grow to love him. The nose and the shaggy fur make him look approachable to both Boo and little kids in the audience.  <sep>  Q: Why is Sulley the only monster in the Monsters Inc films to have a nose? A: Pixar did minimize noses for a reason, as discussed in the question comments. The monsters are meant to look inhuman and unfamiliar  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did they do anything else to make them look less human?

A:
Yes
****