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: While we will never know as neither boat used their detonator, I would suggest that they had each others, going purely on what was shown and what the film makers were trying to say. The Joker's previous 'gag' - which also failed - was to try and get Gothamites to kill each other for own protection or self interest as he believed it would demonstrate a general moral bankruptcy. 'You failed to kill the lawyer...' - I cannot remember how the rest of the line goes but the boat finale appears to come from a desire to repeat the exercise and Batman puts the emphasis on all of this in his final rebuke. The film also goes a long way to show that both sets of passengers specifically reject the opportunity to kill each other - even for self defence. If a comic source for this plot line does actually show this as a double - bluff then it is still irrelevant to what was actually said and shown in 'The Dark Knight'.  <sep>  Q: What did the Joker's detonators actually target? A: we will never know as neither boat used their detonator  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were the detonators for their own boat of the other boat?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: The Yellow clothes are a type of 'Elder Endorsement', a ratification or 'pass'. The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder, so it is a sanctioned activity. If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there. It's unlikely the 'beasts' would harm her, but they'd certainly interfere and try and scare her off/back to the village. Ivy possibly doesn't know what they're capable of. Of course, Ivy could at this point tell them she knows they're not really beasts and knows what they're doing, but within the narrative of the film her maintaining her cloak's yellow lustre removes that possibility.  <sep>  Q: Why was Ivy concerned with wiping the mud off of her yellow cloak?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: No, this was never released on film. The The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive records most theater productions for archival purposes, but only makes them available to qualified researchers. Typically, if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video. You would then submit the timestamps of the sections you wish to use, restricted to some varying short amount of time, and then you would be provided with only those segments on a disc without the watermark. Many major filmhouses do this as well. There's a very famous one whose name escapes me at the moment which deals with live concert footage, they were the first ones known to have the Rush show from Capital Theater in 1976 (which has since been officially released by Rush) as well as a Boston concert from 1979, among a large selection of others.  <sep>  Q: was waiting for godet released on film? A: this was never released on film  Q: Is there footage available anywhere? A: if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video  Q: Where do I need to go to find out if i am qualified? A: The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this the only copy available?
[A]:
Yes