In Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2, the anthropomorphic man-tree Groot is no longer the imposing, full-size version, expressed by Vin Diesel in the first film, but rather a tiny pipsqueak known as Baby Groot. This is because [clears throat for spoilers] according to the writer and director James Gunn, the Groot that we knew is dead. At the end of the first Guardians of the Galaxy, Groot wraps his branches in a sturdy wooden bubble to protect his friends as his ship falls from the sky. When it is blocked, it breaks into a pile of firewood. His friends cry, his companion Rocket plucks a twig from the wreckage and turns Groot into a dancing sprout. At the end of the second Guardians movie, Baby Groot is growing.
According to director James Gunn, however, that was not Groot using his clean powers of regeneration, and will never grow back into the original Groot. When protesting against a tweet that asked "who would you save, Baby Groot or a pig?", Points out that Baby Groot is a completely new being that, in the best of cases, is a child.
First Groot is dead. Baby Groot is his son.- James Gunn (@JamesGunn) February 27, 2018
This is not the first time that Gunn mentions this morsel, that he never stops having the Galaxy Guardians and the Groot fans exhausted. In a 2017 post on Facebook, Gunn wrote: "I think it's more obvious in Vol. 2, since Baby Groot has a personality different from Groot, none of his memories, and it's much, much more foolish." When the problem resurfaced today, Gunn lamented on Twitter: "The Internet is like Groundhog Day every time I point out Groot first died." This time, however, the news seems to have gone viral, which led Gunn to repeatedly emphasize the point to people who ask questions and get scared.
Of course they are. Would you believe that a baby was your dead grandfather? That little imbecile has no idea what's going on. James Gunn (@JamesGunn) February 27, 2018
It's Canon AF (and it's in the movies) .- James Gunn (@JamesGunn) February 27, 2018
Since Guardians of the Galaxy takes place in a fictional universe that includes talking raccoons, a scientific analysis may be next to the point. But if I had to upload my glasses here and talk about the technicalities, I could mention that the asexual reproduction of plants at stem height – like Rocket growing a new Groot from a twig – would really qualify as a clone. That's because the new plant is genetically identical to the original, which means it's not necessarily offspring. But I'm not here to enter a scientific fight!
What I do dispute is that Gunn insinuates that everyone who is surprised by this news is a fool. James, my friend, it is certainly not clear from the first film that Groot outbreak is not, in fact, the old Groot. Groot shows his regenerative powers at the beginning of the film; the principle of Chekov's weapon would lead us, as spectators, to assume that these facts are related. As for why Baby Groot is so stupid in the second movie? I mean … he has a little baby brain. Have you ever met a baby? They are fools.
Gunn wants the sacrifice of Groot in the first film to carry weight. But this revelation in the style of Groundhog Day that he talks about clouds the telltale waters. If you are actually presenting a new Groot at the end of the first movie, the timing is confusing at best. Offering a more tender and diminutive version of the same character in the credits is an emotional ointment to heal the wounds caused by the death of Groot before someone leaves their seats, be it a son, a clone or just a great marketing opportunity .