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: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach? A: perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did George mean when he asked Kenny if he was out of his mind?
answer:
Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position


question:
CONTEXT: In Prometheus, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway are scientific partners who are also in a relationship before the events of the movie. They discover the location of LV-223 and get the support from Weyland to fund a scientific trip. It is entirely coincidental that they are in a relationship, though of course that fact is used later in the plot. They are a couple on the ship because they are responsible for the expedition. The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet. It is clearly deliberate that the ship is (entirely?) crewed by couples who are likely to want to settle and raise families in their destination. I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged, possibly a requirement for the people funding a colonization of another planet, but why would it be a general requirement? The trip in Prometheus and the later Nostromo isn't one-way and is largely crewed by single people.  <sep>  Q: Is it a coincidence that there are many couples boarding ships in Alien? A: The situation in Alien Covenant is entirely different. This is a colonization ship, a deliberate, one-way trip to settle on another planet  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I am wondering in the Alien universe, having a married couple to go onto the same trip is encouraged officially?
answer:
I don't think you can extrapolate the second example to say it is 'encouraged officially'. Its clearly encouraged


question:
CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints?
answer:

Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park


