Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, answer a follow-up question from the paragraph. 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: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller  Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying? A: One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?
[A]: Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life


[Q]: CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series?
[A]: A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person


[Q]: CONTEXT: I believe that being raised as a wight requires active work on the part of the Walkers; I don't believe anyone killed by a wight will resurrect themselves automatically. Beyond that, I don't think we know all of the details about how that process works, what's required, etc. The only time, as far as I can remember, that we've seen it at work is the huge battle near the end of Season 5, where the Night King personally raised an army of dead wildlings as wights. It's also pretty clear that the characters in-universe don't understand it either. The Night's Watch is hyper-aware of the possibility of their dead coming back to life. They have burned the corpses of dead Night's Watchmen before. In fact, I believe in the Saason 6 trailer we've seen them trying to burn Jon's body as well, despite there being little chance of a Walker getting near it.  <sep>  Q: Requirements to join the Wights (The Army of the Dead) A: I believe that being raised as a wight requires active work on the part of the Walkers  Q: What is the process? A: Beyond that, I don't think we know all of the details about how that process works, what's required, etc  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any examples?
[A]:
The only time, as far as I can remember, that we've seen it at work is the huge battle near the end of Season 5