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:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: No, it does not mean that all dialog is sung, have a look at Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, West Side Story, etc. The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through (although there are versions where Valjean speaks a normal line to Javert when he gives him his address but this is less usual). How much of the musical is sung and how much is spoken is down to the taste of the director and his colleagues. Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song (like in Rock of Ages or the Phantom of the Opera) but sometimes everything is in song (like in Les Mis).  <sep>  Q: Why is the whole movie Les Miserables sung?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially? A: I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the colonization ships mission officially?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: 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'?
[EX A]:
Yes