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 Input:
CONTEXT: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them [quite, though I'd check with a lawyer] breaking copyright. As these days most people use internet searches rather than physically browsing disks on a shelf, it gives them better chance of a hit. It's also a way of saving them having to think up anything vaguely clever or amusing. In the old days, they used to have to come up with vaguely similar titles that would be recognisable to their intended audience.. Jurassic Poke Saving Ryan's Privates Flesh Gordon Sex Family Robinson ...I think you get the idea. <sep> Q: What is the significance of "This Isn't" in porn parody titles? A: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them Q: Is that legal for them to do? A: copyright <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: is there a way to tell the difference between a porn parody and the real movies?

Ex Output:
intended

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted, it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques. What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input. The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good. In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich, he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen. <sep> Q: Why is it a problem for Freddie if the guys from Munich did what he wanted? A: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted Q: Why is their pushback that it was done? A: it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques Q: Why is that a problem if it got done? A: What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input Q: Then why didn't they give their input? A: The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good Q: How do they fix this? A: In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How is Freddie able to get back to being a good musician?

Ex Output:
he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I think it's intentionally left ambiguous whether it was an accident or it was done on purpose. Even in the short story that this incident is based on, My old man and the lascivious special award that heralded the birth of pop art, it's never stated outright if breaking the lamp was intentional. Of course, in both the story and the movie the Mother is glad to see it go, and the Old Man accuses her of breaking it on purpose, but I don't think there's a definite answer. <sep> Q: Did the Mother break the Leg Lamp? A: in both the story and the movie the Mother is glad to see it go, and the Old Man accuses her of breaking it on purpose, but I don't think there's a definite answer <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she ever like it?

Ex Output:
Mother is glad to see it go