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: I bet it had something to do with her consciousness never really disappearing. My interpretation is that, in the movie, bodies are mortal. They die. But a person's consciousness, their awareness and ability to interact with the physical universe, is timeless and is not tied to the mortal body they inhabit for a while. (That's just my guess. The movie was pretty trippy and didn't explain everything fully.)  <sep>  Q: What did Lucy mean by "We never really die"? A: I bet it had something to do with her consciousness never really disappearing  Q: Did Lucy become immortal? A: a person's consciousness, their awareness and ability to interact with the physical universe, is timeless and is not tied to the mortal body they inhabit for a while  Q: So is that what happened when Lucy's brain usability got to 100% or something? A: That's just my guess. The movie was pretty trippy and didn't explain everything fully  Q: So Lucy is immortal because of her brain or something? A: My interpretation is that, in the movie, bodies are mortal  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who was the officer in the car with Lucy?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: While Frollo's function was indeed divided between several characters, Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience. Hence, characters have alternate back stories that present different motivations and the nuances of the source material may be forgone, rendering certain details like Quasimodo's lineage inconsequential. As such, while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother. Honestly, this is similar to the puzzle as to why characters see a similarity between Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World.  <sep>  Q: In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Is the gyspy woman really Quasimodo's mom? A: while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think Disney added the Gypsy woman to the story when she was not in the book?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: There are probably a lot of opinions about this. My opinion is that he is. But one thing I am sure of is that there are two clues in the movie. Their inclusion into the movie plot indicate that the creators wanted you to conclude that Little Forrest is in fact Forrest's biological son. When Forrest first finds out about being a father, he asks if he can be with Little Forrest. He goes over to him, sits down, and they both start watching TV. From that point on their actions are identical: They get caught up in the show at the same time, AND they tilt their heads slightly to the left at the same time. Later on, we see that they both love the same things naturally. Little Forrest loves to fish. Once again they get caught up in the sitting "action" of fishing with their heads tilted slightly to the left. Please observe this YouTube clip that shows the father and son tilting their heads to the left. Forrest, the father, goes to his son at around 4:20 minutes; they tilt their heads at around 4:38 minutes. In this YouTube clip, we see at 1:11 minutes that Little Forrest has a knack for ping pong. At 1:18 minutes, both father and son are fishing and again have their heads tilted slightly to the left.  <sep>  Q: Who is Forrest JR? A: father  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to Jenny?
[A]:
Yes