instruction:
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:`.
question:
CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What Is a writing device?
answer:
far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives


question:
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?
answer:
The plot is simpler with fewer characters


question:
CONTEXT: Many reviews are calling this a black comedy or dark comedy, which is comedy that makes light of a serious subject or a comedy with gloomy or disturbing elements. If this film was just a drama, it would be a serious depiction of four girls going on spring break and the tragedy that unfolded when they got mixed up with a gangster. Instead, there are pink ski masks, bikinis in court, lots of sex, references to Britney Spears, the mere existence of a drug dealer named Alien who shows up to bail the girls out of jail... The basic premise is ridiculous, and the way that violence is interspersed with this ridiculousness sets up an uncomfortable edge that seems to keep audiences talking about this movie. Mostly the characters are flat and the story is not that gripping, but the edge that Harmony Korinne keeps the audience on - never knowing which direction it would go - seems to keep viewers engaged, whether they are engrossed or repelled.  <sep>  Q: How exactly is the movie a comedy? A: reviews are calling this a black comedy or dark comedy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is a dark comedy?
answer:

comedy that makes light of a serious subject or a comedy with gloomy or disturbing elements


