Connect with us


There Will Not Be a Giant Spider or Turtle in ‘IT’

Ever since it was announced that Andy Muschietti was bringing Stephen King’s IT to the big screen, fans of the novel have been wondering how faithful the new film will be to the source material. What will we be seeing from the novel that didn’t make the cut in the 1990 mini-series? And what did we see in 1990 that we won’t see in 2017?

Yesterday, Kalyn Corrigan posted her in-depth report from the set of IT, and we wanted to pluck out two choice paragraphs today for those who haven’t yet gotten around to reading. During his chat with the press on set, Muschietti revealed two things we *won’t* be seeing this coming September.

For starters, don’t expect to see the titular creature take the form of a giant spider, as he (infamously) did in Tommy Lee Wallace’s made-for-TV adaptation.

Muschietti’s version will show more of Pennywise adapting into various forms that are based on the children’s individual fears. However, it will not show Pennywise as a giant spider like it did in the 1990 miniseries adaptation,” Kalyn learned on set. “Instead, much like the original novel, it will feature Pennywise in other various forms according to what each child in The Losers Club specifically fears, including a Leper, which will be played by renowned heavy makeup character actor Javier Botet.”

We also won’t be seeing Maturin, a massive turtle that appeared in King’s book.

There will be a blood oath at the end of the film, but no rite of passage sex scene. There won’t be any Turtle character, but an easter egg will allude to its presence,” Kalyn wrote. “Look for the egg when the kids are playing in the quarry and think they see something hiding in the water.”

Keep your eyes peeled for that Easter egg on September 8!



  • Munchie

    It’s probably just a canon continuation of the novel.

    • Jack Derwent


  • James

    For me if they don’t do the spider they already failed.

    • Richard Hoernlein

      I agree what the hell will the kids fight in the final battle of part one

      • James

        I’m guessing just straight up Pennywise 🙁

      • Adam Clifton

        If it’s anything like Part 1 of the miniseries, Eddie will spray Pennywise in the face with his asthma inhaler which will kill the demonic clown

        • Chip

          Noooope. Much more satisfying climax actually. Not spoiling it though.

      • Chip

        It’s a gauntlet run against Pennywise in a number of forms as well as Henry in the mix.

  • Brando

    That seems kinda fucked up. I understand they’d want to differentiate from the mini-series, though.

    • Chip

      There’s still always a chance it’ll show up in part two. The issue is that they’ve divided up two narrative sequences that run parallel. In the book, the final encounter with IT’s spider form takes place right next to the chapters where the memories of what happened during the first encounter is revealed.

      It’s not something that would EVER work with how they’re handling the two narratives.

  • zombie84_41

    Still be legit.

  • HipsterDoofus

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d REALLY appreciate headlines that didn’t include spoilers. I’d like to see the movie and find out for myself what IS and ISN’T in the film. Thanks…

    • chuck

      Same here, this isn’t the first time I’ve come here and had something spoiled due to a headline or an image.

      I understand you need clicks but can you at least take some time to use a non spoiler headline/images?

      • pablitonizer

        Exactly, it’s like they’re all the time clarifying things! Just let us surprise ourselves

    • Necro

      Agree 100%!

    • The fact that you won’t see a giant spider in the film is a spoiler? Seriously?

    • Necro

      Wait until they post the review of the film on here. There’s really going to be spoilers in that! You know they get to see it way before us.

  • Aaron King

    I wonder what they’ll replace it with.

  • Frank Bautista

    Spider is iconic because it was in the novel. It works well with a lot of people’s fear of spiders, but reading the Fukunaga script, I like how they showed It as more of a Lovecraftian horror.

    • Jordan Haney

      Yeah I just finished the Fukunaga script and I completely agree. The lovecraft direction they took at the end was really cool. I wonder if they kept that in the film, and also that lumberjack scene that was straight out of an Quentin Terintino movie lol.

    • Chip

      …Eh. Giant star fish? Not really working for me. The revised drafts are far better.

  • Synisterintent

    thats kind of disappointing… since the giant spider/thing was the “closest thing their minds could envision of IT’s true form”

    I mean the mini-series spider looked like a hot mess but seriously they could do so good with it now. IF they do something that is at least in that spirit and works great but if they drop it for no good reason…

    dropping the turtles appearance I get, its such a minor under tone in the book if they even if they made the few minor references to the turtle in advance unless you knew it would confuse the fuck out people.

    • Chip

      The problem with IT’s true form is so much of it actually has very little to do with physically fighting it off in the first encounter. It’s a psychological fight between Bill and IT in the Macroverse, which King has to devote a giant amount of exposition into explaining. It’s a battle of will (Ritual of Chud), and that just doesn’t work with a visual medium, not without all that time King already spent setting up and explaining to the reader what IT was, what IT wanted, and how IT operated. It’s the exact same reason part one of the Miniseries doesn’t try either, and this movie isn’t going to either.

      However, the script does involve an (Odd) take on the macroverse, and there’s heavy references to The Deadlights and IT’s true nature. They’ve written this film with a lot of room for the sequel to have substance to play around with.

  • horrormaker

    what I don’t understand is, this is the first part of the book. I read they haven’t picked out the actors for the second part. this is a 2 part movie, Right? the article says what we won’t see in September.

    • They still face the spider as children in the book though.

    • RawBeard

      I was thinking about that the other day, how there has been no news about the 2nd part of the story where they are adults. Hopefully they have managed to film it ninja style and will drop a trailer out the blue post credits.

      • They aren’t going to officially announce it until after the opening weekend of Part 1. If it does gangbusters, I be they’ll announce it the week after. If it opens alright but does well in the long run, it will be a few weeks after. If it flops… may be a no-go. They just don’t want to announce it now and see this one flop and then have to cancel the sequel.

      • Chip

        They don’t even have a script. Because how this movie does is going to completely dictate the budget New Line will give part two, and what kind of actors are going to be interested.

      • Ocelot006 .

        Kinda gotta wait for the first film to make some money. That way you know what kind of money you can spend for the adult actors.

        Would you rather they have already filmed it with Ian Zierning or wait for some Josh Brolin money?

  • Charyou

    “Instead, much like original novel…” Hold up. The spider was in the original novel. Don’t claim that you’re being faithful to the book yet taking out the spider form of It.

    • Robert Dagg

      Nailed it. The spider-IT creature *WAS* in the book. Also disappointed that the sex scene has been cut out. And if I’m not mistaken, isn’t the sex scene when they’re adults? This is important also because the characters LOVED each other and it was their LOVE that defeated IT. Will be cautious going into the movie(s) knowing this but so far, the trailers look ace.

      • le4therfac3

        no, the sex scene happened when they were kids

      • Randy_Boreton

        There is no way they are going to allow a bunch of 12 year olds to run a train on another 12 year old on film. I know it represents their transition into adulthood and their strong bond to each other but there are other ways to do it than that.

      • The sex scene was a mildly rapey and uncomfortable…foursome with a bunch of tweens in a sewer pipe. I cannot imagine why they would NEED to include it. I know I’d have been fine with the audio book I was listening to in traffic next to a school with the windows down leaving it out……

  • Cali-Chainsaw

    That spider ruined the original “It”

    • I thought it was great looking and the only problem was that the film had no way to indicate that it was simply the closest the human mind could come to comprehend what the thing is.

  • Mr. Dry

    Mmmhh I wonder how the final battle is going to be. (My bet is a The Thing-esque creature mixing all of It’s previous incarnations) Even if it might have been a bit complicated showing the spider and what it represents it wasn´t totally impossible, it would have been cool :(.

  • Natebest

    They better shoot part 2 soon because the kids Look a lot older

    • Adam Clifton

      That’s a joke right? Because the kids aren’t in the 2nd part, all the kid roles will be played by adults now

      • Muschietti has stated that about a fourth of the second film will be flashbacks to the children.

        • Randy_Boreton

          Yea in an interview with Collider that I saw he said this too. There are ways around this as they can make them look younger with a little CGI and ways to film them. Hopefully they get started soon since Andy said no one is “Touching his Baby” referring to both movies.

        • Adam Clifton

          If Muschietti is smart he’d have already filmed those kids scenes while filming the first part and then just splice those scenes into the 2nd film where necessary

          • batgirl2k9

            Andres hasn’t. He did an interview at San Diego Comic Con where he stated he was banking on them not changing that much. You can bet your life thats down to Warner Bros rather than AM though.

          • Adam Clifton

            Wow. Now it’s going to look weird

          • Ocelot006 .

            The director isn’t paying for the budget you know, right?

      • Natebest

        They’re not going to do flash backs like the tv show? My bad.

  • Sky Ferreira

    Do y’all have like a weekly quota of articles you have to publish about the IT movie as part of some payola-style agreement?

    • Randy_Boreton

      Who cares? Im crazy EXCITED to see this movie. Probably the most excited Ive been to see a “Horror” film since Freddy vs Jason or Land Of The Dead in Theaters.

    • I do have to say – in a lot of ways this is the biggest horror release in years – they’d be doing the movie a disservice if they weren’t covering it regularly. The comic book movie sites have daily updates on the Infinity Gauntlet and Justass league, after all.


        Lol justass

  • Werewolf

    This is like saying “There will be no alien in Alien”.


    • Tetra-Gramaton-Cleric

      No, omitting Pennywise would be the equivalent of not having an alien in Alien.

      The spider form is only revealed at the end of the story. And it’s a bit underwhelming, all things considered.

      • Azwethinkweiz

        I disagree completely. I found the ending chapters of the novel very exciting. It jumps back and forth from ’58 and ’85 while they enter the sewer systems, find It’s lair and perform the Ritual. The destruction of Derry alone was interesting and action packed. The Ritual itself was awesome. If you say it’s underwhelming….you clearly haven’t read the novel.

  • Silhouetters

    Right. Boycotting the movie now.

    • Satanzilla

      Good, I’m sure there’s some child porn you can find on the dark web somewhere.

  • Disappointing

  • Kil Xéno

    Cool. I need to read the book already! Got It second hand ages ago and It was in such shitty condition I didn’t bother read It. Need to re-buy It and read!

    I wonder if they’ll ever remake The Shining… if they make Doctor Sleep, I imagine they might do. And as perfect as the original is, and as much as I don’t even care for remakes, I wouldn’t actually mind if they did remake it, as long as a) Stephen King didn’t to it; his miniseries started good but ended poorly and b) Whoever did do it stay extremely true to the novel, just make it a million times better than the miniseries.

  • Tetra-Gramaton-Cleric

    This seems taken out of context.

    The giant spider form of IT doesn’t appear until the end of the novel.

    The kids don’t see it until their final showdown with it as adults.

    So there’d be no reason to include the spider version in this film, which only covers the first half of the novel.

  • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

    “Is the giant spider going to make an appearance in the new IT? Read the article to find out!” Oh, no wait, I forgot I’m over here in Spoilerville run by Mayor Fuckhead and his loyal imbeciles.

    • John Squires

      That headline would get us in trouble for click bait. Can’t really win.

      • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

        Yeah, that thought popped in my head too about a second after I posted, but I figured I’d stick with it.

  • BreeBennett

    Thank God, I have arachnophobia.

  • Chip

    The Turtle is also the lego statue that Bill drops.

    The macroverse is named in the script, and there’s a certain scene that references the “Spider” form.

    I get the feeling that they’re saving that for part ii, because they’re gonna need a MUCH bigger budget to pull something like that off. Also it works a little better this way. The first and last meeting with IT’S physical form happen parallel in the final chapters, since the adults spend the majority of their chapters trying to regain their memories of the first time. It would be anticlimactic to face the same monster at the end of two different movies.

More in Movies