Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
How each piece of evidence is faulty is brought up in the movie. The blade wasn't unique, the kid and #8 found one so someone else could have. The old man shouldn't have been able to hear/identify the boy over the El train and even then might not have been able to make it to the door in time to see the kid. The woman wasn't wearing her glasses in court and probably wasn't wearing them when she got out of bed. Finally the boy was likely too shocked to remember the pictures he saw.
The story is not meant to be about a framing or some grand conspiracy it's about the tensions and conflict between the characters around the case and about how a jury SHOULD question every piece of evidence especially when a death penalty is at stake.
Deleted line(s) 28,29 (click to see context) :
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: Due to the sheer improbability that ''all'' of the evidence is wrong, it's never explored whether or not The Kid was framed or subject to police misconduct.
---> '''Mike D'Angelo:''' "What ensures The Kid's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the sheer improbability that all the evidence is erroneous. You'd have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications. Or you'd have to be framed, which is what Johnnie Cochran was ultimately forced to argue--not just because of the DNA evidence, but because there's no other plausible explanation for why every single detail points to [[Creator/OJSimpson O. J. Simpson's]] guilt. But there's no reason offered in ''12 Angry Men'' for why, say, the police would be planting switchblades."
---> '''Mike D'Angelo:''' "What ensures The Kid's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the sheer improbability that all the evidence is erroneous. You'd have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications. Or you'd have to be framed, which is what Johnnie Cochran was ultimately forced to argue--not just because of the DNA evidence, but because there's no other plausible explanation for why every single detail points to [[Creator/OJSimpson O. J. Simpson's]] guilt. But there's no reason offered in ''12 Angry Men'' for why, say, the police would be planting switchblades."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
General clarification on work content The breadth of Fiedler's work as Piglet ought to be emphasized
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
* RetroactiveRecognition: Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of ''Series/QuincyME''. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound. ''Series/{{The Odd Couple|1970}}'' also did a flashback episode to Oscar and Felix meeting on a jury where Felix was a RogueJuror in reference to this role.
** You'll recognize Juror #2 by voice. John Fiedler is the original voice of [[WesternAnimation/TheManyAdventuresOfWinnieThePooh Piglet]].
** You'll recognize Juror #2 by voice. John Fiedler is the original voice of [[WesternAnimation/TheManyAdventuresOfWinnieThePooh Piglet]].
to:
* RetroactiveRecognition: RetroactiveRecognition:
** Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of ''Series/QuincyME''. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound. ''Series/{{The Odd Couple|1970}}'' also did a flashback episode to Oscar and Felix meeting on a jury where Felix was a RogueJuror in reference to this role.
** You'll recognize Juror #2 by voice. John Fiedleris was the original voice of [[WesternAnimation/TheManyAdventuresOfWinnieThePooh Piglet]].Piglet]] from 1968 until his death in 2005.
** Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of ''Series/QuincyME''. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound. ''Series/{{The Odd Couple|1970}}'' also did a flashback episode to Oscar and Felix meeting on a jury where Felix was a RogueJuror in reference to this role.
** You'll recognize Juror #2 by voice. John Fiedler
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: Due to the sheer improbability that ''all'' of the evidence is wrong, it's never explored whether or not The Kid was framed.
to:
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: Due to the sheer improbability that ''all'' of the evidence is wrong, it's never explored whether or not The Kid was framed.framed or subject to police misconduct.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added DiffLines:
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: Due to the sheer improbability that ''all'' of the evidence is wrong, it's never explored whether or not The Kid was framed.
---> '''Mike D'Angelo:''' "What ensures The Kid's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the sheer improbability that all the evidence is erroneous. You'd have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications. Or you'd have to be framed, which is what Johnnie Cochran was ultimately forced to argue--not just because of the DNA evidence, but because there's no other plausible explanation for why every single detail points to [[Creator/OJSimpson O. J. Simpson's]] guilt. But there's no reason offered in ''12 Angry Men'' for why, say, the police would be planting switchblades."
---> '''Mike D'Angelo:''' "What ensures The Kid's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the sheer improbability that all the evidence is erroneous. You'd have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications. Or you'd have to be framed, which is what Johnnie Cochran was ultimately forced to argue--not just because of the DNA evidence, but because there's no other plausible explanation for why every single detail points to [[Creator/OJSimpson O. J. Simpson's]] guilt. But there's no reason offered in ''12 Angry Men'' for why, say, the police would be planting switchblades."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
** The film is from the era when a trip to the movies typically involved an A-picture and a B-picture, leading to the defendant's alibi being flimsy as he couldn't remember either movie he saw, followed by #4 easily remembering the A-picture he saw several days ago but not the B-picture.
to:
** The film is from the era when a trip to the movies typically involved an A-picture and a B-picture, leading to the defendant's alibi being flimsy as he couldn't remember either movie he saw, followed by #4 easily remembering the A-picture he saw several days ago but not the B-picture. Forgetting the titles of the films you saw was far more common at the time, as you just bought a ticket for entry rather than the one you came to see.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The film-only ending in which Jurors 8 and 9 exchange names, share a brief silence, and bid each other farewell. Though it's cheerful in tone, that awkward {{beat}} is likely their realization that after fighting so hard together they're likely never to meet again.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
** The film is set in New York City and the defendant faces the death penalty. The last execution in New York State took place in 1963 and capital punishment was formally abolished in the state in 2004.
to:
** The film is set in New York City and the defendant faces the death penalty. The last execution in New York State state took place in 1963 and capital punishment was formally abolished in the state in 2004.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* UnintentionalPeriodPiece: The film is from the era when a trip to the movies typically involved an A-picture and a B-picture, leading to the defendant's alibi being flimsy as he couldn't remember either movie he saw, followed by #4 easily remembering the A-picture he saw several days ago but not the B-picture.
to:
* UnintentionalPeriodPiece: UnintentionalPeriodPiece:
** The film is from the era when a trip to the movies typically involved an A-picture and a B-picture, leading to the defendant's alibi being flimsy as he couldn't remember either movie he saw, followed by #4 easily remembering the A-picture he saw several days ago but not theB-picture.B-picture.
** The film is set in New York City and the defendant faces the death penalty. The last execution in New York State took place in 1963 and capital punishment was formally abolished in the state in 2004.
** The film is from the era when a trip to the movies typically involved an A-picture and a B-picture, leading to the defendant's alibi being flimsy as he couldn't remember either movie he saw, followed by #4 easily remembering the A-picture he saw several days ago but not the
** The film is set in New York City and the defendant faces the death penalty. The last execution in New York State took place in 1963 and capital punishment was formally abolished in the state in 2004.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Similarly, Juror #8 appears on the AFI 100 Heroes and Villains list at #28, between [[Film/AllThePresidentsMen Woodward & Bernstein]] and [[Film/{{Patton}} General George Patton]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** The defendant - innocent man or murderer? For all of the doubt the jury casts on the prosecution's case, there's still plenty of reason for the audience to conclude that he's guilty. This was done deliberately, of course; even Juror #8 admits that he isn't sure that they aren't about to set a murderer free. Then there's the question of, if the defendant did in fact commit the murder, [[AssholeVictim was he really in the wrong]]?
to:
** The defendant - innocent man or murderer? For all of the doubt the jury casts on the prosecution's case, there's still plenty of reason for the audience to conclude that he's guilty. This was done deliberately, of course; even Juror #8 admits that he isn't sure that they aren't about to set a murderer free.free, but the legal standard is "reasonable doubt", not "absolute confidence of innocence". Then there's the question of, if the defendant did in fact commit the murder, [[AssholeVictim was he really in the wrong]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
* SignatureScene: Juror #3's VillainousBreakdown at the end.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Fixing example indentation.
Changed line(s) 31,32 (click to see context) from:
* ValuesResonance: The other jurors turning their backs on Juror #10's racist rant was ahead of its time. To explain, the ''only'' reason Juror #10 thought the defendant was guilty was because of the latter's being a person of color. And when he tries to get the other jurors to agree, ''none'' of them do and he's shamed for his verbal tirade. This is something that was and still is relevant -- No one should be found guilty because of their ethnicity and the people who ''do'' think it's okay, ''should'' be condemned for their racism.
** Most notably, even the jurors who are most convinced of the boy's guilt (#3 and #4) are horrified by #10’s rant, #4 being the one to tell him to sit down and shut up.
** Most notably, even the jurors who are most convinced of the boy's guilt (#3 and #4) are horrified by #10’s rant, #4 being the one to tell him to sit down and shut up.
to:
* ValuesResonance: The other jurors turning their backs on Juror #10's racist rant was ahead of its time. To explain, the ''only'' reason Juror #10 thought the defendant was guilty was because of the latter's being a person of color. And when he tries to get the other jurors to agree, ''none'' of them do and he's shamed for his verbal tirade. This is something that was and still is relevant -- No one should be found guilty because of their ethnicity and the people who ''do'' think it's okay, ''should'' be condemned for their racism.
** Most notably, evenEven the jurors who are most convinced of the boy's guilt (#3 and #4) are horrified by #10’s rant, #4 being the one to tell him to sit down and shut up.
** Most notably, even
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* AwardSnub: The 1957 version, largely overshadowed by ''Film/TheBridgeOnTheRiverKwai'', failed to win anything at the Oscars. Additionally, none of the actors received UsefulNotes/AcademyAward nominations for their work. Though Creator/HenryFonda did end up winning a UsefulNotes/{{BAFTA}} for his performance, and both he and Lee J. Cobb earned UsefulNotes/GoldenGlobe nods.
to:
* AwardSnub: The 1957 version, largely overshadowed by ''Film/TheBridgeOnTheRiverKwai'', failed to win anything at the Oscars. Additionally, none of the actors received UsefulNotes/AcademyAward nominations for their work. Though Creator/HenryFonda did end up winning a UsefulNotes/{{BAFTA}} for his performance, and both he and Lee J. Cobb Creator/LeeJCobb earned UsefulNotes/GoldenGlobe nods.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
This is why it refers to juror 4.
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** When Juror #4 refuses to change his vote near the end, does he honestly still think the defendant is guilty? Or is he merely doing it so that the process of proper deliberation, which Juror #8 started, is properly finished?
to:
** When Juror #4 refuses to change his vote near the end, does he honestly still think the defendant is guilty? Or is he merely doing it so that the process of proper deliberation, which Juror #8 started, is properly finished?finished? (It's during this late stage where the final evidence analysis occurs.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I wrote the ACI here, but someone changed the reference. Mine specifically referred to juror 4, NOT 3.
Changed line(s) 8,9 (click to see context) from:
** When Juror #3 refuses to change his vote near the end, does he honestly still think the defendant is guilty? Or is he merely doing it so that the process of proper deliberation, which Juror #8 started, is properly finished?
*** Or has he already changed his mind about the guilty vote but is just unwilling to admit that due to his own issues?
*** Or has he already changed his mind about the guilty vote but is just unwilling to admit that due to his own issues?
to:
** When Juror #3 #4 refuses to change his vote near the end, does he honestly still think the defendant is guilty? Or is he merely doing it so that the process of proper deliberation, which Juror #8 started, is properly finished?
*** Or has he already changed his mind about the guilty vote but is just unwilling to admit that due to his own issues?finished?
*** Or has he already changed his mind about the guilty vote but is just unwilling to admit that due to his own issues?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
** Most notably, even the jurors who are most convinced of the boy's guilt (#3 and #4) are horrified by #10’s rant, #4 being the kne to twll him to sit down and shut up.
to:
** Most notably, even the jurors who are most convinced of the boy's guilt (#3 and #4) are horrified by #10’s rant, #4 being the kne one to twll tell him to sit down and shut up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Most notably, even the jurors who are most convinced of the boy's guilt (#3 and #4) are horrified by #10’s rant, #4 being the kne to twll him to sit down and shut up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** You'll recognize Juror #2 by voice. John Fiedler is the original voice of [[WesternAnimation/TheManyAdventuresOfWinnieThePooh Piglet]].
Deleted line(s) 20 (click to see context) :
** You'll recognize Juror #2 by voice. John Fiedler is the original voice of [[WesternAnimation/TheManyAdventuresOfWinnieThePooh Piglet]].
