Is it a good reveal if he has to keep explaining it?
In Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the anthropomorphic tree-man Groot is no more the towering, full-sized version voiced by Vin Diesel in the first film, but rather a pint-sized pipsqueak called Baby Groot. That is because [clears throat for spoilers] according to writer and director James Gunn, that the Groot we knew is dead. At the end of the initial Guardians of the Galaxy, Groot wraps his tree-limbs to a sturdy wooden bubble to protect his pals because their ship falls from the sky. If it crashes, he shatters to a heap of kindling. His friends mourn, his partner Rocket plucks a twig from the wreckage, and regrows Groot to a dancing sprout. From the end of the second Guardians film, Baby Groot is growing up.
According to director James Gunn that was not Groot using his neat regeneration abilities, and he’s never going to grow back into the Groot. Protesting a tweet asking”Who’d you rescue, Baby Groot or a porg?” He points out that Baby Groot is an entirely new being that is a boy.
This isn’t the first time Gunn has said this tidbit, which never fails to find Guardians of the Galaxy and Groot fans worked up. At a 2017 Facebook article , Gunn wrote,”I do think it’s more evident in Vol. Two , as Baby Groot has a different personality than Groot, not one of his memories, and is much, much dumber.” After the issue resurfaced today, Gunn lamented on Twitter,”The world wide web is like Groundhog Day each time I point out first Groot died.” This moment, however, the news seems to have gone leading Gunn to emphasize the stage to people asking questions and freaking out.
Given that Guardians of the Galaxy takes place In a universe that involves talking raccoons, a scientific analysis could be beside the point. But if I were to push my glasses here and talk about the technicalities, I might mention that asexual plant reproduction à la stem-cutting — like Rocket growing a new Groot out of a twig — could actually qualify as a clone. That’s because the plant is genetically identical to the original, so it’s not necessarily offspring. But I am not here to enter a science fight!
What I do take issue with is Gunn Who this news shocks is a dummy. James, my man, it’s absolutely not clear from the very first movie the Groot sprout isn’t, in fact, the Groot. Groot shows his regenerative powers off early in the movie; the principle of Chekov’s gun could lead us, as viewers, to presume these facts are linked. As for why Baby Groot is dumb in the next movie? I mean… he has a very small baby brain. Have you ever met a baby? They are dumb.
Gunn wants Groot’s sacrifice in the very first film to carry weight. But this Groundhog Day-fashion Muddies the revelatory waters. If he is in Fact introducing a new Groot at the end of the film is confusing at best. Offering up a cuter, tinier version of the same Character from the credits is an salve to heal the wounds up Due to Groot’s departure leaves their chairs, while it’s a Son, a clone, or only a fantastic merchandising chance .
