The Amityville Horror

I've read where there are 50 movies in this franchise. How much material is there to work with, and how could someone watch so many installments? I remember people laughed in the theater when Friday the 13th part 8 came out.

What's the deal here????

ThePunisher wrote:I've read where there are 50 movies in this franchise. How much material is there to work with, and how could someone watch so many installments? I remember people laughed in the theater when Friday the 13th part 8 came out.

What's the deal here????

A lot and I mean a lot of the sequels and other movies inspired by Amityville have very little to do with the actual house, and most of them also have no ties to one another.

Technically there's only ten movies in the Amityville series, including the remake. The rest are Tubi Cellar quality films that have little to no connection to the house or the story. You can't quite copyright the name Amityville, since it's the actual name of the town where the house is located, so pretty much anyone can slap Amityville on the title of their film to try and attract eyeballs.

To answer your question though, there was enough material for exactly one movie... The original 79 film which is the only film in the franchise worth watching. The rest are cliché haunted house dreck using Amityville as a backdrop in hopes of piggybacking off one of the most elaborate and successful hoaxes ever perpetrated.

Agreed. The actual documentary and case files are way more interesting than the sequels. This is one franchise that needs to settle down. The original house isn't even recognizable anymore after the new owners renovated it and changed the street number. And someone found a second gun in the canal behind the house, suggesting a possible second shooter to the original murderers. I've watched the original and the remake and am satisfied with those

SonofOdin6039 wrote:Agreed. The actual documentary and case files are way more interesting than the sequels. This is one franchise that needs to settle down. The original house isn't even recognizable anymore after the new owners renovated it and changed the street number. And someone found a second gun in the canal behind the house, suggesting a possible second shooter to the original murderers. I've watched the original and the remake and am satisfied with those

This makes me want to say a couple of things. First of all, the 2005 "remake" was a bit strange ( for ME) in a couple ways. First of all, Melissa George stating it was great to be
" working in the Amityville House", when the film was being shot in Wyoming or some stuff like that. Secondly, the guy playing the husband doesn't seem like a real horror movie kind of guy.

As for the " second gun", when people in the family were sleeping, how come they didn't wake up when the gun was going off?

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:Technically there's only ten movies in the Amityville series, including the remake. The rest are Tubi Cellar quality films that have little to no connection to the house or the story. You can't quite copyright the name Amityville, since it's the actual name of the town where the house is located, so pretty much anyone can slap Amityville on the title of their film to try and attract eyeballs.

To answer your question though, there was enough material for exactly one movie... The original 79 film which is the only film in the franchise worth watching. The rest are cliché haunted house dreck using Amityville as a backdrop in hopes of piggybacking off one of the most elaborate and successful hoaxes ever perpetrated.

I can't believe people still think the case is real.

ThePunisher wrote:

SonofOdin6039 wrote:Agreed. The actual documentary and case files are way more interesting than the sequels. This is one franchise that needs to settle down. The original house isn't even recognizable anymore after the new owners renovated it and changed the street number. And someone found a second gun in the canal behind the house, suggesting a possible second shooter to the original murderers. I've watched the original and the remake and am satisfied with those

This makes me want to say a couple of things. First of all, the 2005 "remake" was a bit strange ( for ME) in a couple ways. First of all, Melissa George stating it was great to be
" working in the Amityville House", when the film was being shot in Wyoming or some stuff like that. Secondly, the guy playing the husband doesn't seem like a real horror movie kind of guy.

As for the " second gun", when people in the family were sleeping, how come they didn't wake up when the gun was going off?

I got a kick out of hearing Ryan Reynolds being referred to as 'the guy' who played the husband. I do agree he was horribly miscast though. It was like casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, I just couldn't take him seriously in the role. For Deadpool, he's perfect, in a horror film, not so much. It was a problem I had with the entire remake honestly. It took itself too seriously while, at the same time, trying to dive into some of the more bizarre claims the Lutz's made that even the original movie refused to touch. The 79 movie was a bit cheesy and over-the-top, and unintentional as that was, still I feel like that approach actually helped the film, especially nowadays knowing just how bizarre the Lutz's actual claims really were... And there's just a certain charm from films made in that timeframe that the remake just lacks.

As for why the kids didn't wake up, there's actually a lot of circumstantial information to support that they probably did. It's more than likely Butch, the killer, took out the parents first and it was likely pretty easy from him to control his younger siblings from there. The two boys shared a room and were both shot in their beds in the back of the head... There's no way one didn't wake up when his brother was getting shot across the room from him, and the youngest girl was shot in the face from less than two feet away. Some of the movies, an even the documentaries, try to make the murders appear more ritualistic or 'supernatural' then they actually were... Like claiming all six victims were all laying in the same position and were all shot in the back of the head, which is objectively not true. At least two of the victims were shot from the front and most at close range. It's like SonofOdin6039 said, the documentaries and details behind the case and subsequent paranormal hoax are far more intriguing than most of the movies.

If theres 50 of this and not 50 Friday the 13th something is WRONG.

Jason Voorhees wrote:If theres 50 of this and not 50 Friday the 13th something is WRONG.

SERIOUSLY wrong.

I'm Not a Goalie wrote:

ThePunisher wrote:

SonofOdin6039 wrote:Agreed. The actual documentary and case files are way more interesting than the sequels. This is one franchise that needs to settle down. The original house isn't even recognizable anymore after the new owners renovated it and changed the street number. And someone found a second gun in the canal behind the house, suggesting a possible second shooter to the original murderers. I've watched the original and the remake and am satisfied with those

This makes me want to say a couple of things. First of all, the 2005 "remake" was a bit strange ( for ME) in a couple ways. First of all, Melissa George stating it was great to be
" working in the Amityville House", when the film was being shot in Wyoming or some stuff like that. Secondly, the guy playing the husband doesn't seem like a real horror movie kind of guy.

As for the " second gun", when people in the family were sleeping, how come they didn't wake up when the gun was going off?

I got a kick out of hearing Ryan Reynolds being referred to as 'the guy' who played the husband. I do agree he was horribly miscast though. It was like casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, I just couldn't take him seriously in the role. For Deadpool, he's perfect, in a horror film, not so much. It was a problem I had with the entire remake honestly. It took itself too seriously while, at the same time, trying to dive into some of the more bizarre claims the Lutz's made that even the original movie refused to touch. The 79 movie was a bit cheesy and over-the-top, and unintentional as that was, still I feel like that approach actually helped the film, especially nowadays knowing just how bizarre the Lutz's actual claims really were... And there's just a certain charm from films made in that timeframe that the remake just lacks.

As for why the kids didn't wake up, there's actually a lot of circumstantial information to support that they probably did. It's more than likely Butch, the killer, took out the parents first and it was likely pretty easy from him to control his younger siblings from there. The two boys shared a room and were both shot in their beds in the back of the head... There's no way one didn't wake up when his brother was getting shot across the room from him, and the youngest girl was shot in the face from less than two feet away. Some of the movies, an even the documentaries, try to make the murders appear more ritualistic or 'supernatural' then they actually were... Like claiming all six victims were all laying in the same position and were all shot in the back of the head, which is objectively not true. At least two of the victims were shot from the front and most at close range. It's like SonofOdin6039 said, the documentaries and details behind the case and subsequent paranormal hoax are far more intriguing than most of the movies.

Glad I could give you a laugh. I couldn't remember " the guy's" name at the time I wrote the pose.

Another off-beat thing here. The family ran at least one car dealership under the family name on Long Island at the time. There are still car dealerships working under the family name these days on the island. I'm not if any questions are ever asked about the connection, but..........

The murders in that house are an actual case file. Ronald Defeo Jr. murdered his family with a lever action rifle Nov. 13th 1974. Witnesses reported seeing a second figure standing at the back door while Ronald was upstairs. But that is where fact ends and fiction begins. The Lutzs bought the house hoping to cash in on rumors of haunting and spread the tales of Defeo being possessed by the house. By the time it was denounced, the movie was already under way. As to why the family slept through the gunshots, I cannot speak. I was only a year old and half a country away lol. The haunting story started because of a police photo showing a boy with glowing eyes in the house behind officers during the investigation which was later debunked as some kid that got in the house and was photographed. The ghost stories are bull, but the murders did take place

SonofOdin6039 wrote:Agreed. The actual documentary and case files are way more interesting than the sequels. This is one franchise that needs to settle down. The original house isn't even recognizable anymore after the new owners renovated it and changed the street number. And someone found a second gun in the canal behind the house, suggesting a possible second shooter to the original murderers. I've watched the original and the remake and am satisfied with those

Can you blame the new owners for renovating and changing the street number? Can you imagine the weirdos showing up on your front lawn doing God knows what?

Exactly. I'd do the same in their place. Of course, I would probably pass on buying a known murder house in the first place

SonofOdin6039 wrote:Exactly. I'd do the same in their place. Of course, I would probably pass on buying a known murder house in the first place

Even at an affordable price?

Hmm. I suppose that under certain circumstances I could overlook the negative. But that circumstance would have to be a very low number lol

SonofOdin6039 wrote:Hmm. I suppose that under certain circumstances I could overlook the negative. But that circumstance would have to be a very low number lol

It;s good to have standards.

ThePunisher wrote:

Jason Voorhees wrote:If theres 50 of this and not 50 Friday the 13th something is WRONG.

SERIOUSLY wrong.

Bro theres a new one and its horrible.

Jason Voorhees wrote:

ThePunisher wrote:

Jason Voorhees wrote:If theres 50 of this and not 50 Friday the 13th something is WRONG.

SERIOUSLY wrong.

Bro theres a new one and its horrible.

OMG!!!!! I guess someone will always try to cash in on the name.