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:'.

Example Input: CONTEXT: I believe that being raised as a wight requires active work on the part of the Walkers; I don't believe anyone killed by a wight will resurrect themselves automatically. Beyond that, I don't think we know all of the details about how that process works, what's required, etc. The only time, as far as I can remember, that we've seen it at work is the huge battle near the end of Season 5, where the Night King personally raised an army of dead wildlings as wights. It's also pretty clear that the characters in-universe don't understand it either. The Night's Watch is hyper-aware of the possibility of their dead coming back to life. They have burned the corpses of dead Night's Watchmen before. In fact, I believe in the Saason 6 trailer we've seen them trying to burn Jon's body as well, despite there being little chance of a Walker getting near it. <sep> Q: Requirements to join the Wights (The Army of the Dead) A: I believe that being raised as a wight requires active work on the part of the Walkers Q: What is the process? A: Beyond that, I don't think we know all of the details about how that process works, what's required, etc
Example Output: Do you have any examples?

Example Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world
Example Output: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root

Example Input: CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly. <sep> Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible? A: this is a common trade-off in movies Q: Why does the film have so much humour? A: The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing Q: Why do films feel like they need to add humorous elements that are not true to the book? A: Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book
Example Output:
Did the director choose to change anything else about the books?