Amityville: Fact or Fiction Poll

I just read "The Amityville Horror" for the 1st time a little while ago. I have seen both versions of the film. I also saw a special on TLC a short time ago asking the above question. There have apparently been several books published debunking the story. I admit I haven't read any of those. For years, the biggest selling point on this property, in literary or cinematic form, was that it was based on a (supposedly) true story. The book (a new reprint from B & N) doesn't say "True story!" on the front cover, but still says it in boldface right at the top of the blurb on the back cover.

So I got curious; what do we, as horror aficionados think of this, one of the most famous hauntings in history? Is the Lutzes' story true or not?

I'm kind of ambivalent; on the one hand, I think it'd be kind of. . . I don't know . . . Cool? if this were true. makes things "more interesting, somehow", to quote Tim Hunter from the Books of Magic. And if demons & vengeful ghosts possessing a house is true, who knows what else might be true?

But on the other hand, the idea of a demon (if that's what the malevelont force they encountered was) implies the existence of Satan, and of course that means there's a God, final judgment. . . and Hell. Much as we horror fans like to be scgared on paper or in films, the religious implications of unquestioning belief in this story and its implications can be really and truly, hit home, this-is-reality frightening. And that's not so pleasant a sensation.

I guess I tip the scales a little more on the side of the former view, and I'd like to believe the story. I mean, the family was apparently in debt up to its eyeballs, and they just flat out ran from their new, spectacularly huge & well appointed home and didn't take a thing, moved into a new home and started again. That's not something you're likely to do without a DAMNED good reason. And supposedly the priest (who was actually a bit more involved in the book version than either of the films) swore to the veracity of the story, too. I doubt any of them could foresee that this story would take off the way it did, and that they stood to make a lot of money on it.

What about you folks? Do you have an opinion?

I did think the book felt that way. The movies were more coherent, at least. But the thing I have the hardest time getting past is why they weren't more upset about the slime dripping down the walls. I think I probably would've been gone right then. In the movies it was dark, kind of black, or maybe they wanted you to think it was blood. In the book, it was GREEN. I see some green shit comin' outta my walls, I'm at least gonna call a plumber. They didn't even do that; Lutz had the KIDS clean it up (an that was before he went psycho, & still kind of liked them). That's like having one of the other kids adjust the rabbit ears after Carol Ann got sucked into the TV.

Is that worse than the demonic pig and slimy walls? I say it may be too close to call. . .

I read "The Devil in Connecticut" years and years ago. I may have been like 12 or even younger. I guess I was too young to find it funny, because I don't remember it that way. Actually, I don't remember much about it at all. But I read it at the time because, growing up in the tri-State area that includes CT, I remember the story being on the news. I was too young to remember the Amityville stories, though.

My guess is that with so much controversy swirling around "The Amityville Horror" story, the public would probably perceive the Defeos' story as an attempt to cash in on an already overextended franchise. The movies, at least (which is probably how much of the public came by its knowledge of the Amityville story), imply that Ronnie heard voices like George Lutz claims he did, telling him to kill the family. Bottom line: Hollywood won't make a film out of the Defeos' story w/o tying it to the established property of TAH, and the public isn't likely to care about such a project because they'll see it as more of the same.