History Film / TwelveAngryMen

8th May '18 3:35:06 PM rjd1922
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ArtisticLicenseLaw:
** A major plot point involves Juror #8 visiting a pawnshop to buy a knife identical to the murder weapon (proving that it isn't really one of a kind), and showing it to the other jurors as evidence. Jurors are ''not'' supposed to conduct their own investigations outside of the courtroom, and they're ''really'' not supposed to consider any evidence that wasn't introduced in court.
** In addition to considering evidence not introduced in court, the jurors outright disregard many of the witness testimonies that ''were'' introduced in court, for reasons that the prosecutor and defense attorney never actually brought up as possible issues (like the fact that one of the witnesses may or may not have been nearsighted). In RealLife, only a judge has the final say on whether or not statements in court can be considered credible, and jurors aren't supposed to disregard witness testimonies unless a judge ''instructs'' them to disregard them.
** The judge (in the original film) does not say that capital punishment is mandatory in the case (as it was until 1963 in New York--the film came out in 1957), but that ''he'' would pass one if the jury delivered a guilty verdict. It wasn't up to him--he had no choice about it. The judge in the 1997 remake echoes the original line, stating that she will not consider pleas for leniency should the jury find the defendant guilty. However, nowadays the jurors decide what sentence the defendant should get too in capital cases after considering all the various aggravating vs. mitigating factors, following US Supreme Court rulings which struck down most of the capital punishment laws in the US. Without such a recommendation for death, the judge can't sentence the defendant to it. Given that change, this is nonsensical and legally meaningless (though it could mislead jurors, which thus might get any death sentence they passed overturned).



* HollywoodLaw: Juror #8 states that he went walking in the defendant's neighborhood, and found a copy of the supposedly unique switchblade knife in a local store. He presents it to the jury to prove his point. In a real jury proceding, the term for this is "juror misconduct." Jurors are not permitted to perform their own investigations, or admit their own evidence (the second knife). If it were to come out that #8 did all this, it's possible (though unlikely, given the double jeopardy prohibition) the verdict could be set aside, and #8 could be charged for his actions. There is at least an acknowledgement that #8 broke the law by buying the knife, but nobody brings up that searching for a knife is misconduct. Of course, none of the jurors are lawyers, so it's possible that they didn't recognize the acts as such.

to:

* HollywoodLaw: HollywoodLaw:
**
Juror #8 states that he went walking in the defendant's neighborhood, and found a copy of the supposedly unique switchblade knife in a local store. He presents it to the jury to prove his point. In a real jury proceding, the term for this is "juror misconduct." Jurors are not permitted to perform their own investigations, or admit their own evidence (the second knife).knife), and they're ''really'' not supposed to consider evidence not presented in court. If it were to come out that #8 did all this, it's possible (though unlikely, given the double jeopardy prohibition) the verdict could be set aside, and #8 could be charged for his actions. There is at least an acknowledgement that #8 broke the law by buying the knife, but nobody brings up that searching for a knife is misconduct. Of course, none of the jurors are lawyers, so it's possible that they didn't recognize the acts as such.
** In addition to considering evidence not introduced in court, the jurors outright disregard many of the witness testimonies that ''were'' introduced in court, for reasons that the prosecutor and defense attorney never actually brought up as possible issues (like the fact that one of the witnesses may or may not have been nearsighted). In RealLife, only a judge has the final say on whether or not statements in court can be considered credible, and jurors aren't supposed to disregard witness testimonies unless a judge ''instructs'' them to disregard them.
** The judge (in the original film) does not say that capital punishment is mandatory in the case (as it was until 1963 in New York--the film came out in 1957), but that ''he'' would pass one if the jury delivered a guilty verdict. It wasn't up to him--he had no choice about it. The judge in the 1997 remake echoes the original line, stating that she will not consider pleas for leniency should the jury find the defendant guilty. However, nowadays the jurors decide what sentence the defendant should get too in capital cases after considering all the various aggravating vs. mitigating factors, following US Supreme Court rulings which struck down most of the capital punishment laws in the US. Without such a recommendation for death, the judge can't sentence the defendant to it. Given that change, this is nonsensical and legally meaningless (though it could mislead jurors, which thus might get any death sentence they passed overturned).
8th May '18 2:54:33 PM rjd1922
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** In addition to considering evidence not introduced in court, the jurors outright disregard many of the witness testimonies that ''were'' introduced in court, for reasons that the prosecutor and defender never actually brought up as possible issues (like the fact that one of the witnesses may or may not have been nearsighted). In RealLife, only a judge has the final say on whether or not statements in court can be considered credible, and jurors can't disregard witness testimonies unless a judge ''instructs'' them to disregard them.

to:

** In addition to considering evidence not introduced in court, the jurors outright disregard many of the witness testimonies that ''were'' introduced in court, for reasons that the prosecutor and defender defense attorney never actually brought up as possible issues (like the fact that one of the witnesses may or may not have been nearsighted). In RealLife, only a judge has the final say on whether or not statements in court can be considered credible, and jurors can't aren't supposed to disregard witness testimonies unless a judge ''instructs'' them to disregard them.them.
** The judge (in the original film) does not say that capital punishment is mandatory in the case (as it was until 1963 in New York--the film came out in 1957), but that ''he'' would pass one if the jury delivered a guilty verdict. It wasn't up to him--he had no choice about it. The judge in the 1997 remake echoes the original line, stating that she will not consider pleas for leniency should the jury find the defendant guilty. However, nowadays the jurors decide what sentence the defendant should get too in capital cases after considering all the various aggravating vs. mitigating factors, following US Supreme Court rulings which struck down most of the capital punishment laws in the US. Without such a recommendation for death, the judge can't sentence the defendant to it. Given that change, this is nonsensical and legally meaningless (though it could mislead jurors, which thus might get any death sentence they passed overturned).



* MinimalistCast: At the beginning, other people (such as the defendant and the judge) are briefly shown, but for the rest of the film, we only see the twelve jurors (and the bailiff, briefly).

to:

* MinimalistCast: At the beginning, beginning of the film, other people (such as the defendant and the judge) are briefly shown, but for the rest of the film, we only see the twelve jurors (and the bailiff, briefly).briefly). The play doesn't show anyone but the jurors and the bailiff, with the judge's voice only being heard from off-stage.
17th Apr '18 10:15:42 AM bjex
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AmbiguouslyBrown: The defendant in the original seems to have a slightly darker skin color than the rest of the cast, and is referred to as being part of an unnamed ethnicity that lives in a New York slum.

to:

* AmbiguouslyBrown: The defendant in the original film seems to have a slightly darker skin color than the rest of the cast, and is referred to as being part of an unnamed ethnicity that lives in a New York slum.
17th Apr '18 10:11:56 AM bjex
Is there an issue? Send a Message


''12 Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Creator/ReginaldRose (and much more famously, a 1957 film directed by Creator/SidneyLumet starring Creator/HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy having murdered his father. In the deliberation room, most of the jurors push for a quick guilty verdict, but one juror holds out and insists that they examine the evidence thoroughly to make damn sure that the accused deserves his punishment: a mandatory death sentence.

to:

''12 Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Creator/ReginaldRose (and much more famously, a 1957 film directed by Creator/SidneyLumet starring Creator/HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy having murdered his father. In the deliberation room, most of the jurors push for a quick guilty verdict, but one juror a single juror, known only as Juror #8, holds out and insists that they examine the evidence thoroughly to make damn sure that the accused deserves his punishment: a mandatory death sentence.



In 1997, it was adapted yet again, this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon and Creator/GeorgeCScott. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, [[GenderFlip gender flipped]] the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007, a Russian version titled simply ''[[Film/{{Twelve}} 12]]'' was released.

to:

In 1997, it was adapted yet again, this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon as Juror #8 and Creator/GeorgeCScott.Creator/GeorgeCScott as the main antagonist, Juror #3. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, [[GenderFlip gender flipped]] the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007, a Russian version titled simply ''[[Film/{{Twelve}} 12]]'' was released.
25th Mar '18 2:24:49 AM TompaDompa
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AbusiveParents: Itís revealed that the murder victim was an abusive dad. He deserved it.

to:

* AbusiveParents: Itís revealed that the murder victim was an abusive dad. He deserved it.
24th Mar '18 5:12:11 PM ImmenentGaggle
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* AbusiveParents: Itís revealed that the murder victim was an abusive dad. He deserved it.
14th Mar '18 1:50:10 AM ActualScientist
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* TheCharmer: Juror #12, a smartly-dressed MotorMouth adman, presents this way early on. He is very friendly to the other jurors and tries to diffuse the tension when they fight. He loses this trait and turns hesitant and unsure later on, flip-flopping his vote according to who cowed him last.

to:

* TheCharmer: Juror #12, a smartly-dressed MotorMouth adman, presents this way early on. He is very friendly to the other jurors and tries to diffuse defuse the tension when they fight. He loses this trait and turns hesitant and unsure later on, flip-flopping his vote according to who cowed him last.
6th Mar '18 8:42:48 AM Mdumas43073
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* NamelessNarrative: No names are used for any of the jurors, and not even for the victim or defendant. The film added an epilogue not in the play that [[NamedByTheAdaptation gives last names for]] Juror #8(Davis) and Juror #9 ([=McCardle=]).

to:

* NamelessNarrative: No names are used for any of the jurors, and not even for the victim or defendant. The film added an epilogue not in the play that [[NamedByTheAdaptation gives last names for]] Juror #8(Davis) #8 (Davis) and Juror #9 ([=McCardle=]).
6th Mar '18 8:39:12 AM Mdumas43073
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* CornerOfWoe: Juror 10 retreats to one when, after one of his racist rants goes too far, Juror 4 shuts him up. From that point on, 10 rarely participates in any of the deliberations, only weakly showing an acknowledgement that his vote is "not guilty" when a poll is taken (ironically, after 4 changes his vote upon the woman's testimony about clearly seeing the killing is discredited).

to:

* CornerOfWoe: Juror 10 #10 retreats to one when, after one of his racist rants goes too far, Juror 4 #4 shuts him up. From that point on, 10 #10 rarely participates in any of the deliberations, only weakly showing an acknowledgement that his vote is "not guilty" when a poll is taken (ironically, after 4 #4 changes his vote upon the woman's testimony about clearly seeing the killing is discredited).
6th Feb '18 8:49:42 AM petrandreev13
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->'''Juror #10:''' Listen to me! Listen to me!

to:

-->'''Juror #10:''' Listen to me! Listen to me!Listen!
This list shows the last 10 events of 259. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Film.TwelveAngryMen