This guy's final form was a spider

>this guy's final form was a spider

What did Stephen King mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DqodoI00OOo
archive.org/stream/StephenKingsIt#page/n0/mode/2up
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Not really.
It was an dimensional being from the macroverse thats "true form" is a giant ball of fucking light.

Read the book, dickless

Because spiders are scary, asshole.

It's a spider. To many cultures it's a creature that represents utter fear, dread and the stuff of nightmares naturally.

The creature in the story feeds off the fear of children in order to make them more delicious to itself before finally eating them.

>What did Stephen King mean by this?
I fucking knew it. >"true form" is a giant ball of fucking light.

I FUCKING KNEW IT.

youtube.com/watch?v=DqodoI00OOo

Bergman's spider-god.

I
FUCKING
KNEW
IT

Also, King is a hack.

They put it on the poster of the movie as foreshadowing. You shouldnt have been surprised at the end when it was revealed

It's not a spider, it's a drider, that is to say a humanoid spider. It has arms and a human torso in the miniseries. That's the closest the kids can imagine It being because it's so otherworldly.

Again, to the drider fetish autismo, send an e-mail asking mr. king if pennywise is a drider, explaining your reasoning to him. And also, explain to him that an anime made you want to fuck humanoid spiders and now you see tour shitty fetish in every monster spider.

>that thread

That was classic Sup Forums. Never change, you autistic bastards.

It's true form is both invisible (we don't have the right eyes to truly see it) and incomprehensible (we couldn't understand it if we saw it). It must manifest as SOMETHING, so we get this spider ... a creature we understand is a predator, one with many eggs, one that abducts and SAVORS its prey, but it's got the deadlights for eyes.

>those last fucking five characters on the url

>it's a 10 year old girl gets railed by a fat kid episode

Will this be in the movie?

>uck humanoid spiders and now you see tour shitty fetish
>implying you wouldn't.

Is Stephen King a pedophile? There's something really creepy about the way he wrote this. It sort of reminds me of RL Stine's blatant TF fetish and how he shoehorned it into Goosebumps.

I'm not mentally ill, so no. I like my women human, thanks.

#notallspiders

>mfw he was a drider
>itt people who didn't watch the movie or read the books

Stine gave me that fetish so hard.
My first boner came from his books.

Not this shit again.

>I like my women human
>I like women
You're sick in the head

>Giant Spider

Every time I think of Goosebumps and the TF shit it was filled with I'm now forced to think of Jack Black as RL Stine writing them thanks to the Goosebumps movie.

Say what you want about it, but the casting nailed that version of Stine. He looked like the kind of fat neckbeard who would have a TF fetish.

what is this

pic related get on our level
That's the new Pennywise the clown.
He's the fucker hanging out the window shooting shit up.
A shadowy boogie man who haunts your dreams.

Last time the Tv made show had him as Bozo the Clown.

Now we get him as King wanted with a Harlequin style creepster look.

>TF fetish

can you explain this please?

>harlequin style creepster look

King wanted him as a turn of the century circus clown, in an all silver suit with big orange puffball "Buttons" going down the front.

In the same way IT wasn't a spider.

You'd know this if you read the book.

The new costume uses red buttons down the from. They're a lil poofy but closer to orange than Curry's costume.

>literally gets punched and kicked to death

So much for cosmic horror

key no

Read a Goosebumps book, any Goosebumps book.

There is a 95% chance it will have one or multiple scenes involving underage kids transforming into animals, usually dogs, or being mutated into some variety of monster, or shrinking or growing. All written in a very detailed, creepy way.

The Choose Your Own Adventure books he wrote might as well have been renamed Choose Your Own Fetish, that's how bad it was. It's really bizarre how invested he was in dog transformations and micro/giant shit.

Jesus fuck it's you again. You were proved so completely wrong I don't know why you're still arguing.

King said horror writers could never do justice to the image of a spider, in his mind the epitome of spook. He was trying to do justice to the spider. He failed.

Link?

>mfw i hope the drider vs spiders battle until the new movie is released next year

Both have a relevant point after all.

My first boner was from the episode of Dexter's Lab where he turns Deedee into his mom. I still remember instinctively rubbing my cock when I watched that machine go up and down on her.

>

No, the drider fag is completely wrong. The book says nothing about any part being humanoid and the movie version is 95% spider except for it's front mandibles which have finger like things for grabbing.

Possibly the best Sup Forums thread of the year.

Incorrect. All book fags argue over the mention of a SHOULDER.

They're not even mandibles, they're pincers. It's like saying a crab's claws are hands.

It has human eyes. That's the only thing even remotely human about it.

Got a link to the paragraph that says shoulder hot stuff?

I have the book open in front of me at the part where the spider shows up. I've read the whole thing since that thread and nowhere does it mention the spider having shoulders.

Again, this is some new age autism.

They aren't even human eyes, it just has two of them is all. They're still bug like.

GIANT

SPIDER

My first boner was with A Goofy Movie.

Was I the only kid who beat off to Max turning into Goofy and humiliating himself in front of his qt?

I'm going to call this avatarfagging now and thus against the rules.

Thanks. Some of the pics it actually looks humanoid. Though that's probably because it's a guy in a suit. But I can see where the evidence for the drider argument is coming from

>that thread

kek

Be my guest as I've only posted Stephan once.

1/2

Cute! CUTE!

Your move, pal. Still waiting for proof of this mythical shoulder.

Those movies definitely made my wee wee tingle, but not from the shit you mentioned.

Doesn't analogizing it to a muscle-builder's thigh give it human-like qualities? Spiders don't have muscles, they have hydraulics.

They were only describing thickness, not the quality. So you're wrong again.

It's said its limbs were as THICK as thighs, not that they looked like them.

I could compare a musclebuilder's body to a tree trunk in terms of thickness but that doesn't mean I'm giving him plant-like qualities.

Spoogy

What do you mean again? Anyways a spider operating on hydraulics can't have legs that thick anyways, there would need to be some sort of musculature system. It might not be human but it's no pure spider

>I could compare a musclebuilder's body to a tree trunk in terms of thickness but that doesn't mean I'm giving him plant-like qualities.

Upgrade user Status to Defcon REKT

It's a magic space spider from the beginning of time and the edge of the universe. It can have legs that thick.

Yes but if I described Usain Bolt as undergoing photosynthesis, I am clearly comparing him to a plant. Since spiders operate on hydraulics, to describe a spider as a muscle-builder specifically - NOT a body-builder - is to compare it to some other creature that isn't a spider. And only humans are purposeful muscle-builders. So clearly it's being given human-like qualities

So you are positing that thickness is a unique property of muscle builder thighs and anything being described as thick is naturally being given human muscle builder qualities?

>thatguyfromthehangoverstaringatfloatingequations.gif

Everyone knows you need hands or a mouth to use magic, neither of which a spider has. So the spider has to be part-human or at least have the qualities of some other fitting creature besides being a spider.

783 of the book
Pic related.

To clarify about the mouth I meant vocal cords
No the unique property is being a muscle-builder since spiders don't have muscles, and only humans are muscle-builders, ergo the spider is a so -callled drider

Why doesn't someone ask Stephen King on twitter if It is a half-human spider? Settle the argument once and for all.

Please quote the paragraph from page 783.

Don't the books have different page counts depending on the font size and size of the pages?

He's right
>mfw PWNED
archive.org/stream/StephenKingsIt#page/n0/mode/2up

>Agent Smith walks on stage
>"Human women..."
>crowd looks uncomfortable
>"...NEED TO BE SYSTEMATICALLY EXTERMINATED"
>crowd roars with applause
>"HUMANS WOMEN ARE LOOSE WHORES, LET'S GIVE THE HUMAN MEN THE TIGHT MONSTER PUSSY"
>monster girls are now giving a standing ovation, some of the lamias are seen wiping tears of joy from their eyes
>Agent Smith tears off her clothes and cuts off her clitoris, wiping blood all over her naked flesh
>"KILL ALL HUMAN FEMALES AND TAKE THEIR MEN TO THE INTERSPECIES BREEDING GROUNDS"

The line says

>as thick as a

The only property being ascribed is thickness. To again use the another user's argument if he had described it as "as thick as a tree trunk" would you be arguing that it is a half tree half spider?

>he posted it again
so this...is the power....of autism...woah....

It's been answered in the picture.

It has not. Quote the line from the book or fuck off.

Do you even know a single thing about spider biology. I'll give you a fact, they're part of the order classification Araneae. Spiders have no extensor muscles. This is a fact. So to have muscular legs, or even really big legs, is impossible and against the definition of what a spider is. So it's either not a spider at all or is only part-spider and part something else. Best bet being part-human since it was described as a muscle builder rather than being particularly muscled.

Up?
Wait. What Spider has an Up other than their legs? This thing is obviously not a spider.

It's not a spider though. Your argument means nothing. It is something that resembles a spider.

>So to have muscular legs

He does not say it does.

>Best bet being part-human since it was described as a muscle builder

It was literally not.

I remember watching this with a friend who reads stephen king and I was like wtf at the end and he said he has trouble ending the books.

It also resembles a human in addition to resembling a spider as you can see in the film.

Source: It, 1990, ABC

>his arm followed it up to the shoulder

OH MY GOD YOU RETARD it's referring to BILL'S shoulder, he's burying his arm into the spider's body as deep as his shoulder

holy shit you can't read

>It also resembles a human

Incorrect.

archive.org/stream/StephenKingsIt#page/n0/mode/2up
Page 783
That image has the text posted, the children referring to it as a Spider. But King's description ripping it apart up to it's shoulders. When the tv show was made fans were excited to see King's description brought to life. It's a drider. Just like Dracula, Twilight, Blade, and many more are "Vampires".
Since it is Sentient, Has Special Abilities, And has Hands and Arms, Plus only 2 eyes described as Swirling.
It's not a spider.

the film isnt the book, king didnt write the film, or design the creature or direct the film. the film is wrong as are most king inspired films. how stupid are you?

Why are we trusting the writing of a man who can't write Its' properly? Look at the 2nd paragraph. There needs to be a possessive there. Death of the author and all that, there's room to interpret a drider, enough so to get an A on an interpretive paper in a college class.

>mfw being this dense and illustrate

That's talking about BILL'S shoulder you fucking nincompoop.

Stephen King sold the rights ergo he approved of whatever adaptation was made of his work. It indirectly has official blessings. If I sell my car I approve of the buyer making changes to the car, whatever changes made to the car become the official appearance of the car. If you put a human in a sunroof, the car now has a spider-like body with a human torso out of the top.

it's not anything. stop being a child and read the dark tower so you can find out what it really is

what no, hes just describing as something we can relate to. Thick fucking legs.

Woah thanks for reminding me of that why-boner

>But King's description ripping it apart up to it's shoulders

No, the description is that Bill attacks it by ripping into it with his hands and plunging his arm so deep that It's body goes up to his shoulder.

>Since it is Sentient, Has Special Abilities, And has Hands and Arms, Plus only 2 eyes described as Swirling
>it's sentient and magic so it has to be a D&D fursona hurhur

It doesn't have arms, they're pincers. Pincers are not fucking arms. I guess you're going to say that just because it has le spooky eyes like any monster would that makes it a drider too?

Get help, please. You have a problem.

george lucas sold the rights to star wars doesnt mean that the abortion that was ep 7 was his intended vision

...

And what are we best at relating to? Other humans. Have you ever related to a spider before? I haven't.

No one who has ever trained in combat brings an arm attack "up to their shoulder". Go consult the other forums if you DO NOT BELIEVE ME. Cuz you're an arm chair intellectual. It's talking about shoving himself that far inside of it.

Now I know I'm not the only one. Thanks, user.

Yes, Bill shoved HIS arm in so deep it went in up to HIS shoulder. Bill's shoulder.