Talk:The Amityville Horror

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments on 2005 film release

Does anyone else think it's sad that Hollywood is advertising this latest as "the true story" ? Or do you think they simply are unaware it's false people?

Then again, . I doubt they care about the facts. They just want to make money.

Well, it never one up on that movie they made "based on a true story" about the Cottingley Fairies. As for whether Hollywood's aware and/or cares... a) I think they're aware, b) I don't think they care, but c) I don't think it matters to the article, since it'd be original research/speculation on our parts to delve into it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it probably isn't common knowledge it was a hoax. But I don't think Hollywood should put the "based on the true story" tag on their film when it's not true. You'll have a tougher time convincing everyone it's fake instead of true.

I find it The Amityville Horror is Mr. Lutz's registered trademark since 2001 for "SERIES OF NON-FICTION BOOKS IN THE FIELDS OF PARANORMAL STUDIESDEMONOLOGY." IANAL, but idly wonder whether the trademark could be challenged for the description "non-fiction." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think that saying based on a true story is necesarily false. It doesnt say how much it is based on truth and definately doesnt say 'a true story'. If you pick faults with this then you would go wild at Fargo.

It is false if you accept that people confessed that they made the whole story up. And the movie advertisments for the 2005 remake do say "based on the true story."


.html try this website...it shows you detailed reasons for why the "Amityville horror" is nothing but a hoax =p

It was Ron DeFeo that first came up with the idea of Demons. That site you mentioned said that the Lutz really believed that something weird was going on. It was Weber that the idea for the book.

"DeFeo was an LSD addict" ... isn't LSD non-addictive? Perhaps "DeFeo frequently took LSD" would be better?

I guess a lot of people have a lot of questions about what went on in that house, but the only person that can say what really took place is ron defao. That is a verry confuesed person to say that voices told him to kill his family. I can see where it would be hard to believe a heavy drug user about hearing deominic voices telling him to kill his family. But then you have the situition where the luts had a simillar experiance with some kind of "paranormal enomally." I mean call me crazy but two diffrent acts of simillar sitionis is a little strange, But then the last family that lived there did not experance any spirital activity call it what you will I think it is a little weird! My last thing I want to bring up is that weather it is real or fictional, Who really knows we cant sit there and say that he did or didn't hear voices. There are paranormal experances all the time, Like when the virgin marry started crying human blood, And it was a solid statue no cracks, or wholes it was solid inside and out. I guess what I am saying is that we can't judge on what sombody saied on the subject bucause we reallr dont know what actually hapened all we can do is belive in our faith and what is ment to be known will be answered when he fells we are ready to bear that much knowledge of what is going on with the world. Thanks for hearing me out, mark caskey.

Hey, er, this article is in serious need of maintenance. It disputes the horror, yes, but it's totally lacking in explaining what the horror actually was. Snopes.com's page (linked at the bottom) has a decent explanation of it... but the Wikipedia entry seems to be completely about secondary stuff, and not the tale and history itself.

I've been following this story since shortly after it began. The FACTS of the story are: 1. Although George and Kathy Lutz changed their story over the years, their final claim before their deaths was that the story was essentially true. 2. Ronald Defeo has changed his story numerous times over the years. Regardless of his motivations, he is an unreliable witness. Demon possessed? Unreliable. Drug user? Unreliable. Sociopath? Unreliable. Just seeking media attention? Unreliable. The list can go on. 3. The Lutz's made tape recordings of the events for author Jay Anson. They admitted to exaggerating their story when they recorded it for him. 4. Jay Anson admitted to exaggerating what the Lutz's told him. He also said that he moved events around to make the story flow better. 5. Hollywood is Hollywood. The tagline, "based on a true story" means almost nothing. They change what they want to change so they can sell movies (it's their job to do that). 6. The 2005 film version used an earlier form of viral marketing for the film. They created a web site that displayed fictional news items that were "based on" the real thing. They used the same clips in trailers.

Overall, the article should list the basic facts: 1. The Defeo murders. 2. The Lutz's moved in and quickly moved out. 3. The Lutz's later claimed paranormal events drove them from the house. There was some media coverage, and they worked with Anson to write a book. 4. There were accusations of Hoax. 5. The Lutz's worked with other authors on a series of books. 6. The various films were made. 7. Final wrap up: where are we now? The Lutz's are dead. Defeo is in prison. The story (real or hoax) has become a legend. Dave 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Dave 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Be aware this page is regularly being vandalized by an anonymous user from the 70.* range. When I arrived at the page today it claimed DeFeo was a porn rather than a heroin addict. Kit 10:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax

Since this article is listed on List of hoaxes, there really needs to be some criticisms of the factual accuracy of the story. As it stands now, the article reads like a Cliffnotes of Anson's book, and mentions none of the claims contrary to what was in the book.. Unless it turns out that Snopes.com, CSICOP, or any of the other sources I've cited is wrong or inappropriate, please do not delete this info as it is part of the Amityville story. Remember, just because counterclaims are mentioned does not mean it violates NPOV.

And BTW, this page should be used for discussing the article, not as a forum on the movie (well, I suppose a little bit is alright, but I don't think it should be the sole thing on the page). And anons, comments should be signed with four tildes. Gershwinrb 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I've just found out that there is also a page The Amityville Horror (2005 film). Much of the info that is there is duplicated on this article, and it seems to me that what isn't on this page could easily be transferred from the other. My only worry is that it would lead to too much clutter, though I don't see this as a big concern. Any thoughts? Gershwinrb 06:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm against merging the film page into this. Actually, it would be better to move all the info on the film on the film article page, also make a separate page for the 1979 film and link to them from here. As far as I can tell, this is the standard practice, especially as the films are notable AdamSmithee 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, that's probably a better suggestion than mine, but I'm still a bit hesistant since it seems that it would be hard to split it into three seperate articles without having the articles duplicate each other. Perhaps two seperate articles, one for the films and one for the book, would be a better solution? I'm not too familier with practices on films, but it seems that since the plots are so similar, it would be more appropriate to have the films on one page. Gershwinrb 10:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Even better, we could try yours in the interim, and just merge later if it doesn't work. For now, I'm removing the merge tags as I don't agree with it anymore. I'll create an article for the 1979 version soon and move the appropriate info there. Gershwinrb 10:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is pretty much in line with film practices on WP. Now, maybe someone with more knowledge will add some info, at least to the 1979 version, which is something of a classic. Nice job :-) AdamSmithee 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

The wikilinks in this article are horrid - multiple links to common English words such as "controversy" which imply a sub-article about the controversy, tons of redlinks which are unlikely to turn into real articles, and unneeded year links. I don't have the time at the moment to clean it up, just wanted to draw attention to the problem if I don't get the time to do it myself. - dharmabum 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikilinks have been substantially cleaned up, but some year links have been left in as they are standard Wikipedia practice. --Ianmacm 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)ianmacm

[edit] The Real Amityville Horror

On 23 October 2006 Channel Four of UK television screened a repeat showing of the 2005 documentary The Real Amityville Horror. Most of the claims made in this hour long documentary can be found in the Wikipedia articles The Amityville Horror and Ronald DeFeo, Jr.. It has been suggested in the past that "Jodie" the demonic pig could have been a cat belonging to one of the neighbours, but since this is a suggestion rather than a proven fact it is not mentioned in the main text of the article. The "demonic boy" photograph does not appear in the Wikipedia article due to copyright reasons, but it can be found online at [1].--Ianmacm 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resemblance between Ronald DeFeo and George Lutz

What about the implied resemblance between DeFeo and George Lutz? I have looked at a few pictures and there seems to be some. Keltik31 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point and maybe it should be added to the article. The book and the 1979 film make a lot of the supposed resemblance between Ronald DeFeo and George Lutz, although apart from having beards the two men do not really look alike. The resemblance issue is used to promote the idea that George Lutz will attempt to kill his family, just like Ronald DeFeo.--Ianmacm 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

about a year ago i was having a dream. in the dream, my sister and i were in the house in Amityville and we were blessing the house with holy water. i was telling my sister that we needed to get out of the house and i woke suddenly. i got up to go to the bathroom, and it was 3:15 am. tell me that isnt freaky. Keltik31 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(This is a comment which is not strictly within Wikipedia talk page guidelines, but it has been left in for the sake of reference. The talk page should be about improvements to the article, not general comments.) --Ianmacm 18:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

that's mighty nice of you. you gotta admit its a pretty freaky dream. Keltik31 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald DeFeo

I put back the section on Ronald DeFeo for several reasons. In order to understand the backdrop to Jay Anson's book, it is essential to have some knowledge of the DeFeo murders. Rather than visit the article on Ronald DeFeo, Jr. separately, the article The Amityville Horror gives a brief summary of the DeFeo murders in 1974. It is not strictly true to say that the book has nothing to do with the DeFeo murders, since they are mentioned frequently in the 1977 book and form the basis of several of the subplots. I have tried to give an "all in one" feel to the article The Amityville Horror rather than have it spread over several articles, and this is why the films are also mentioned in the same article, although they are dealt with elsewhere in Wikipedia. From what I have read on internet message boards, there are many myths about The Amityville Horror, and it is important to realise that the DeFeo murders were a real event that formed the backdrop to Jay Anson's controversial 1977 book. Rather than force people to read about them separately, the murders are dealt with briefly in the same article.--Ianmacm 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"In order to understand the backdrop to Jay Anson's book, it is essential to have some knowledge of the DeFeo murders." Yes, "some", but "some" is not "a whole section's worth". People who want details such as how many years DeFeo was sentenced to and where he is serving that time should go to Ronald DeFeo, Jr. for that information, because it has no bearing on the story of the purported Amityville horrors. If there are myths about TAH which are refuted by the facts in the case of Ronald DeFeo, we should mention the myth and then mention the facts that refute the myths. Creating a section in The Amityville Horror for "The DeFeo murders" and filling it with information about the DeFeo murders because some of that information is relevant to the actual subject of the article is putting the cart before the horse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid duplication of information regarding Ronald DeFeo as far as possible. I agree that the length of his sentence is probably not directly relevant to Jay Anson's book. However, this still leaves the question of how to integrate the DeFeo murders with the article The Amityville Horror. During the past few weeks I visited several message boards which revealed a great deal of confusion about the book, the films and their relation to the real life events that inspired them. Place yourself in the position of a 15-year old who has just seen the 2005 film for the first time. There are several questions that need answering. It is important for anyone approaching The Amityville Horror for the first time to realise that Ronald DeFeo Jr, George and Kathy Lutz are all real people, that the DeFeo murders were real events, and that the 28-day stay of the Lutz family at 112 Ocean Avenue did actually occur, although it subsequently became controversial. The current version of the text mentions the DeFeo murders only very briefly, and allows readers to explore the external link to the article Ronald DeFeo, Jr.--Ianmacm 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 112 Ocean Avenue and 412 Ocean Avenue

Please note that the house is called 412 Ocean Avenue only in the film versions. The page has been edited several times with the wrong information, and the house was called 112 Ocean Avenue both in real life and in Jay Anson's book--Ianmacm 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV description of Eminem lyrics?

Describing the lyrics of an Eminem song as disturbing in the Additional information section isn't really conforming to NPOV, is it? --Thf1977 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The lyrics were described in this way in order not to offend anyone who clicked on the link. However, an alternative wording could be considered as long as it maintained the content caution.--Ianmacm 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Demonic Boy" photo, and images of George and Kathy Lutz

The "Demonic Boy" photograph from 1976 has been added with a historic copyright tag which is hopefully acceptable. The article still lacks any pictures of George and Kathy Lutz, largely due to the difficulty in finding images that would not run into problems with the copyright tag. Any help or suggestions on this would be welcome.--Ianmacm 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jodie

There has been some confusion over Jodie, Missy's imaginary friend. The section on Jay Anson's book is designed to stay as close as possible to the claims in the 1977 book, although other claims have been made elsewhere. In the book, Jodie is described as a pig or pig-like creature. There is also an incident in Chapter 19 where a boy appears to be sitting on a bed, but this is not Jodie. It has been suggested that the "demonic boy" seen in the photograph at [2] was also a manifestation of the same demonic force as Jodie, but since this is not what Jay Anson's book says, it is not expressed this way in the article. Critics have suggested that Jodie may have been an overweight Persian cat owned by one of the neighbours, but since this is speculative it is not mentioned in the article. The drawing that Missy made of Jodie does look more like a cat than a pig. Finally, the 2005 film version contains a character called Jodie DeFeo played by Isabel Conner. Jodie DeFeo was a fictional character created for the film, and was not one of the victims of the shootings by Ronald DeFeo Jr in 1974.

Also, a quick note that Stuart Rosenberg, the director of the 1979 film version, died on March 15 2007.--Ianmacm 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:George and Kathy Lutz.jpg

Image:George and Kathy Lutz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Amityville kaplan.jpg

Image:Amityville kaplan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Amityvillecover.jpg

Image:Amityvillecover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter O'Neill

It's me, or the Peter O'Neill memorial page don't mention he lived in the house at all?--IsaacMorrison (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An additional link with this info has been added. Peter O'Neill bought the house after the Cromartys and lived there from 1987-1997. The current owner (not named in the article for reasons of privacy) is still living there. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The house and the river

I reverted the edit which said that the house was situated on a salt water canal. The section about the book sticks to Jay Anson's wording as far as possible, and Chapter One says that "With the property comes thirty feet of wooden bulkhead that stands against the Amityville River." --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)