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: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments). Savin is from after the work has been more refined, similar to Killian himself, who shows a number of additional abilities on top of the regrowth/strength of the earlier instances. Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical. The process itself is clearly not 100% effective or when Killian shoots Maya Hansen, he wouldn't then be offering Tony a "high level position" to perfect it - Tony even notes that he "almost had this 20 years ago, when I was drunk" so expects that he could figure it out fairly easily.  <sep>  Q: How come this Extremis Soldier died so easily? A: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments  Q: was Brandts body blown apart? A: Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does Stark do for a living?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  Q: What Is a writing device? A: far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives  Q: Is that the only reason? A: Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description  Q: What does his mother look like? A: Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig  Q: Why is she described this way? A: Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why can't we see her?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is Scott called "the father" of the director's cut?

A:
No
****