instruction:
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:'.
question:
CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question. <sep> Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth. <sep> Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story? A: the whole movie is an origin story Q: Do we see Doctor Strange go to another country? A: t starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does it stay in the US?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: The ending is sort of symbolic and up for interpretation. My interpretation of it was after Queen Anne had her stroke and dealing with the effects of it she is now living in misery. She is sort of alone having only Abigail left who the Queen is somewhat realizing is frivolous and cruel. She had banished Sarah (Rachel Weisz's character) whom she clearly felt a bond with so her mood is further dampened cause of that. And to add suffering a stroke on top of all that it has only left her feeling alone and miserable. The montage of rabbits consumes the screen, each rabbit a reminder of each of the Queen's deceased children she lost in childbirth. The misery consumes the screen and the life of the queen and those that try to curry her favor. Abigail's face is pained and sad as she has to bow and bend to the Queen's whims. I think that is what the montage of rabbits is supposed to represent but that is up to interpretation I think. <sep> Q: What does the ending of "The Favourite" mean? A: The ending is sort of symbolic and up for interpretation Q: What do you mean by symbolic, what does it symbolize? A: My interpretation of it was after Queen Anne had her stroke and dealing with the effects of it she is now living in misery Q: What does the montage of Rabbits mean then in this context? A: each rabbit a reminder of each of the Queen's deceased children she lost in childbirth Q: So the rabbits are supposed to be the queens dead children? A: The misery consumes the screen and the life of the queen and those that try to curry her favor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many children did the queen lose in childbirth?
answer:
No