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:'.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park. <sep> Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Charlie take one of?
[EX A]: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these

[EX Q]: 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 <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the director choose to change anything else about the books?
[EX A]: The plot is simpler with fewer characters

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning. He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing. This had two implications, first is that he wasn't like Nicky and the second, he had far too much press after he survived the bombing as he was the center of attention with the gaming board. They really couldn't kill him without proving they (the bosses) were involved. <sep> Q: Why was Sam "Ace" Rothstein spared by the bosses? A: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The bosses decide to eliminate anyone involved or with knowledge of the skim
[EX A]:
He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing