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:`.

Ex Input:
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 

Ex Output:
They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I accept and agree with the answer that was given on SFF (“Sansa was smart enough to wait for everyone to say aye, so they can't go back on their word”). However in my opinion there could also be the fact that, the north has always had its own sort of “culture” and independence, there is a certain respect between northern houses. So it's easier for the other kingdoms to accept them as independent, since they've always, culturally, been seen as seperate from the other six kingdoms. On top of this, the north is the size of the other six kingdoms combined, so having them ruled independently makes much more sense, than in the other kingdoms cases.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the other kingdoms want to be independent? A: he north is the size of the other six kingdoms combined, so having them ruled independently makes much more sense, than in the other kingdoms cases 

Ex Output:
why didn't the Iron Islands want to be independent?


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: From reading the article that @Richard has linked in the comments, it is clear that there certainly is a subtext of a homoerotic nature between the two characters Mr. Orange and Mr. White. That's almost indisputable. However I never interpreted it that way when I watched it, I just assumed it was simply the building of a mutual respect, and a mentor/mentee relationship. However, as the article goes on to say that their relationship is similar to “wakashudo”, and knowing Tarantino's affinity with samurai culture (which he made 2 films about) it is very possible that this is the relationship dynamic he intended to portray. Of course, like most movies, it is open to interpretation. Therefore whilst the subtext is certainly there, and it was almost certainly intended that way by the writer/director, it is also subtle enough so that it doesn't necessarily force the audience to interpret the movie that way.  <sep>  Q: Relationship between “Mr. Orange” and “Mr. White” in "Reservoir Dogs"? A: it is clear that there certainly is a subtext of a homoerotic nature between the two characters Mr. Orange and Mr. White  Q: Who says "Gay subtext always makes movies better? A: he subtext is certainly there, and it was almost certainly intended that way by the writer/director, it is also subtle 

Ex Output:

How long did they know each other when Mr. Orange was shot?


