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: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?

Answer: Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life


Question: CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office? A: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Michael was jealous that he had a corporate position or just upset that he had authority over him in some small way?

Answer: Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy


Question: CONTEXT: A properly executed plot twist often causes opposite reactions of what you've just described. People want to watch the movie again because the ending was so unexpected that they need to review the whole thing to get all the puzzle pieces together. "Fight Club" is a great example, in my opinion. There's a lot of dialogue (especially the lines from Helena Bonham Carter) that doesn't make any sense if you don't know the ending. You will enjoy and understand Fight Club much better after a second view. There are many ingredients that define the quality and longevity of a movie. Directors should not be afraid to use a plot twist, but relying only on this trick - especially if it is predictable - may ruin the whole experience.  <sep>  Q: Is there any evidence of "Big Twist" movies having poor post-cinema sales? A: Directors should not be afraid to use a plot twist, but relying only on this trick - especially if it is predictable - may ruin the whole experience  Q: Do you think this is a common reaction though? A: A properly executed plot twist often causes opposite reactions of what you've just described  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, for up ad coming directors, is this the type of movie to stay away from

Answer:
Directors should not be afraid to use a plot twist, but relying only on this trick - especially if it is predictable - may ruin the whole experience


