The Conjuring's Actual House Owners Are Suing Warner Bros.

The Conjuring's Actual House Owners Are Suing Warner Bros.

The Conjuring

The owners of the house featured in The Conjuring are experiencing a little more than supernatural disturbances and are now seeking "unspecified monetary damages."

It kind of comes with the territory that allowing a major Hollywood production to shoot a movie on your property might lead to a bit of, how you say, increased tourist activity. In the case of James Wan's The Conjuring, that principle can be applied tenfold. It was a haunted house flick, for starters, and one that both played well with critics and managed to earn an astounding $318 million worldwide on just a $20 million budget. The home depicted in the film also happens to based on an allegedly true story, which was passed down from the home's previous owner to the husband and wife ghost-hunting team, Ed and Lorraine Warren.

Cue a couple thousand amateur ghost hunters and lovers of the paranormal suddenly wanting to make a trip to Harrisville, Rhode Island.

Unfortunately for the *current* owners of this allegedly haunted house, Norma Sutcliffe and Gerry Helfrich, The Conjuring's popularity has led to some unforeseen intrusions which have pushed them to the brink. Even worse is the fact that their property was not even used in the filming of The Conjuring, but simply hinted at in the film's closing credits.

The Boston Globe has the details:

(Sutcliffe and Helfrich) have filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros., claiming they have been under siege by curiosity-seekers, horror fans, and others who want to get a glimpse of the allegedly haunted house in The Conjuring.

If you're wondering how anyone knows where the house is, there's an on-screen message at the beginning of The Conjuring that says the movie is based on a "true story" that occurred in a home in Harrisville, R.I. Spend a few minutes with Google and you can find the address.

According to the lawsuit, Sutcliffe and Helfrich had no idea that the film being shot in their home was based on a true story until it was released, and have had to deal with a near constant flood of curious tourists ever since.

"We've been harassed, trespassed, stalked, and besieged," Sutcliffe told the Globe. "They come at all times of the day. Last Saturday, I called police at 3:30 a.m. because there was a whole group of them outside the house. It's horrendous."

Apparently, the "No Trespassing" signs Sutcliffe and Helfrich put up have done little to deter these film fanatics, which is why they are suing Warner Bros. for "unspecified monetary damages as well as a security system and security plan."

A security system, eh? I guess "using all that Warner Bros. cash to move out of your demon-infested cabin" just isn't an option, then?

Source: The Boston Globe

Permalink

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23877816

And yet, the house featured in the 'true story' isn't the one in the film...which was a specially-constructed set.

JaredJones:

The only logical next step in their minds is of course to sue Warner Bros for, I dunno, making too good of a movie or something.

Not so much for "making too good of a movie or something" as "painting a target on their home and presenting it as cultural public domain without asking their permission.. or something."

JaredJones:

Hmm, I guess "using all that Warner Bros. cash to move out of your demon-infested cabin" just isn't an option, then?

This feels really out of place, possibly even in poor taste and/or mean-spirited. What Warner Bros. cash? The sources have no information on the occupants receiving any kind of compensation before or after the films production and release. And considering the suit has just been filed, there's zero guarantee that any such compensation will be offered.
Also:

"My parents have spent more than $100,000 restoring the farmhouse," she said.
"They love the house. They don't want to move away from it. They want to spend the rest of their lives there. They just want to be left alone.
"They knew about the history of the property when they bought it but the story was not that widely known before.
"It's the movie that has triggered all this."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23877816

And:

It won't end. It's like 'Amityville,' Sutcliffe said, referring to the film The Amityville Horror. I mean, can you imagine the horror of trying to sell this house?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/10/27/rhode-island-couple-sues-warner-bros-over-the-conjuring-claims-they-beseiged-horror-fans/8TsDnSL1ewUayjHyp5h1QJ/story.html

Edited to prevent my inbox from being flooded.

All I'll say now is that it was a crap movie to begin with so I don't see why anyone would want to waste time/money/effort in seeking out the house. :P

RJ 17:
I'm pretty sure this sort of thing would be covered in the contract and any waivers that the house owners signed when they agreed to get paid for allowing their house to be used in the making of this film. As such, I can't imagine that they have any ground to stand on with this one.

The challenge is that the house wasn't actually used in the film and the family signed nothing with Warner.

It just happens to be the haunted house where the supposed true story took place.

Hah! The shaky foundations of a vague, dubious ghost story has conjured the true horrors of life; Life itself. More specifically, human arseholes. Hope that teaches them valuble lessons for living. Also, capitalising on bullshit implied as fact is probably not a good thing for your karma. And by karma, i mean conscience.

RJ 17:
I'm pretty sure this sort of thing would be covered in the contract and any waivers that the house owners signed when they agreed to get paid for allowing their house to be used in the making of this film. As such, I can't imagine that they have any ground to stand on with this one.

the house wasnt used for filming. the house you see in the movie was a set build specifically for the movie since you have to fit in a whole camera crew in there.

Quick polling question: Has anyone seen this movie who can attest to what's supposedly said/written about the actual location in the closing credits?

chikusho:

This feels really out of place, possibly even in poor taste and/or mean-spirited. What Warner Bros. cash? The sources have no information on the occupants receiving any kind of compensation before or after the films production and release. And considering the suit has just been filed, there's zero guarantee that any such compensation will be offered.

"Mean-spirited"

The pun game is strong with this one.

The smart thing to do would be to bite the bullet and sell the property... Not really biting the bullet because at this point the house can probably be sold for a goddamn fortune.

TheRundownRabbit:
The smart thing to do would be to bite the bullet and sell the property... Not really biting the bullet because at this point the house can probably be sold for a goddamn fortune.

I don't think most places with a creepy history sell that well (or fast). Visiting and studying a location is one thing, but at the end of the day even the paranormal crazed ghost hunters want to come back to a home to relax and not have that nagging feeling that something bad is around. Beyond that, even if someone doesn't believe in the supernatural, they're not going to put 3am foot traffic from strangers in the plus column and any savvy buying is going to use it as leverage to attempt to lower the asking price substantially.

JaredJones:
A security system, eh? I guess "using all that Warner Bros. cash to move out of your demon-infested cabin" just isn't an option, then?

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that said they got paid or that they even allowed anyone to film on their property, just that the farm house used on the set looked different. So WB made a profit, hinted to the location of the real place and now the owners (who have received nothing but a barrage of harassment
from the movie) are seeking compensation so they can up their security.

So WB actually sorta kinda doxed these people?

Yeah i do say thats a reason to sue WB, you simply dont do that shit.

And that last comment is really in poor taste. Imagine someone telling you you should leave your home if youre being harassed by a bunch of nutjobs day in and out just because some big movie company gave "hints" as to where this suposed spook house that their movie is about is located.

No, WB is to blame here and these people should not have to move out of their house just because a big movie company couldnt rub two brain cells together and think for a moment what would happen.

"A security system, eh? I guess "using all that Warner Bros. cash to move out of your demon-infested cabin" just isn't an option, then?"

Hehe... I do wonder; in the past this would drop the value of a house greatly (been in a haunting movie), but nowadays there's some weirrrd people who probably LOVE to live there. So what does that do to the resale value?

Sueing WB actually seems like it might be fair in this case. If they didn't ever sign a contract with WB to have a story about their home being made then it seems like WB have violated their privacy.

Personally, I think it makes more sense to sue the Warrens (or Lorraine Warren anyway, since she's still alive) for making this shit up in the first place and (presumably) getting big bucks from WB for the privilege.

As much pride as I would have in something I'd invested so much in to restore, the second I'd heard it was haunted and a bunch of loonies wanted to have a look-see; I'd walk right out on the front porch screaming "We're gonna start the bidding at one million! Do I hear one million!?".

I don't think Warner Bros should be the target of this lawsuit, but they had the deepest pockets. As for the "ghost hunters", it is amazing how tactless people can be that they feel like they have the right to trespass on private property to chase something that doesn't exist.

May i suggest the old "Release the hounds".

Gatlank:
May i suggest the old "Release the hounds".

There are times when Mr Burn's certainly had a point with that line.
If these people are being harassed because WB gave away the location of the home without permission then by all rights these people have a case. Although one wonders where the police are in this, trespassing at least where I live isn't ignored by the authorities.

JaredJones:

A security system, eh? I guess "using all that Warner Bros. cash to move out of your demon-infested cabin" just isn't an option, then?

And with that quote it is painfully obvious you have never actually owned a property similar to this.
You don't just pack your bags and move out to another place like with some apartment or suburban house. City people rarely understand this.
A very ignorant statement.

The American Dream! Sue someone and get rich!

Czann:
The American Dream! Sue someone and get rich!

The great thing about America is you can sue anybody for pretty much anything! - GTA III Radio Commercial.

JaredJones:

A security system, eh? I guess "using all that Warner Bros. cash to move out of your demon-infested cabin" just isn't an option, then?

What? It's too unreasonable for people to leave them alone? This is worse than all the jokes about the government spying on you. They're not even celebrities. I mean, in what universe is it lawful to give the people trespassing and such what they want? You should redact that comment, as it sets a bad precident.

chikusho:

Not so much for "making too good of a movie or something" as "painting a target on their home and presenting it as cultural public domain without asking their permission.. or something."

Considering that Neither Warner Bros nor the movie did any of the sort....

Strazdas:

chikusho:

Not so much for "making too good of a movie or something" as "painting a target on their home and presenting it as cultural public domain without asking their permission.. or something."

Considering that Neither Warner Bros nor the movie did any of the sort....

Unless they did, in which case...

chikusho:

Strazdas:

chikusho:

Not so much for "making too good of a movie or something" as "painting a target on their home and presenting it as cultural public domain without asking their permission.. or something."

Considering that Neither Warner Bros nor the movie did any of the sort....

Unless they did, in which case...

Had they done it i could understand the lawsuit, but since they didnt, the lawsuit is foolish.

Strazdas:

chikusho:

Strazdas:

Considering that Neither Warner Bros nor the movie did any of the sort....

Unless they did, in which case...

Had they done it i could understand the lawsuit, but since they didnt, the lawsuit is foolish.

I agree, but since they did, it's perfectly justified.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here