Remember the big man-tree named Groot, who saved our heroes in Guardians of the Galaxy (Vol. I)? He was, indeed, a super-strong plant that can control his growing powers at will. Maybe it's the reason that makes a lot of fans think that he reborn after his final sacrifice, when he protect his teammates of a certaing death after they confront the main enemy of the film.
Well, James Gunn, the director of the franchaise, says no.
Then, who is the little Baby Groot that show up in the ending and the second volume of the sequel? Gunn twitted the response: is his son.
In the first movie, Groot makes a sacrifice. He dies voluntarily to save a group of people that happen to be his friends.
The Gunns' revelation was a strong theory among the fandom, and now it's confirmed by the director of the movie.
Is that only true to the movies? Comic vine says this about the character in the comics: "Groot has shown the ability to create multiple miniature copies of himself known as cuttings which retain all his memories and can be used to resurrect himself if he is destroyed. Cuttings can also germinate other plant life forms so Groot can control them."
That sounds a lot more like a clone than a child. Especially the retaining memories bit.
I mean the universes are different and I don't trust the movies to match the comics (or the cartoon which appears to draw on both the comics and movies for inspiration), ever since the movies decided to change Quill's Dad from Json to Ego, but it sounds like this is just a movie thing again and doesn't relate to the original stories. They just basically said "it's logical he's his child because a baby growing out of your remains wouldn't be you" but they are applying logic in a way that doesn't really appear like it applies here. They appear to be looking at the logic rather than what the original stories indicated.
I like both movies, but the second one did diverge a lot from it's source material, from what I heard it was simply because they didn't want it to be too similar to Star Wars, which isn't really a good reason, but it was still a reasonable movie. It sucked that between the two movies we were watching the cartoon and going "i know they are made by different people so likely aren't canon to each other but I still hope these don't contradict each other too much" and then it had such a massive contradiction of changing Peter's parentage (the cartoon matched the comics in this regard - I'm not sure about Mantis' depiction in the cartoon though as it is true she spent a very short stint as a villian in the comics but idk if the believers were a thing at all).
Interesting what they say about Groot in the movies and I guess in the movies that is the case, but it doesn't appear to be the case elsewhere and it seems they just created another contradiction between the various GOTG things.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, I didn't knew all that. I really like the treatment that Gunn has given to the movies, and I can understand that he wants to make his own canon of GOTG. But I agree, it would be better if the products didn't diverge so much to each other.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah I get how someone might want to make their own version. IT was just such a large diversion for something that isn't obviously that way for a reason (i.e. if it was a satire of the original stuff it wouldn't be as serious etc and that lack of seriousness would be a diversion you would expect, but I didn't expect a random change in story in the case of GOTG 2). I do like both movies though, but I'd say I enjoyed 1 more partially because of this but also because of how much dumber they made Drax in volume 2. They are solid movies in their own right, but out of the movies the first one was better in my opinion. Baby Groot is cute though, either way you want to go with their discussion of him.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit