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:`.

Example Input: CONTEXT: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates. This shot leaves an entry wound and shrapnel. The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side. If Bond did have a bullet proof vest on, this area is likely to be covered. The impact from the bullet is transferred through the kevlar plate/s onto a larger area of Bonds body. Rather than penetrating his ribcage, and leaving an entry wound, the vest stops the bullet. Stopping the bullet before it enters his body imparts a lot more force onto Bond, which explains him being thrown off the train. It also explains the 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage. Bullet wounds are typically puncture wounds, deep and localised. Without a vest, Bond would have suffered much more serious organ damage as the bullet tears through him. Bullet proof vests typically leave blunt trauma injuries, affecting larger areas, and are not likely to leave scarring. One direct bullet wound is not likely to break 3 ribs, however the impact through a kevlar plate definitely is.  <sep>  Q: in Skyfall opening scene on train, does Bond fake getting shot? A: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates  Q: Where was he injured? A: The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he have internal injuries from the bullet?
Example Output: 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage

Example Input: CONTEXT: I believe the moral of the story is "Don't judge book by its cover". The whole movie is against stereotypes. The bunny should be a carrot farmer, because that's what bunnies do, the predators are bullies an deep down everyone feels that way, because when assumption is made that only predators are going feral, everyone accepts it as truth. You can see that even the fox is bullied for being a predator because he is perceived as one.  <sep>  Q: What is the moral of Zootopia? A: I believe the moral of the story is "Don't judge book by its cover  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the story about taking risks?
Example Output: The whole movie is against stereotypes

Example Input: CONTEXT: While Frollo's function was indeed divided between several characters, Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience. Hence, characters have alternate back stories that present different motivations and the nuances of the source material may be forgone, rendering certain details like Quasimodo's lineage inconsequential. As such, while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother. Honestly, this is similar to the puzzle as to why characters see a similarity between Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World.  <sep>  Q: In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Is the gyspy woman really Quasimodo's mom? A: while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think Disney added the Gypsy woman to the story when she was not in the book?
Example Output:
Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience

