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: I hope I don't spoil the party with an out-of-universe explanation, but I thought that this was really interesting when I found it out: It was just supposed to be funny. The sequels weren't written yet. In the commentary on the DVD, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale explain the scene, that it was all just there for fun, including the "To be continued…". At the time, they weren't planning on making a sequel, and in their own words, were just hoping that the first movie would break even at the box office. This scene was just a sort of joke. Afterward, when the film was such a success that they were asked to write a script for a sequel, they regretted writing this scene the way that they did, because Doc and Marty brought Jennifer along, which limited their options in writing the next script. If it has just been Doc and Marty, they could have made the next movie about anything they wanted, the two guys on any crazy adventure in time. With Jennifer around (and what Doc said), the second movie now had to be about their kids. They had "painted themselves into a corner" in a way, but still managed to make an excellent story out of it!  <sep>  Q: do you think its because martys son is goin to jail in future? A: With Jennifer around (and what Doc said), the second movie now had to be about their kids  Q: do you think the movie will be good since its about the kids? A: They had "painted themselves into a corner" in a way, but still managed to make an excellent story out of it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: i also wonder if they will have anymore about the kids or go back to another subject?
[EX A]: No

[EX 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  Q: Who caught the killer? A: 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  Q: Can you explain the the ending scene? A: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So the real killer is not caught after all?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: This could be an audio clip from another Bad Place, with classic torture, which Janet can play them. And technically, Neighbourhood 12358W is different from the Bad Place, and since Janet never directly told anyone that they're in the good place, she isn't lying, just hiding information as Michael told her to.  <sep>  Q: I'm sorry, I meant "play", not "plan". She plays The Good place in A Bad place, why?
[EX A]:
Yes