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:'.

CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan. <sep> Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies? A: The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action Q: What changes were made to make the movies more like the Bourne series? A: a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What changes were made to the gadgets?
No