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:'.

[Q]: CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his "Final Cut" is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.) <sep> Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever
[A]: Why is Scott called "the father" of the director's cut?

[Q]: CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes. <sep> Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying? A: One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced
[A]: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?

[Q]: CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ. <sep> Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different? A: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience
[A]:
I don't see the reason for it, does this mean one way is out of sequence?