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:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters  Q: Why are the newborn babies needed? A: ew daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him  Q: Is there a benefit for Caster tho? A: a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters 

Answer: What happened to the sons after being left?


Question: 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 

Answer: What wass the reason for making him appear as the beast?


Question: CONTEXT: The scene exactly before Beverly cuts her hair in the bathroom is with her father who is standing creepily in the hallway & notices the sanitary pads (I think) in her hand & then creepily caress her hair saying something like "You're still my little girl aren't you Bev". She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl. In a later scene, her father points out her boyish looks & is annoyed.  <sep>  Q: Why Beverly cut her hair? A: She cuts her hair because she doesn't want to look like a girl 

Answer:
Why doesn't she want to look like a girl?