Talk:The Amityville Horror/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 .--Ianmacm 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

Peter O'Neill
It's me, or the Peter O'Neill memorial page doesn'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. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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." -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The book and the events
The Amityville Horror article refers mostly to the book. Is there a way a page about the events that happened there could be created? Including the history of the property. Such as the house that originally stood on the lot and then was moved for "continuing problems". The History Channel documentary that came with the DVD set had a LOT of information about the house including an interview with George and Kathy Lutz.--VampireKen (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Amityville Horror can mean the book by Jay Anson or the series of films that it inspired. The article tries to deal with both, although some of the films have their own articles.  Some of the claims made by Hans Holzer, the Warrens and other researchers are not strictly canonical to the book and film versions.  The article does mention the History Channel documentaries that come with the DVD boxed set. Is there anything important that you feel is missing from the article? -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted that George and Kathy Lutz took a lie detector test and passed. As for the original house thing, that could probably be under the "112 Ocean Ave." article. If I need a reference for them thet would both be the History Channel show.--VampireKen (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is worth mentioning that George and Kathy Lutz took a lie detector test and passed, although these tests are always controversial. The article tries to deal with all the main issues without too much forking, and the 112 Ocean Avenue article tends to repeat information from the main article. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cover controversy
I've added the section on the cover edits which fueled the hoax theory.--VampireKen (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is worth mentioning that critics pointed out that there were numerous changes between the original hardback edition published in September 1977 and subsequent paperback editions. However, I tagged the section because no sources are given.  The section is also long and detailed compared to the rest of the article, and it might be better to integrate it into the "Criticisms" section. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. i'll look up the refrence. then i'll edit it. An easier way to put it in the article would be to put the big edits only. i'll fix it in a bitVampireKen (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the edits to the "cover controversy". I shortened it and made a reference. However I think it should be left in it's own section. Like if someone looks on Wikipedia to read about that specific subject it will be easier to find. The edits feature the important edits to the book. What I mean by that is that the edits that have been controversial. Instead of switching parts of a sentence.--VampireKen (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I turned "Cover Controversy into a sub section. so it relates to criticisms.--VampireKen (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Most of the claims about the inconsistencies between the hardback and paperback versions of the book seem to be traced back to Stephen Kaplan. The source given at  is a blog entry, which may run into issues with WP:RS.  The current version of the section also reads like a list, with six examples given.  It may be better to give a few examples with more reliable sourcing. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the map listings and just put "Several layouts of the house were changed between the covers" I believe the priest's car is an important noting. I'm referencing Kaplan a lot because he was the one who did the most research into the hoax. The car thing was controversial because the type of car the priest has in the book it says the hood flew up and smashed his window. The only problem is the hood doesn't go up towards the window when opened, it goes towards the front (opposite way is what I'm trying to explain ). Then they changed it for the new hardcover. I know this article is only supposed to relate to the story and controversy itself but on the History channel DVD Hanz Holzer explained the only reason Kaplan said it was a hoax was because of I think it was they would not let him in the house. I'm unsure just noting that. I found it out from that History's mysteries show in the interview with Roxane Kaplan. The book edits to. There's a small change in the new paper back too. It notes Jay Anson died in 1980. The last version didn't.--VampireKen (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

After I made the edits it sounded more appropriate in the "Criticisms" section. So I moved the information from "Cover Controversy" into "Criticisms". It was a good suggestion to put it in criticisms, what I said earlier about if someone looked for the book edits specifically it would be under "Criticisms". The reference as a blog thing. The person who wrote that must have read the books and points out the edits. Just in case though, I'll find the original at a library or something and read it.--VampireKen (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Amityville Horror Part II
I've created the article about Part II of the Amityville Horror. It has just gotten started. I'm going to put a "followed by" on this article to connect this article to the new one. The new article has just gotten started so there is not a lot of information in it yet.--VampireKen (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Amityville - the tenth film
Although there has been talk of a tenth Amityville Horror film, the citation given at is too vague and not really a WP:RS. Unless this can be firmed up, it should be left out of the article at the moment. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm noting under this that I have added a mention of a canceled Amityville film. It was supposed to be based on Amityville: The Horror Returns but it was never made. I found this out on the back of the book itself. It says on the book "Soon to be an NBC Movie". I'm not sure that's the exact sentence but I'll check later. Judging by "NBC movie" I figured it might just be Amityville 4. However that film came out before the book was released.--VampireKen (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is still unclear: ''A second film revolving around the Lutz family was going to be made to air on NBC. It would be based on Amityville: The Horror Returns. It was mentioned on the back of the book. However no film was made.'' More details of the how and when would help, together with some sourcing.

Also, the "Hoax controversy" section reads like a piece of personal analysis, and would benefit from a tighter style and some WP:V sourcing. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to answer. I've looked into the second Lutz film and I've only found rumors as to why it was never made. These are the most likely ones but until I find the actual reason why these should just remain on the talk page. 1. James Brolin and Margot Kidder and the kids were to old to do the film. 2. Amityville 4 was made instead. 3. Amityville 4 was not a big success and the producers figured this film would be the same. 4. All the books would be turned into movies but after Amityville 5 came out the series was changed. That's all I have come up with.

The "Hoax Controversy" has been deleted without reason and now I have reference for it. I'm going to put it back up with references.--VampireKen (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lutz vs Laurentis
I was on Amityville Files and found a court paper about when the Lutz family sued Dino De Laurentis for making sequels to The Amityville Horror and not including them in the storyline (That is seriously what they sued over.) I'm going to put it under the appropriate section with the refrence to the document. It's a PDF file so it may not be viewable by all users but by most maybe all. It should be everyone.--VampireKen (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is worth a brief mention with WP:V sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the mention of the Lawsuit but there is a problem with the reference (pdf file problem) When I went to get the reference for the Lutz vs Laurentis note the thing the file has to run on I don't have on the computer I'm using. I put a reference as close to the original as possible. The ref goes to the place where you can look at the court papers. It's at the spot where you select the papers. If someone has the right thing they just click on Lutz vs Laurentis and it's right there. I'll use another computer when I get to one and then I'll put the reference on.--VampireKen (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hans Holzer theory
Sorry I'm making so many discussions but this is interesting. Hans Holzer's book Ghosts details his investigation of the property. He says that the red room in the basement was painted red by Defeo Jr. because he liked the color. He also says that the book was a hoax but the Lutz family did flee the house because of ghosts. They just made up the events of the book. let's put it like this. The Lutzes were right. The Kaplans were right. William Weber was right. Holzer basically solved the case. Roxane Kaplan even said it might be something. Something is there but the story is a hoax- wow it feels weird saying that. I'm trying to have my local library bring Holzer here. I'm going to bring it up on Wednesday. What I mean to say is will it be okay if I make a Hans Holzer theory section in the article? or should there be a "theory of haunting" section? I might put it on the Hans Holzer page also.--VampireKen (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One concern here is keeping the article to a length that will hold the attention of the average reader. The article is already getting a bit long, and some material could be forked off into other articles if, say, it related mainly to Hans Holzer. Another point to bear in mind is that the purpose of the article is to report on events that took place, rather than to discuss them in an essay-like style. Personally, I have always steered clear of using the word "hoax" in the article due to the WP:NPOV issues that it raises. The hoax theory mainly leads back to Stephen Kaplan.  Other critics have argued that while parts of the story are demonstrably exaggerated and untrue, the Lutzes did not deliberately set out to lie.  This implies bad faith, and would be potentially libellous if the Lutzes were still alive.  Even though they are both now dead, it is best to avoid using the word "hoax" due to the range of issues that it produces.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm going to the house next week. The way I'm going there is past Henry's Bar (now closed). If the building is still there I'm taking a few pictures of it. Would they be good on Wikipedia or no?--VampireKen (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The photos would probably be better suited to Ronald DeFeo, Jr. than The Amityville Horror.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Polygraphs/Lie Detectors
I noticed this in the article:

"During the lie detector test in court with the Lutz family, it was revealed they were telling the truth. Kaplan said he wanted the best lie detector test team around. He did not get them but got one of the best available which were used in many court battles. "

and thought it could do with some clarification. Polygraphs (ie, lie detector tests) are not permitted in criminal courts cases simply because they're not foolproof. People who are lying can register as telling the truth, no matter how advanced the machine, and vice versa. However, it's not that big of a deal and could be left alone, even if it's a little misleading. Thoughts?

ADifferentMind (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)ADifferentMind


 * Thanks for your comment. Accounts of The Amityville Horror often point out that George and Kathy Lutz took and passed a lie detector test relating to their experiences at the house. This is included in the article for the sake of historical completeness, and is not intended to be an endorsement of the accuracy of lie detector tests, which are controversial as you point out. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If there needs to be references I have the results. and newspapers. They are reliable. This is because there are no readable references.--VampireKen (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I added more refs to this part of the article. In case someone is researching the subject and wants to review the results or questions themselves. Like you said above not an endorsement saying it was the truth they are just for refs.--VampireKen (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has had a revamp after this comment by ADifferentMind. Some of the material has been moved around, and the part about the lie detector tests has been toned down due to WP:WEIGHT issues. It is important to avoid giving the impression that George and Kathy Lutz were telling the truth because they passed a test, or that the result of the test would have been admissible as court evidence, which it probably would not have been. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

They did use it in court. or am I wrong? I thought they did.--VampireKen (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's possible that I have got this wrong. The main point that I was trying to make was that lie detector tests are not usually given much weight by a court. If the Lutzes did use the lie detector test in court, please could you clarify this. The scanned letter here says that the lie detector test cited in the article was in June 1979 in an office in Hollywood, California.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah I know what you were trying to say. I may be wrong also. I'll look for it.--VampireKen (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

They were not used for court but they were used in later court cases. However they said they still didn't say anything because it was three years later and it had time to sink in.--VampireKen (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

George vs Chris
I watched a interview segment from 2005 which was to talk about the remake of the film. In it Chris (I cant say or spell his last name). George's oldest adoptive son or Kathy's oldest son claimed that most of the story is exaggerated and apparently George Lutz was sewing him. Here's the link for the video: http://www.amityvillefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=73. Should this go on George Lutze's article or on The Amityville Horror? or just don't put it on any. This may be, is important to the subject. He isn't yelling hoax or anything but he is saying that the events were heavily exaggerated. This if it goes on the article could go under "criticisms". NOTE: The link is not to promote anything it is to show a video that could be useful to the article.--VampireKen (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This video is on YouTube and is called Inside Edition - Amityville - Hoax or Horror? It dates from the time that the 2005 film was released. I came across it a while back and was tempted to put it in the article, but had some worries about whether it was a WP:RS thing to do. It is based on an interview with George Lutz's stepson Chris, (surname Coratino?) and the most interesting part is that they were suing each other at the time of George's death. It's a pity that I've been unable to find any text-based confirmation of the information given here, because YouTube videos are not really a WP:RS, and often have copyright issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a member of Amityville Files. The site is the largest Amityville research site. I could ask if they could find court papers. Or I could request they do an interview with chris. He might deny one but I could request one anyway. I'll at least ask if they could find the court documents.--VampireKen (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

here, I was looking on Google News and found this. do we need more? or is this good.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002267189_amityville08.html --VampireKen (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Amityville 2009 anniversary film
This was removed from the article:

''In 2009, Tobe Hooper, the director of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist will make the anniversay for Amityville. It is called Amityvile: 30 Years Later. This story is about Reverend Kane who possessed every one of the victims and he made a victim murdered every one of them. The new family (Mark Curry, Vivica A. Fox, Jeremy Suarez and Gabby Soeiel) moved to Amityville. Kane (Cary Hiroyuki-Tagawa) kidnapped a soul of Heather O'Rourke's Bella Thorne. There's a good reverend Gary Anthony Williams and an old lady Zelda Rubinstein. The new family overcome the fears and escaped Amityville. It turned itside out so the souls free. Now, Reverend Kane is gone for good. The new family move on and never return.''

This is interesting information, but no sourcing is given. A Google search on "Tobe Hooper Amityville 2009" turned up nothing, not even in the blogs. This would need some sourcing before going in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... Amityville: 30 years later isn't coming out til' next year. It's The Amityville horror 2. and the plot explained is from Poltergeist 2 and 3. Return to amityville was dropped after the filmakers were denied permission to use the Toms River House.--Darkness2light (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Amityville: The Nightmare continues
I created a article for this book and It was redirected here. Since this book is a attempted reboot of the series can it please have it's own article? I went to go add the plot and I find out it's here. I'm going to replace it.--Darkness2light (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Amityville Tapes
The upcoming amityville film "The Amityville Tapes" which is a sequel to the 2005 remake is coming out next year. I had it on the 2005 page but someone told me it belongs here because it is NOT a sequel just another Amityville film. Where does this go?--Darkness2light (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel any reference to this proposed film should be limited to this main article. The fact someone at The Hollywood Reporter chose to describe The Amityville Tapes as a sequel to the 2005 remake doesn't make it so, and discussing it in the article about the remake makes as little sense as discussing it in any of the articles about the various projects in the franchise, since none of them are related to each other beyond their use of the Amityville name. The Hollywood Reporter item also describes the proposed film as "the next chapter in the Amityville franchise," which supports my belief that any information about this proposed film belongs in "The films" section of this main article. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Is this truely a real story?


 * First up is the question of sourcing. There have been various reports about this film, which is still at the production stage, so WP:CRYSTAL applies here. There is enough time to wait for more details to emerge about the film, preferably from mainstream media sources rather than word of mouth websites. The main article should mention the film when it is released, but everything is vague at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this film now not being made?--Darkness2light (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally Wikipedia would not write about a film unless it was at or near the release stage. The tenth Amityville film has been based on word of mouth reports that are at best confusing. Perhaps someone could clear this up, but there needs to be reliable sourcing rather than "I heard it through the grapevine".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been confirmed through numerous sites that are accurate and reliable.--Darkness2light (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects
This article is about the book so can somebody tell me why at the top of this page it says it is within the scope of the Wiki Film Project? Shouldn't that apply just to the articles about the different movies? LargoLarry (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the links between the book and the screenplay are stronger than a simple movie adaptation of a novel. What I wanna say is that more people recall the film better than the book. The Wiki Film Project banner is in the right place for me.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

June renovation
Recent photos of the house show that it is once again being renovated. Should that be added to the 112 page?--Darkness2light (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody added this in an edit recently and I removed it. The issue here is notability. While this may be true, it would need a source. There is also the issue of respecting the privacy of the owner, who does not want tourists on the doorstep. The best option would be a recent photo of the house, since the one in the article dates from 2005.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good source: http://www.amityvillefiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=139&p=890#p890 --Darkness2light (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, maybe I'm stupid here, but it is not clear from the photos what they are doing in the renovation. There are still some issues on the notability and privacy angles involved, so my personal view is to hold off on adding this for the time being.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually nobody knows what the renovation is. I agree, Maybe we should hold off until after the renovation is over so then it will be accurate.--Darkness2light (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A hoax, or what?
Either the book is clearly a hoax, as exposed by Snopes.com - or else there is (still?) a controversy over whether it is true or false. Either way, we ought to be careful not to endorse it as a "true story". --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Much as I respect Snopes, Wikipedia is not under an obligation to repeat word for word what the Snopes website says. The full title of the book is 1977 book is The Amityville Horror - A True Story and this has proved to be controversial. The "it was all a hoax" claim is in some ways just as controversial. The famous quote that it was all made up over bottles of wine comes from William Weber, who was Ronald DeFeo, Jr.'s defense attorney at his trial in 1975. Weber was piqued when the Lutzes struck their own book deal with Jay Anson and froze him out, although they had discussed some aspects of the story with him earlier. In September 1979, Judge Jack B. Weinstein accepted that parts of the book were based on suggestions from William Weber, and this is made clear in the article. The Snopes article is one of the prominent citations given so that people can read it in full.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining that. I was trying to "be bold" but apparently wound up being hasty. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New Movie
The new film based on Ric Osuna's "The Night the Defeos died" has a trailer and website now. The trailer:http://www.youtube.com/user/KatcoMedia#play/all

website:http://www.amityvillefilm.com/

--Darkness2light (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The new film had a news report on it with Marvine Scott on Ny's WPIX News. Can this film be added to the article?--Darkness2light (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The new film is called "Shattered Hopes : The True Story of the Amityville Murders". I've been trying to find out something about this film beyond the YouTube trailer and the official website, neither of which is really a reliable source. What would help is a link to a review of the film by a newspaper etc.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

New documentary film
This was removed or the time being: "Los Angeles independent filmmaker Ryan Katzenbach is currently working on a docudrama about the Amityville Horror case. The film, Shattered Hopes: The True Story of the Amityville Murders will reportedly chronicle the DeFeo family and examine forensic evidence associated with the original 1974 murders while challenging the veracity of the "Amityville Horror" story. Edward Asner is narrating the film, which will reportedly be 4 hours long." There is some sourcing on this here, but without a firm release date there is too much WP:FUTURE and it is best to wait until more is known about the project.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lie detector tests
There is some more about the tests here. The validity of the tests has been questioned but they are inadmissible in many courts anyway.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New direct to video film
The Amityville Haunting has been released, and it is so bad that anyone who watches it all the way through probably deserves a medal. It starts by saying that the Lutz family lived in the house for two years (they left after 28 days). The house is described as 112 Ocean Avenue, although by 2008 when the film is set, it had been given a new number to deter sightseers. All in all, the film tries to be The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity (both of which are based on the found footage idea), but the lack of any sort of panache surely makes this the weakest film in the series so far (which is saying something, as the other direct to video films are also dire).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Quaratino
This edit was reverted because of sourcing issues; Psychic World Newspaper is not really a reliable source. The username "Amityvillechris" also suggests that the person who made the edit may be Christopher Quaratino (known as Christopher Lutz in the book and films), or someone affiliated to him, leading to a potential conflict of interest. There is a good television interview with Christopher Quaratino here, but it cannot be easily used as a source in the article, because it is on YouTube and probably a copyright violation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew P. Hutton
This is a factual statement? I also know that Chris Lutz gave a second interview to Fate Magazine, in which he stated the same thing, but as I never read this I cannot comment. However, I did read the Psychic World Newspaper article (by Matthew P. Hutton), which was picked up by a number of other publications in the UK, but it was the first time that this story had ever been published in the UK. It does not breach any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amityvillechris (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Psychic World Newspaper is not a reliable source, e.g. a mainstream newspaper or television station. It would be useful to have some input from Chris Quaratino, and the YouTube interview mentioned above is good because it gives his own words directly. In the TV interview, Quaratino makes the point that he believes that his stepfather exaggerated parts of the story for effect. The interview also says that he was involved in a lawsuit with George. The interview was made at around the time of the 2005 film release and George Lutz is now dead; it is unclear what became of the lawsuit. At the moment, the wording in the article about Chris does not go into much detail, and any precise quote would require a reliable source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and I do fully understand your point. I will give the matter some thought and try and figure out a way to include something in regards to the Chris interview, as I think it is an important fact in regards to the continuing mystery of the Amityville story. I agree that Psychic World is not the best source, although I do know it is a well established publication in the UK. The problem with the publication is that it is very old-world in its approach, and does not have much of an online presence. I do know that the article is also on the official Amityvillefaq.com site, but again, this is probably not a good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amityvillechris (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Amityville house for sale
This is in the news, but it is misleading because it is the house in Toms River, New Jersey used as the location for the first three films in the series.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Montauk Project
It has been suggested that this series of events was related to live-firing tests of a radio-based neural interface from a radar site in Long Island under the term Montauk Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.127.182 (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an article about the Montauk project here, but it does not make a direct link to the Amityville Horror.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New film, The Amityville Asylum
There is a film due to be released soon called The Amityville Asylum, which would become the eleventh film in the series. There is an article about it here, but the release date is unclear and there is no trailer on YouTube at the moment. Until it is released, there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction with Gambrel roof article
The article for The Amityville Horror gives the address of the home as 112 Ocean Ave., while the Gambrel Roof article, clearly showing the same image used in the former article as an example of the roof type, lists it as 108 Ocean. Is someone able to hunt up the correct address and correct the erroneous article, or include a note explaining why the two are different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.32.29 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The address of the house at the time of the DeFeo killings and the Lutz ownership was 112 Ocean Avenue. After numerous problems with tourists disturbing the peace, it was changed. The house still exists, but is a private residence and is not open to the public. This is mentioned in the article here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Paul Hoffman?
The Criticism section has linked Paul Hoffman "a writer working on an account of the hauntings" to Paul Hoffman (science writer) born 1956. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hoffman_(science_writer) Other Amityville web sources show another author Paul Hoffman who died in 1984 at the age of 49. http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/viewtopic.php?t=6729 The linked Hoffman would have been 21 years old in 1977 (when the Lutzes filed suit) and either a student at Harvard University or working at Scientific American (his first job out of school per interview here: http://www.educationupdate.com/archives/2012/NEW/mus-paulhoffman.html). Can someone either confirm this Paul Hoffman is the correct author, or de-link the associated wikipedia entry for the science writer born 1956? 50.204.27.34 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this was de-linked. The official biography of the science writer is here and it looks unlikely that he is the Paul Hoffman who wrote about Amityville.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Naming of location
Re this edit: since the terms Amityville and Long Island are wikilinked, there is no need to give excessive detail about where they are. It is also important to say that the house is in a suburban neighborhood, as many people have wrongly learned from the films that the house is isolated and in the middle of nowhere. It is a suburban house with other houses less than 50 feet away, as the December 2005 photo in the article shows.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Amityville: The Awakening
Re this edit: although Amityville: The Awakening has its own article, there is way too much WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF involved if the release date has been pushed back to 2017. This film is notable for being some time coming but yet to arrive.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

House is up for sale again
Coverage here. I wasn't sure about adding this on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER grounds, but every time the house is on the market it receives media coverage. This time the asking price is $850,000.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Amityville Horror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/real-estate/real-li-1.812034/hundreds-come-for-amityville-horror-house-moving-sale-1.2228718

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Amityville films
Re this edit: it was reverted because it is original research designed to put forward the theory that there are "official" and "unofficial" Amityville films. Only the 1979 and 2005 films could be said to be based on Jay Anson's 1977 book, and all of the others take considerable liberties. Some do not reference the DeFeo murders at all. The word "Amityville" is too common to be trademarked, so anyone who wants to can make a film with "Amityville" in the title. This has led to the franchise being very loosely defined. No-one could make a film starring Batman or Superman without the permission of DC Comics, but it is pretty much anything goes with Amityville films. There is no easy way of saying which films are official and unofficial entries in the series.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)