Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, generate a relevant question to the topic of the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: There's an entry in UrbanDictionary.com for shoto. This seems to be a fairly family friendly forum so I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character. This is a guess based only on a google search for "shoto".  <sep>  Q: Why was the character Shoto in the book change to Sho for the movie? A: I'll just say that the definition is sexually explicit and the makers may have wanted to avoid any association with it - particularly for a child character 

Output: Isn't it true that Shoto is a type of Japanese sword?


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them 

Output: Do jedis often kill their opponent?


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: He was the stand-in photographer, implying that, having discovered that his target was to attend the wedding he put things in motion to ensure that he would be there. The women were all employees of his target. By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack. Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man. Perhaps some ill-considered pillow-talk.  <sep>  Q: What is the connection between the cases in "The Sign of Three" A: The women were all employees of his target  Q: What do you know about the Mayfly man? A: He was the stand-in photographer  Q: Why was Tessa not invited to the wedding? A: Tessa saw the target's invitation, not the photographer's. She evidently let some details slip to the Mayfly Man  Q: What else can you tell me? A: By dating the women, he was trying to find some information about his target that would enable him to carry out an attack 


Output: Thank you - is there anything else I should know about the film?