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:`.

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office? A: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Michael was jealous that he had a corporate position or just upset that he had authority over him in some small way?

Ex Output:
Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: The Avengers is an Initiative: a sanctioned team brought together to defend the world against threats beyond the scope of SHIELD and the world's governments. Captain America is the first Avenger not only because he was the first to be recruited (Thor doesn't even know about the Avengers until partway through the movie: even Stark was aware of their existence before then), but because the super-soldier program of the 1940's was a wartime pre-cursor to the Avengers program, albeit one that was stalled by espionage. Captain America was quite clearly the first member of the team to sign up to a government initiative to defend innocent life. Ruben Studdard was 25 when he won American Idol in the 2nd Series, and Kelly Clarkson was only 20 when she won the first series. We don't refer to Studdard as the first American Idol winner, do we?  <sep>  Q: Why do we say that Captain America is the first avenger? A: because he was the first to be recruited  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, Thor was recruited after him even though he is older?

Ex Output:
Thor doesn't even know about the Avengers until partway through the movie: even Stark was aware of their existence before then


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I think it was worded that way for pragmatic reasons. Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast. In The Two Towers, he has a much larger role and seems sort of halfway between beast and person, but a viewer who has not read the books is still unlikely to guess that he is a corrupted hobbit. The Return of the King opens with the story of Sméagol and Déagol to shed new light on who Gollum is, where he came from, why the Ring means so much to him, and what kind of influence the Ring wields over him. It is a bit of a shocking scene; the shock would not be nearly as strong if the viewer already knew Gollum's origin. So, in the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring, that Gollum was once a hobbit named Sméagol is an extraneous detail. While "the Ring came to Gollum" is an oversimplification, it was a necessary one; it told the viewer what he needed to know at that point in the story and no more.  <sep>  Q: Why does the narrator say 'The ring came to the creature Gollum'? A: In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What wass the reason for making him appear as the beast?

Ex Output:

Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established