Talk:The Sixth Sense/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

Thanks, KQ. Your grammar correction and your deletion of the "crazy" sentence made it a better article. Ed Poor, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Ummm, don't you think that it would be necessary to have this page be "Sixth Sense(Movie)" and have a real article that is about "The Sixth Sense" as used in describing ESP, etc? DropDeadGorgias

Agree, except that, per Wikipedia style, it should be "The Sixth Sense (film)". Also, there was an occult-themed ABC tv series in 1972-73 starring Gary Collins and Christina Ferrare titled The Sixth Sense. I imagine there are probably also novels and non-fiction books with a similar title. --Canonblack 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In trivia, the director M. Knight S. is listed as making a cameo as Cole's doctor, but he also appears again in a scene at Mrs. Crowe's store as the fiancee of a pretty Indian woman who is looking at an antique ring. -marina--marina 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDB, that actor's name is Firdous Bamji. Pumpkingrrl 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

New Page For "I See Dead People?"

Most of the "In Popular Culture" section seems to be about movies alluding to the line, and since there are already other pages specifically about famous quotes from movies ("May the Force Be With You", "You talkin' to me?", "Love means never having to say you're sorry", "Go ahead, make my day") would it make sense for us to make a seperate one for I see dead people (rather than have it redirect to this page)? It would shorten this page and it's a well known (and important to the movie) enough quote to deserve its own article. Irish♣Pearl 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much?

Isn't this plot outline a bit too detailed, seeing as how it describes essentially every minute of the film?DS 20:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a bit too much. Some other pages have the same though. See for instance Alien vs. Predator (movie). Is there a policy on this?--J-Star 09:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with detail and content? At least it makes the movie amenable to some gentle analysis without having watch the movie with a magnifying glass. Dysprosia 09:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an encyclopedia, not a place where we try to cram as much information as possible in one spot. The line must be drawn somewhere. If we look at the extremes of information possible, at the lower end being to just post the title, and at the high end we publish the entire DVD as an ISO plus in-depth coverage of everything down to a fashion analysis of attire worn by the dead cyclist at the end of the movie. Somwhere in between these two we must draw the line of how much we will put into this article. Now clearly what is written there is within these extreme limits. But I for one think it's too much. Especially since very little other is written about the movie in this article.--J-Star 11:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should aim to carry detailed information on its subject matter. The article should aim to present as much information as necessary to be useful. A short paragraph on the plot is less useful than a detailed exposition of the subject matter. The comparison to providing a DVD is specious as it would be clearly illegal to do so. If it is possible to upload a copy of a movie legally of some movie, and space matters were not an issue (ie., if Wikimedia permitted such large files), then it would be to the great benefit of the reader. Of course the article would be well served to have some detailed analysis of the movie in such a detailed manner as in the exposition of the plot, but I am no film theorist. However any good analysis of a work must come with an exposition of the work in some fashion as not to be completely without context. Dysprosia 11:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If we were to upload the entire movie, then we have moved beyond the role of encyclopedia and instead become a media distributor. That is not the role of Wikipedia. Also there is such a thing as Too Much Information. A person reading this article for the purpose of information now have to sift through large amounts of text to find the desired information.

I never mean that only a short paragraph on the plot should be carried in the article. Only that we do not need such a detailed description of it. Basically this is not information about the movie but rather a retelling of the script.

If I can the lead out I'll try to write a shorter version of the plot and post that. But I also invite others to beat me to the task. ;) --J-Star 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If one is to study a work in any manner, including encyclopedically, a detailed examination of the work is necessary. A simple cursory look at the work will not be enough. As to "sift through large amount of texts" -- what "information" is there? There's no analysis of the work whatsoever on this article and its what this article desperately needs, not to take the sickle to it. Secondly, what is in the article is absolutely not a retelling of the script.

It's a sad day on Wikipedia when have to talk about cutting content and information from articles rather than to add it... Dysprosia 06:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding information is not a self-justifying purpose. Like I said: there is such a thing as "Too much information". Cramming information into the article in absurdum can ruin it rather than benefit it. The goal of Wikipedia is not to pack the database with as much information as possible, but with the right amount of relevant information.

I and DS are claming that this detailed description of the script is not the right amount, nor relevant, for this article. But like I said above: I guess it's up to me to propose something better to replace this with (or - through this discussion - inspire others to do so ;) ).--J-Star 07:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You and DS do not form a clear consensus. If there is a clear consensus to have the detail removed, I will do it personally.

That being said, you say "adding information is not a self-justifying purpose". Then what on earth are we doing here working on articles? What purpose is there in creating an encyclopedia? Is containing information on a topic surely part of this purpose? Is not the actual movie details relevant?! I also hardly' think that the article as it stands is an "absurd" amount of information, even if we concede your point.

If you truly think that the "right amount of relevant information" is lacking from the article, why don't you concentrate your efforts on finding and summarizing analyses of the movie, instead of removing content? Dysprosia 08:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's right, adding information is - in itself - not a self-justifying purpose. That is not the point of Wikipedia and we are not here for the sole purpose of adding information. If we were here for that purpose alone I could calculate a table of the function sin(x) for one million x's between 0 and 2 pi accurate to 100 decimal places, claim it's "information" (which it is) and add that to Wikipedia. According to your interpretation of the purpose of Wikipedia, that would be a worthwhile task/article. But I think you can see that it's just waste of time since it would not constitute a good Wikipedia article and would be voted for deletion in no-time.

Speaking of that, are you advocating that we remove Votes For Deletion from Wikipedia? After all, that removes information. I don't think so. I think you are perfectly aware that labeling something "information" does not make it immune for deletion.

We are here for the purpose of creating articles that may benefit others, not just to add information. An article shall be meaningful and beneficial, not just information for the sole purpose of collecting information. Of course the interpretation of "meaningful and beneficial" is a most subjective term... which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

I for one do not think such a detailed recitation of the movie script is relevant, meaningful or even beneficial to such an extent that it cannot be shortened. This article is about the movie... it is not the movie itself. For the movie itself, the script in complete detail is most relevant. But for an article about the movie, such detail is not always relevant. So about your question: "Is not the actual movie details relevant?!", my answer is: "No, such a highly detailed recitation of the movie details is not automatically relevant". It may be relevant. But I'm not automatically assuming that.

I have already stated that when I get around to it, I'll suggest another description of the plot. There is no need for you to start telling me what to do in that regard since I have already - 2 postings ago - mentioned this.

--J-Star 11:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Such a table of values would be relevant for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. So your analogy again is not quite relevant, and does not aid your argument. Note that Wikisource has Pi to a large number of decimal places. So, Wikipedia may not have such information, but Wikisource does.

Votes for deletion does not always remove information either, and voting for something for deletion is not always a vote that information be removed either.

Again, this is not a recitation of the movie script -- that is a ridiculous assertation.

I did not "tell [you] what to do in that regard", I merely made a suggestion that would result in a more productive effort.

I am going to get rid of the section. Hopefully it will put a rest to such argument in future. Dysprosia 12:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well personally I think you just overreacted. I didn't ask for that section to be purged at any cost. I just asked "Isn't this a bit much"? --J-Star 13:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

In some circumstances I feel that it is better that content that I have provided and has been disputed or disagreed to, be removed or not be replaced (though I may not agree with the dispute, for example). I won't mind either way if you revert or not. I simply don't want to be drawn into excessive debate. Dysprosia 08:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have to say that I agree somewhat on this point. I think, though, that there are certain films where it is okay to put the entire plot summary, so that we can find out what happens without having to watch the entire film with a magnifying glass, as said by a Dysprosia above. If you ask me, this is one of the films where its OKAY. It's not a film a whole lot of people are interested in seeing, as it might scare them out of their wits, so they would rather read the summary. The article is now incomplete, as it doesn't even explain what this "sixth sense" is. Now, we should be paying more attention to the film War of the Worlds, because this IS a movie that thousands of people want to see and not have it spoiled for them. Therein, I suggest that the plot summary of this film be placed back and that the summary of War of the Worlds be reduced to where it doesn't give too much away. I read the summary and it was spoiled for me. Scorpionman 23:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Um... I'm not too sure how to use this discussion board, but I need to say something, the part of the article that is about the various uses of the line "I see dead people" in popular culture has, in my oppinion, a very irritating statement which says that the line was "ruled" to be no longer funny. It ends there. It doesn't say by who, and to me it's something which cannot be "ruled". Who ruled it? God? Come on, sure it's a bit overused but some people may still find it funny. So whoever ruled it to be no longer funny is trying to speak on behalf of every individual alive. It's a stupid and apathetic statement. I want to delete it but a friend of mine was irritated by another statement on a seperate wikipedia article and he changed it and some guy blocked him. So... {^_^}

Mischa Barton

The fact that 'a young, pre-fame Mischa Barton' plays the part of Kyra is mentioned up to three times in the article: once in the plot outline, once in the Cast section, and once in the trivia section. That's a lot of attention for a bit part from a not quite legendary actress. I suggest that either the trivia entry or the mention in the plot outline is removed.

Oh she's legendary alright, and needs to be mentioned as many times as possible. In fact, every film that has her in it should have a "Main Article: Mischa Barton" redirect. Every wikipedia page should have a redirect to Mischa. Even the one about frogs.Tarkaan 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at it

Shouldn't someone add that there's another way to atch the film again, now realizing that Crowe is dead? - Someone

Not really. The DVD mentions it... You know, I wonder how this film is regarded in comparison to other Shyamalan works.. It's the best in my opinion, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the general consensus.--Vercalos 07:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way, i've seen this film loads of times.

Budget?

In the infobox, it lists the budget as being $55 million, yet elsewhere in the article it states the budget as being $40 million. This should be checked and then referenced properly in both places. -- Tom McGuire, 6/16/06, 20:21 GMT

Done.Richard75 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

12 Monkeys

Anybody else noticed that Bruce Willis utters "All I see is dead people" after beating up the thugs in 12 Monkeys? I would have thought it's a reference to Sixth Sense as both star Bruce Willis as a male lead, but apparently the film was shown on the silver screen four years before Sixth Sense (1995 vs. 1999).

This seems like a very odd coincidence -- does anyone know whether it was intentional? I don't think Bruce Willis went back in time to make an obscure reference to a catch phrase from four years into the future. Maybe the line in The Sixth Sense was a reference to Twelve Monkeys. But I highly doubt it. But it is possible. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mother's Behavior

I've added a request for citation for the suggestion that the poisoned girl's mother's behavior was Munchausen syndrome by proxy . It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but I don't remember her wanting to get attention by having a sick daughter. I just remember her wanting to have no children to get in her way.Estreya 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Twist Ending

I am just curious why didn't write what the twist ending was??? With google anyone can find that it was Bruce Williams who actually was a dead ghost, too. -Igoruha 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Bruce Williams? With Google anyone can find out that it was Bruce Willis that starred in this film. Matt7895 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'I see dead people' section: Johnny Phantom

This needs to be cleaned up or deleted. Having never seen the show, I wouldn't know what they were talking about, but I don't want to delete it, seeing as it is a reference and by the sound of the name there would be a fair few possible references. ~~Lazyguy~~I r needing userboxes plz! 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I See (too much) "dead people" and other Trivia

The "In popular culture" is still nothing but a "Trivia" section and needs work. I was revising the intro a month and a half ago and I noticed a problem. If I was to write an intro that summarized the article I would add the sentence "...this movie is just as well known for its influence on other movies and popular culture". The reason why I would add that is because almost half of this article is about that influence. The Wikipedia guidelines on Undue weight would apply here re: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The standard of reference here would IMHO be not whether you can reliably cite any individual piece of trivia, but whether you can reliably source an article (maybe several) as to Sixth Sense's influence on overall popular culture. The reference to the "AFI top 100" seems a valid mention, but as to the rest of it, since there are no references to material that has been published by reliable sources, and since what has been added is individual editors observations of the taglines appearance in popular culture, it all becomes original thought. I am moving the whole section to talk because this. Halfblue 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

• In the TV series Scrubs, the Janitor is absorbed in a DVD of the film, and neglects to clean up a spill that caused Dr. Cox to fall over. Cox retaliates by taunting the janitor with the spoiler "Bruce Willis is a ghost. He's been dead the whole time" but the janitor later threatens Dr. Cox with the score of the Lakers Heat basketball game. They settle their dispute by the janitor receiving a home-cooked meal, and an hour in Dr. Cox's massage chair.
  • "My Screw Up", an episode of Scrubs, is a homage to the film involving many similar aspects.
• In the TV series My Name is Earl, one of Earl's transgressions on his list is that he gave away the film's twist ending to his ex-wife Joy.
• Following the series finale of the British sitcom One Foot in the Grave, in which the lead character, Victor Meldrew, died, a special short was made for a charity telethon showing Victor visiting a sick relative with his wife Margaret. The scene involves a long dialogue from Victor, which Margaret, true to character, seems to ignore. After some time and after making some references to this movie, Victor finally realizes that he is a ghost whom no one can see or hear. In addition, after the TV showing of this, Lenny Henry (who was presenting the telethon) remarked, "I see dead people".
• In reference to the over-saturation of the line, the film 50 First Dates uses The Sixth Sense as a plot device for Lucy's condition and the toll it takes on her family, as she sees it for the first time every day.
• In the episode "Letters from Pegasus" from the first season of Stargate Atlantis, Dr McKay says that he has only seen the first half of the film and that he has "... always wondered how that ended."

• That line had previously been invoked by Billy Crystal at the Academy Awards in the spring of 2000. In one of his sketches, the TV camera would zoom in on various celebrities in the audience, and Crystal would speak a joking line that was supposed to be what the actor was "really thinking". When the camera focused on Michael Clarke Duncan of The Green Mile, Crystal said, "I see white people!" In the movie Twelve Monkeys, released 4 years before this film, Bruce Willis says the line "All I see are dead people." Whether this is coincidental or not, both movies share the same actor, not to mention the name Cole, and were filmed principally in Philadelphia.
• The line and scene are parodied in the Family Guy episode "No Meals on Wheels," with Peter Griffin replacing Cole. Rather than tell Bruce Willis' character that he "sees dead people," Peter encourages him, through a similar line, to come to the restaurant Peter's family had created. In the South Park episode "The Death of Eric Cartman," the character Butters says "I'm like this kid, I see dead people!" In the chalkboard gag during the opening sequence of the Simpsons episode "Take My Wife, Sleaze," Bart writes "I can't see dead people."
• In Scary Movie, shortly after smoking marijuana, Shorty imitates the 'I see dead people' line before laughing uncontrollably and saying, "Man, this shit is awesome!" MADtv showcased a skit parodying the old Pepsi commercials with the little girl who got mad whenever someone confused Pepsi and Coca-Cola. In it, the girl said, "I see dead people... and live ones too..." In an episode of Blue Collar TV, A ghost who is frightened of the rednecks remarks "I see rednecks."
• An episode of Alias is entitled "I See Dead People." An episode of Duck Dodgers is titled "I See Duck People."
• In an episode of the television series Hannah Montana, Haley Joel Osment's younger sister Emily Osment's character says she sees dead people.
• In an episode of Bravo's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Carson Kressley discovered a hideous-looking puppet in the straight man's house and said, "I see straight people!"
• In an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, while Sara Sidle is at a funeral home, one of the morticians tells her that morticians see things differently than other people. She replies "You see dead people. Yeah, so do I!"
• In Universal Studios's Shrek 4-D attraction, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) says "I feel dead people." In The Haunted Mansion, Michael Evers tells his father (played by Murphy), "I see dead people," while in a carriage filled with ghosts.
• In the 2002 film Undercover Brother, the title character undergoes a form of brainwashing by an African-American spy group to absorb white culture. Undercover Brother finally has a "Caucasian overload" and whimpers "I see white people!"

• In the trailer to the movie Harsh Times the character Jim David who is played by Christian Bale delivers the line "I see dumb people."
• In Blizzard Entertainment's strategy game Warcraft III, a Necromancer says "I see undead people" amongst other comical lines when the player clicks him repeatedly in a short period of time. Another undead unit, the Ghoul, says "I eat dead people" in the same situation (and actually does to replenish lost health). "IseeDeadPeople" is also a cheat in the game that reveals the entire map. . In Jagex's MMORPG RuneScape, a character notes "I see dead people" when the player examines an opened coffin. In the PC game Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide, the kobold Deekin mutters "Deekin sees dead people" when the player encounters a ruined camp.
• Rapper Redman has a song titled "I C Dead People" featured on the Ill at Will Mixtape Vol. 1 released March 13th, 2004. The song features samples from dead emcees Tupac, Biggie Smalls, Big L and Big Pun. The song "Standing Ovation" by Young Jeezy features the line "Got it by the truckload, like the bread people / I got a sixth sense, I stack dead people."
• In a 2005 edition of the BBC Radio comedy show I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, panelist Graeme Garden parodied the title and the "I see dead people" line with the title The Third Sense: I See Deaf People.
• The line made the lore of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling when Planet Jarrett "buried" the careers of Team 3D in October 2005 (James Storm, before making a joke, said mock-frightened, "I hear dead people!").
• In the 2006 movie Zoom, when showing her powers in the audition, Summer says, "I see things." To which Jack Shepard replies, "Do you see dead people?"
• Fans of the San Francisco Giants wear T-shirts that read 'I See Orange People' in reference to the team colors of orange and black.
• Parodied on the Australian movie show The Bazura Project, Episode 1.01, as part of the episode's opening sequence.
• In Dude, Where's the Party?, Kal Penn wakes up in middle of the night and says "I see indian people."
• In Farce of the Penguins, when Karl says, Mountain Springs, Jimmy says that he saw dead peope as he looked at the old ladies.
• A track on the Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End soundtrack is titled "I See Dead People in Boats."
• In Blizzard Entertainment's MMORPG game World Of Warcraft there is a territory, where character may speak with little boy, who sais: "I See Dead Draenei" (Draenei is one of the humanoid races in the game). The boy claims, that nobody believes him, even his mom does not believe him, and only one man, who was a healer in the past, do not think he is crazy. The territory in the game is actually filled with dead Draenei, player has to deal with them and fight with them, so no doubt little boy tells truth.

_________________________________end of selection

Added trivia

• On the second episode of the new G4 tv show, Code Monkeys, the character Dave says to a kid, "Tell me if this is a good idea for a movie: a guy gets killed but doesn't know he's a ghost until at the end." (added by Halfblue 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
• Rapper The Game even used it in his hit single Okay (One Blood).
• Several television shows and movies make reference to the twist ending, usually with someone finding out how it ends before they finish watching it. In particular an episode of Scrubs had Dr. Cox spoil the ending for Janitor resulting in Janitor seeking revenge.

_____More "dead people" and other useless trivia______ Added by 64.0.112.95 (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• In a 2005 episode of the Comedy Central series,South Park, Butters says, "I'm like the kid in that movie, I see dead people!
• Several television shows and movies make reference to the twist ending, usually with someone finding out how it ends before they finish watching it. In the television show Scrubs, the Janitor holds a grudge against Dr. Cox for telling him the ending of the movie before he finished watching it.
• Scrubs episode "My Screw Up" was a direct homage to the film, with Dr. Cox's best friend dying shortly into the episode but only being revealed to be dead at the end, while attending his funeral.
• 50 First Dates has Drew Barrymore's character repeating the same day over and over, which includes a watching of The Sixth Sense for "the first time".
• In the episode "Torn Between Two Hannahs" on Disney's hit show Hannah Montana, Lilly (Emily Osment — Haley Joel Osment's younger sister) responds to Miley's lament about her cousin being evil by referencing her brother's character: "Oh, please. Next you're going to be saying "she sees dead people!".
• The musical version of Legally Blonde has the character Paulette say "I see dead people!" upon seeing the ghostly apparitions of Serena, Margot and Pilar.
• The catch phrase "I see dead people" is used as a cheat-code in Warcraft 3 to reveal the whole map.
• In Fallout Tactics the player can encounter a mutated cow (brahmin) surrounded by ghostly cows who says that he "sees dead brahmin".
• On one version of the DVD cover of Scary Movie 3, Brenda can be seen wearing a shirt that says "I see white people."
• In rapper The Game's hit single, One Blood, he begins the song by saying, "Dre, I see dead people."
• In rapper Xzibit's hit single "Get Ya Walk On", he states "Dead People!"
• Osment's younger sister, Emily Osment, plays Lily Truscott on Disney Channel's Hannah Montana. In the episode Torn Between Two Hannahs, Miley's (evil) cousin, Luanne, comes to visit. Although she seems perfectly nice to everyone except Miley, Miley warns Lily about Luann. Lily comments, "The next thing you'll tell me is 'she sees dead people'." This could be a reference to the fact that Emily Osment's older brother, Haley Joel Osment, played Cole Sear, the child who "sees dead people". (added by 64.0.112.25 (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

__________________________________

These types of sections are incredibly difficult to work with. A suggestion might be to introduce a narrative, prose-style discussion of how the twist ending is used in popular culture (i.e. as a vengeful way of giving away the ending, etc.). I'd also go back to a previous suggestion of having a separate article just on the use of "I see dead people" (at least it would get that junk off this main article). You're right, it's all just trivia. --Midnightdreary 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I can see the problem. I have moved another trivial observation to this section. A separate article may be in order. Prose-style integration may work in this article if there are verifiable articles out there that cover this topic. Halfblue 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the best bet will be going ahead with a separate article. I'd support it. Anyone else reading this want to comment? --Midnightdreary 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see precedent for giving this phase its own article over at AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes, lots of linked phrases put up on Wikipedia an I don't see too many people saying "this shit is un-encyclopedic (my only concern about posting the article). According to Wikipedia:What's in, what's out “Catchphrases: in, if they have had a genuine run of popularity, and if the article is more than a dictdef, and if the article is reasonably good.” I will take a whack at putting up the article unless you or someone else beats me to it (I can be pretty slow at getting to things on WP sometimes). Halfblue 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some fairly big edits

I've made some fairly big edits. Thanks a Lot, i was just reading this while watching the movie for the first time, and bamb, spoiled the ending.nice job!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.117.183 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody had splattered some kind of "beware major spoilers" thing all over the article, which I removed.

I think the movie has been out long enough for us not to make a huge thing out of the twist ending, so I'm factored it back into the synopsis. There may be people who have been hiding under a rock for the past eight years but those people will be able to see the words "twist ending" in the lead and act accordingly.

I removed the "differences in the screenplay" section because I couldn't work out how it was sourced. The material itself may or may not be significant if, for instance, the original (unshot) screenplay is widely referred to, otherwise probably not. If it is, then it can be sourced from whoever refers to it widely.

I changed the lead to emphasize the three signatures of Shyamalan: twist endings, Hitchcock-like cameos, and the color red.

I credited Shyamalan's (very minor) appearance because of its external significance as a cameo by the writer.

Probably some other changes, largely minor. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"color red as a symbol of strangeness or otherness"

I have added need for citation re: "color red as a symbol of strangeness or otherness". Is there a source for this or is it just an opinion? 69.72.2.71 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the documentary that accompanied the video release. What's not mentioned though is the exact same technique was used in another classic supernatural movie "Don't Look Now" from 1973 in which a woman could also see dead people with strong red symbolism appearing on screen coincident with these supernatural events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.180.101 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox data invisible?

Why is some of the data in the infobox not showing? Anchoress (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

The following section has been moved to talk because it is un-referenced:

When Donnie Wahlberg was cast as Vincent Grey, he was much larger and more muscular than Shyamalan had originally intended (the character was supposed to have been living on the streets for a period of time), Wahlberg promised to lose weight to look more like what Shyamalan had planned. By the time they were ready to film Wahlberg had lost so much weight that Shyamalan did not recognize him when he walked past him in the hallway.

70.211.237.145 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference for that is on the bonus features of the DVD, as well as the reference for Though the filmmakers were careful about clues of Malcolm's true state, the camera zooms slowly towards Crowe's face when Cole says "I see dead people." In a special feature the filmmakers mention they initially feared this shot would be a giveaway, but decided to leave it in. I don't know how to add references, but I think leaving this here might help.

190.246.13.232 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Poison

What was the poison the girl was being given? I know it's not very important to the article, but given that to me, it just looked like some brand of orange cordial, a single link when the poisoning is being mentioned might be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.24.147 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it the mother who was doing the poisoning, or was it a hired nanny? 206.53.196.225 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm's identity as a ghost

Although the narrative of the film goes to some lengths to conceal the fact that Malcolm is a ghost, the purpose of this article about the film is different from the purpose of the film. Since Malcolm's identity as a ghost is pivotal to the film's importance, it should be in the lead. I've placed it there. In my opinion its absence from the lead can only have been due to a misplaced feeling that the encyclopedia should attempt to conceal, rather than reveal, information. --TS 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The current version of WP:SPOILER reads "Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.". So the guideline suggest that the section sub heading "Plot" or "Ending" as a form of warning, and therefore spoilers go below that minimal warning, and not in the lead paragraph. Also the encyclopedic purpose of WP:LEAD does not seem to be served here, a very small part of the film is about Crowe being dead. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Salary Information

Just wondering why this is included...is it notable in some way? Doniago (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed! It seems awfully irrelevant to the article. Perhaps, we should consider removing it? IndulgentReader (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've also standardized the listing in general. Doniago (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

About Kyra's poisoning

What exactly was used to poison Kyra? I can't quite read the label on the bottle her mother uses in the video. Thanks! _The Hiddey_ 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

criticisms

i noticed that their were not criticisms mentioned on this page of the movie. where there no critics of the movie? i'm curious as to why this has been left out? was there insufficient data? Killemall22 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

spoiler alert

This is one of those articles that badly needs a spoiler alert. Is there any way to hide the film's denoument so that the reader can see it only if he or she chooses to? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't do spoiler alerts here. If I read an encyclopedic entry about something I've never watched, I expect it to have a complete plot summary. WP:SPOILER Millahnna (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Name of movie in China?

Anyone able to find any evidence that points at this movie being titled as "He's a Ghost" in China? There are some references to this online, but I think it's probably false. This article in Chinese makes no mention of it.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted plot to usable form

The plot for this film was removed and replaced with "SPOILERS". While I appreciate the thought behind this, Wikipedia policy is to allow spoilers without a spoiler warning. I have therefore restored the plot outline to the 10/7/13 version of the article.

kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Muenchausen syndrome by proxy?

I think the reference to the above term should be removed from the sentence "Kyra's stepmotherputting floor cleaner fluid in Kyra's food", because the actions in the movie are mere poisoning, not related to any "willing to fulfill their need for positive attention by hurting their own child, thereby assuming the sick role by proxy". VZakharov (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do you think that? Is it common in Russia for mothers to maliciously murder their children by "merely poisoning" them? The poisoning is clearly not an accident, and Munchhausen by proxy is well-known enough in America, that when a mother is found to have so done, that is the 99 per cent likely motive. The intent is generally to chronically sicken, not kill (so the mother can sustain the sympathy of others), and deaths are usually accidental. And it is very high probability that was what Shyamalan intended to imply. No other motive is implied, or likely. The maternal instinct is so strong, that there is no other good reason for "mere poisoning" of a child than this mental illness. I think this falls within the consensus of valid primary sourcing for movie plots in MOS:FILM (i.e. "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" would conclude the girl was a victim of MBP).

I just put this the wikilink in, not knowing about this three-year-old precedent, and another user has overzealously reverted it based on your post. I cry foul. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sixth Sense. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106221121/http://pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2000.shtml to http://pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2000.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Sixth Sense. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204000219/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NebulaWinsByCategory.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NebulaWinsByCategory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929135546/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25569 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25569

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Laytham, Brent D. (2006). "Time for Hope: The Sixth Sense, American Beauty, Memento, and Twelve Monkeys". In Griesinger, Emily; Eaton, Mark (eds.). The Gift of Story: Narrating Hope in a Postmodern World. Baylor University Press. pp. 69–84. ISBN 1932792473.
• Ringstrom, Philip A. (2001). "The Sixth Sense". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.

Cameo role

The writer / director casts themselves in the film (as Dr Hill). At least I assume it is the same person, there can't be two with that name. However I can't find any source which discusses this / highlights it. So if anyone finds one, perhaps they could add the details to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:4682:6601:9C69:3E:854A:E62E (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Film's genre

The general worldwide consensus is that this film has been widely considered as a horror film- not as a psychological thriller. While it does have elements of both, it's been listed as one of the 6 horror films nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards- alongside The Exorcist (1973), Jaws (1975), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Black Swan (2010) and Get Out (2017). Going by those facts, this article- as well as the article for Jaws- should both be changed to reflect that both films are horror films, but if it would be preferred to change both articles so that both genres are listed for both films (supernatural horror/psychological thriller for The Sixth Sense, and horror/thriller for Jaws), then that would be fine as well!

These are just a couple of the many articles that list The Sixth Sense as a horror film, and should be taken into consideration for future edits! Thanks!

The only 6 horror movie ever nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars | Vogue India

Why The Sixth Sense Is Still Important 23 Years Later (gamerant.com) 24.78.138.224 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And yet AllMovie calls the film primarily a Thriller film, with subgenres of: Psychological Thriller, Childhood Drama, Supernatural Thriller while BFI simply calls it a Thriller. No mention of Horror at either of those trusted sources. You shouldn't claim a "general worldwide consensus" without providing any supporting sources for that claim.

AFAIK the Academy Awards don't have a category for Thriller films, so it's not unexpected that they'd lump in this film under Horror as a best fit.

I'm afraid I'm not particularly convinced by your arguments, nor do I consider gamerant.com or Vogue to be high-quality sources for making genre determinations. DonIago (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

While you may not consider those to be high quality sources, the vast majority of people on Planet Earth do! Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be about a single person's thoughts on any matter- or in other words- "original research"- which is what your thoughts qualify under, but the masses, and the masses would agree with me as far as that matter is concerned! Oh- and for the record- AllMovie is 100% bogus lies and misinformation- any fact-checker worth their salt could tell you that! Luckily for you, that is just what I am! I'm not somebody who goes by lies and misinformation- I go by the FACTS, and the FACTS are what confirms the genre of these things! That is what the general consensus does as well! So, just because the odd few morons don't, that does NOT mean that they are even remotely correct, as unless they go by the FACTS- like I do- then they know nothing, because as the saying goes, the FACTS don't lie! 24.78.138.224 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And yet, if you would've looked at the talk page for AllMovie, you would've seen that they are most definitely a spammer, thus proving me correct! I AM a fact-checker after all, and that means I know my stuff! I don't need a Wikipedia talk page to tell me that when I already knew that! 24.78.138.224 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. Let's see what other editors have to say. DonIago (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless they're TRUE fact checkers like me, I doubt that anything they'll have to say will be even remotely close to important, but if that's really how you want to do it, fine. Just know that anything I say will be FAR more important and meaningful then what they say! 24.78.138.224 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Bold of you to assume I'm not also a fact checker, considering you know as much about me as I know about you. Your tone, particularly the yelling, certainly bolsters your credentials for me. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

They never yelled at you though. You are aware that some people capitalize certain words to emphasize the importance of certain words, correct? Just because somebody does that, doesn't mean that they are yelling! Just thought you should know! Freespeaker84 (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You also know nothing about them. If you did, you7 wouldn't have been outsmarted by a genius like them! Freespeaker84 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

And to add to @Donlago: list of reliable sources:

• British Board of Film Classification labels the film "Thriller, Drama"
• Rotten Tomatoes has the genres as "Mystery & thriller".
• In Variety's review, "Thriller".
• The Hollywood Reporter flat out says "psychological thriller"

Sorry, Anon, but looks like your "worldwide consensus" is lacking substance. You have a short history _{(or not)} of adding WP:OR to pages^[1] Please read the WP:SIMPLE guidelines before editing any further. Thank you! Mike Allen 23:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Anon was right. All of the listed "sources" are not legit- they're nothing but lies and misinformation. That also means it's not "Original Research"- it's FACT. The University I attend taught us all about the difference between REAL information and misinformation- which is what the British Board of Film Classification, Rotten Tomatoes, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter all are! The worldwide consensus that Anon was referring to knows better than to believe such lies! Anon and I attend the same University, so that's how I know that Anon is right, because I am as well! Freespeaker84 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note that every editor arguing for the horror film genre is now blocked as a sock. This discussion can be closed.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)