The Sixth Sense
A child psychologist wants to help Cole, a young boy who reminds him of a boy he once failed, looking into Cole's life Cole looks into his. Cole's secret, "I see dead people."
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
sharkeatingman,
your comment of my ‘overwhelming desire to be right’ probably comes from my desire to be right, once.
The film, The Sixth Sense is one of my favourite films, I’ve watched it 30 or so times.
My understanding of a hook is such that if a producer likes the I see dead people theme it would be a viable hook, whereas if the producer does not believe in ghosts and doesn’t like the subject, to him/ her it won’t be a hook.
About Willis’ character thinking his wife is having an affair, I view that part of the film as mere ‘space filler’. That part doesn’t seem to progress the story, and if it was removed the film wouldn’t be affected.
What is left is his perceived deteriating relationship with his wife, and Cole’s problem of seeing dead people.
I think it is a great attempt, but there is a lot ‘Cole’ in there. But again you did well.
Maybe my understanding of the film is different than yours, or perhaps even lacking. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I figured out that Willis’ character was killed two seconds after he was shot, so from that point on, I thought it was a terrible film. Whatever the reason is, this “minor” point of the movie is still a mere plot point. It is not the inciting incident, it is not a climax, it is not even a twist, therefore, IMO, it is not a “hook” and doesn’t qualify to be in the logline. The psychologist also suspects his wife is cheating on him; why is that not in the logline? For the same reason.
We ARE talking loglines, not a synopsis of the entire movie. By the way, if you conduct a Google search on this film, you would be hard pressed to see many mentions of this plot point. Much of the synopses found mostly discuss the “seeing dead people”, and none mention the shooter in the logline.
There’s only a limited amount of words one should use for a logline and, IMO, wasting words on this minor plot point- much like your four repeats of the character’s name- is a bad idea.
As I explained, I was offering my opinion with my only intention to help. You, on the other hand, became argumentative and insulting. In your overwhelming desire to “always be right” (yes, we’ve been down this road before; several times, in fact) you’ve deterred me from offering further assistance to you down the road. However, you should receive many helpful and highly qualified responses from several of the other reader’s and judges on the site. Enjoy;
I wish you nothing but the best.
Geno Scala (sharkeatingman)- judge
With regard to the way I wrote the logline, if it is wrong then fair enough. You are the expert, I am the beginner.
But your understanding of the film itself is, I consider to be, lacking.
Should I rewrite the logline as is, it becomes:
A child psychologist wants to help a boy, looking into the boys life the boy looks into his life, and sees he is dead.
To me that is wrong, as at the start of the film the psychologist is shot by Vincent.
Vincent and the boy have the same problem, they see dead people.
Towards the end of the film the psychologist is listening to a tape of a session with Vincent, and discovers another person talking to Vincent. The ‘I see dead people’ concept is realised. At that point the boy, Vincent and the psychologist ‘are on the same page’.
Having a look at my logline, the 12 words seem to be, ‘a young boy who reminds him of a boy he once failed’.
If I’m right, that is not an extremely minor point of the film. If anything it is the reasoning for the film.
Whether or not we interpret the film differently, or if I’m factually incorrect about the film doesn’t make your logline any more or less correct or effective. I was being “polite” when I said it was only “a bit off”. Most of the loglines I judge, comment on, and paid to assist with, or for concepts that have not yet been made, so it really doesn’t matter to the logline how you interpret the film. The fact still remains that in your logline version, you incorrectly mentioned a character’s name- not once, but four times, and you spent 12 words of a logline that shouldn’t exceed thirty words on a extremely minor point of the film. You can argue the point all you want, but it still doesn’t change the outcome.
I’m sorry that you take great offense in my constructive criticism, and I’ll be sure not to waste your time with it in the future. Best of luck to you!
Geno Scala, sharkeatingman- (yes, one of the logline judges for “Logline It!”)
sharkeatingman, what film were you watching?
Quote-The fact that the boy character reminds him of another isn’t relative to the bigger picture.
I saw the film being about a child psychologist treating a child who sees dead people. The film starts with the other boy, many references are made throughtout the film to the other boy, of course he was relative to the film, he is one of the reasons. Who killed the pschologist?
1/
The boy sees horrible images, but doesn’t know why or how.
Understanding the reasoning how people see the dead was not the point of the film.
The boy knew he was seeing dead people, he said it in the film.
2/
A child psychologist who treats him discovers that he is actually seeing dead people and doesn’t know it.
The boy knew he was seeing dead people, it was the psychologist who didn’t know it.
3/
Well, you got one right.
You put judge at the end. Judge of what? Hopefully it’s nothing to do with this site.
Classics section notwithstanding, this logline is a bit off. You really shouldn’t mention a character unless it is pertinant to understanding the story-: “When Einstein develops the theory of relativity…”, “When Santa Claus discovers…”. Mentioning him four times is completely off the tracks.
The idea of the logline is to highlight the most important points (hooks) of the story. The fact that the boy character reminds him of another isn’t relative to the bigger picture. The bigger hooks are:
1) A boy who sees horrible images, but doesn’t know why or how
2) A child psychologist who treats him discovers that he is actually seeing dead people and doesn’t know it.
3) The child psychologist also happens to be dead himself and doesn’t know it.
Once you identify the major hooks in a story, the logline somewhat writes itself, save a noun or adjective or two.
Geno Scala (sharkeatingman)- judge
CraigBerger,
This was put in the wrong section, it should have gone into the ‘classics’ section. As stated it is a logline for the film The Sixth Sense.
Too specific, I think. “A psychologist must overcome his greatest challenge; curing a ten year old boy who claims to have visions of dead people; the only problem is, his claims are true.”