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: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Hakan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Hakan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Hakan. <sep> Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in?

Answer: Yes

Question: CONTEXT: Having seen the movie several times, I don't think anything was "dragging" the girl (Carina, possibly?) towards the Infinity Stone other than her own desire. She had just finished listening to Tanleer explain how powerful the stone is, and earlier in the movie we had seen how he verbally abuses her and forces her to do very menial and back-breaking work. She saw the stone as a possibility to escape. What you're interpreting as her being pulled toward the stone, I think, is actually her being very hesitant to touch it. Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is what makes her take so long to try and grab it, but obviously, her desire to be free wins out. <sep> Q: What dragged the Collector's servant towards the Infinity Stone? A: She saw the stone as a possibility to escape Q: Why was she in a trance like state? A: Her own internal conflict between the need to escape her situation vs. her fear of the stone is <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did it maybe have some sort of unnatural attraction emerging from the stone itself?

Answer: Yes

Question: CONTEXT: I don't think it's a Czech-specific quip, actually. I believe the idea is that the lines are crude and not very intelligently written, as if someone were translating actual decent dialogue from a language they have poor command of, making the translation very rudimentary and child-like. Or possibly, if there was not a robust movie industry in that nation in the early 1980s, the quality of the output was considered pretty poor. Or some combination of the two. So, languages that were pretty common in the "western" and US part of the world would not work, even if the country was not really familiar (where the language was Spanish, French, German or Italian) or if there were not examples of any movies from a country. Portuguese? Maybe, but a Slavic or Balkan nation or language would be ideal for that line. Probably not Poland, because there was already a Polish stereotype about intelligence that was commonly used in jokes, so there might be some confusion about intent. "Czech" was merely chosen because it's a country an English speaking audience would be aware of, but there would be almost no movies, as of that time, that anyone could reference, making it an obscure scenario. They could have easily used Romania, Bulgaria, but could not use Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, etc (nations that were, at that time, considered part of the USSR). <sep> Q: What's wrong with subtitles for a Czech movie, as referenced in Tootsie? A: I don't think it's a Czech-specific quip, actually Q: Why does Julie say my lines sound like subtitles for a Czech movie? A: I believe the idea is that the lines are crude and not very intelligently written, as if someone were translating actual decent dialogue from a language they have poor command of <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there something characteristic about the...like bad grammar?

Answer:
Yes