instruction:
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:`.
question:
CONTEXT: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted, it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques. What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input. The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good. In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich, he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen.  <sep>  Q: Why is it a problem for Freddie if the guys from Munich did what he wanted? A: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted  Q: Why is their pushback that it was done? A: it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques  Q: Why is that a problem if it got done? A: What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input  Q: Then why didn't they give their input? A: The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good  Q: How do they fix this? A: In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How is Freddie able to get back to being a good musician?
answer:
he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen


question:
CONTEXT: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates. This shot leaves an entry wound and shrapnel. The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side. If Bond did have a bullet proof vest on, this area is likely to be covered. The impact from the bullet is transferred through the kevlar plate/s onto a larger area of Bonds body. Rather than penetrating his ribcage, and leaving an entry wound, the vest stops the bullet. Stopping the bullet before it enters his body imparts a lot more force onto Bond, which explains him being thrown off the train. It also explains the 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage. Bullet wounds are typically puncture wounds, deep and localised. Without a vest, Bond would have suffered much more serious organ damage as the bullet tears through him. Bullet proof vests typically leave blunt trauma injuries, affecting larger areas, and are not likely to leave scarring. One direct bullet wound is not likely to break 3 ribs, however the impact through a kevlar plate definitely is.  <sep>  Q: in Skyfall opening scene on train, does Bond fake getting shot? A: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates  Q: Where was he injured? A: The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he have internal injuries from the bullet?
answer:
4 broken ribs and minor organ damage


question:
CONTEXT: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach? A: perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did George mean when he asked Kenny if he was out of his mind?
answer:

Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position