Talk:12 Angry Men (1957 film)

message: The phrase "the twelve men must unanimously determine innocence or guilt" is wrong, and in fact that is one of the main tenets that underpins the justice system and the play (and film) itself. It is not innocent or guilty, it is guilty or not guilty, and there is a very big difference. I am going to reword that sentence to fit in with this.
I feel the the introduction also uses too much subjectivity!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.18.178 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction wording

message: It rivals and even may surpass the original. The Russian one is simply called "12".
-G
::It is there now. ~ I am neuron 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't the Russian remake on the list?

message: Wasn't the defendant Hispanic in both movies? Or was he Italian in the first? There was a bit of ethnic prejudice involved in the story, if I remember right. 
Thanks, Cunctator, for inserting my 'comment' from the m.l. why must ya'll?
--Uncle Ed 15:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first point, I think so too, although it was not actually stated in the dialogue, I believe we were intended to understand that he was Hispanic; making him Italian wouldn't have made sense since the watchmaker/Juror #11 was obviously Italian and the central point of the plot was the ethnic divide between the jury and the accused. Ellsworth 17:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Years ago I watched the original black and white in Law class in highschool. Yesterday i revisted the movie and rented it. Then today I rented the remake. I notice that in the section abot the differences it states that one of the differences was that he defendant was hispanic. Since i originally thought he was hispanic in the black and white, and since they don't say what his is, how can this be a difference? I think that should be removed or changed somehow. Masterhatch 08:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was Hispanic in the first movie, possibly Puerto Rican.  The rant by Begley seems to support that he's Puerto Rican by some of the comments being made being typical of some people's beliefs about Puerto Ricans.  If he was Italian and the watchmaker was Italian I can't believe the rant would've lasted very long or been made at all.  Wasn't there a shot of the kid at the beginning of the filem?--66.240.89.45 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had actually thought he was African-American.
There is a shot of the kid at the beginning of the 1957 film. However, the film is black and white and it's not so easy to distinguish the ethnicity, though it's apparent the kid is not WASP. David.Monniaux 09:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It was deliberately left ambiguous. (ManyMoonsoons (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly so. Unschool 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

text: He was obviously Italian. (86.135.242.97 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lumet said he only made films about Jews and Italians to begin with. (86.135.242.55 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: For Juror #11 is the phrase "proud of be an American" intetionally corect or should it be (a) "proud of being an American" or (b) "proud to be an American" 69.171.146.13
To be Minicampa16 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: I've been told the film inspired psychologists to begin research into minority influence; if this can be verified it'd be worth including.
:It might well have (I've just finished writing a thesis on minority influence). Maybe a Google search on "minority influence" and the "movie title" could help clear things up. Twipley (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minority Influence

message: the budget estimates are inconsistent "340,000 estimated" and "350,000".  I don't know which is correct.
Estimates listed on IMDb indicate that the budget wa~~~~s $350,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.223.63 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: budget

message: Should remake and other versions be it own sections?
I believe they should be separated because both versions are famous for their specific casts. Qwizzical777 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remake

message: Was the movie not based on the play by Reginald Rose?
:We read the play in class once a while back, I'm pretty sure it came first.--Agent Aquamarine 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Play

message: I'm not sure if this is appropriate to mention or not, but did anyone see the symbolism in Henry Fonda being the only juror who was wearing a white jacket? I just enjoyed that for some odd reason. Very subtle, I love old movies :)
ChangeOfFate 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty more symbolism in the movie than that, too.  The fan begins to work, among other events, at 6-6, for example.  If those things find a place in the article, then certainly include them, but it all borders on interpretation and original research.  If it fits, though, go for it, I say. - Boss1000 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbolism

message: I've rolled back the expansion of all of the characters.  I feel a bit bad about doing it, because the anon obviously put a lot of work into it, but I think it's better this way.  The current version is short, to the point and punchy.  The extra detail isn't really necessary, and is a bit spoilerish, and makes the whole thing harder to read.  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded characters

message: The ensuing arguments and sifting of the evidence unveil the flaws of the prosecution's case, the questionable representation by the defendant's court-appointed attorney, and the true character of each of the jury members. Although it is only implied, it becomes apparent that the accused boy is a member of an ethnic minority, "one of them", and from a poor neighbourhood. One by one, the jurors find their own reasons to doubt that the defendant's guilt has been proven, until only Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb, playing a father with a poor relationship with his own son) and Juror #10 (Ed Begley) are holding out.
Never was the juror score 10-2 in the case. Before the discussion of the eyewitnesses lack of glasses, the juror score was 9-3 in favor of acquittal (with jurors #3, #4 and #10 voting guilty.) During the discussion, Juror #12 waffles back to Guilty, making the count 8-4, however, after the discussion reaches the pinnacle, Juror #8 (Fonda) asks the 4 "guilty voters" how they felt. He first approached #12, Not Guilty, #10, Not Guilty, #3 Guilty, #4 Not Guilty. This brings the case to 11-1.
Making a small edit to the wiki.MrDiGeorge 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Statement:

message: The job descriptions in the article are inconsistent with those listed on the IMDB trivia page (look about three up from the bottom). Not sure if the IMDB data are reliable, but I just wanted to point that out.
The whole description of the characters in the Plot Summary section doesn't seem very encyclopedic--there's a lot of flowery language that's unsubstantiated (e.g. "A blue-collar type, like a dock worker or factory man"). Ben Aveling's edit did help clean up the Characters section, but it looks like an anon (same one?) put the expanded character descriptions in the Plot Summary section a few days later. They're nice, but again, it's not in an encyclopedic tone and it isn't published and verifiable (they're more or less correct but they are subjective interpretation). Probably should be removed. cluth 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Job descriptions

message: I'd love to see a section (or even just a link to an external site) detailing the legal implications of the plot.  Is this sort of critical review of the evidence by the jury typical, or are juries typically expected to only notice these kinds of inconsistencies when an opposing lawyer brings them up?  Are there any particularly-egregious legal missteps in the deliberations, like direct handling of evidence?  Jouster 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original movie was set in 1957 don't forget Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The film was produced in 1957 ... but, was it actually set in 1957, as well?  I don't think a setting is ever established.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal opinion section shows whats wrong with our current legal system. Our founders inducing first US Supreme Court Chief Justice said juries decided the facts AND the law not the judge.
"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
-- John Adams, 1771
".....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are in your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.
-- Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.69.39 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Standpoint

message: Don't understand the point about mistakes.  Why is it a mistake for a movie to be set two years before the year in which it is made?  Is a date mentioned in the screenplay, or is there some anachronism which proves it is set after the elevated train ceased to run?  --Doric Loon 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a year is mentioned in the film/screenplay. I removed the section. Garion96 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: I re-added the trivia/mistakes section.  The fellow who removed it argued that Juror #10 does talk near the end of the film.  However, when asked whether guilty or not guilty the final time, he merely shakes his head (not guilty) but doesn't say anything.Cromicus 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Tony Danza was in the remake in 1997) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118528/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.46.226 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've moved the comment above from here. CabbagePotato (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia/Mistakes

message: I somewhat want there to be a mention in this article of the fact that the actual murderer is never discussed, much less any of the aftermath.  Did I miss something in movie, because I was continually asking myself, "Then who did it?"  I don't want to add in something I just didn't understand. - Boss1000 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Murderer?

message: Why is there a link to Jury Nullification in this article?  12 Angry Men doesn't deal with jury nullification at all.Cromicus 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: While it's true that this was the first screen movie that Lumet directed, it was produced by Henry Fonda. It was his first and only film production. Gestroud 01:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not produced by Sidney Lumet

message: I remember another homage in the 7. season of JAG. The Episode was called "Odd Man Out". This one is also particularly interesting because it turns out at the end, that the person found not guilty - was in fact guilty.
Eventually this should be added properly to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.49.157 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Homage

message: The link to that term in the first paragraphs leads to the "burden of proof" article, but the "reasonable doubt" article also exist. Twipley (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasonable doubt

message: I have noted that the synopsis includes J. 10 (the bigot) saying, "Speaking my piece," to which J. 4 (the broker) replies "Yes, you have. now sit down and don't open your mouth again."
This is close, but not exactly the wording in the film. Here is the quite, copied from the IMDB page: (I have included more than the relevant section, for background.)
(Also note: I am no expert on fair use, but I think the use of the precise quote in the article fits in.)
Juror #10: Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here... his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a, there's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.
Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again. 
I'm trying to rephrase the section to include these precise quotes, if anyone has a better wording, it may be worth looking into. 
-MMTrebuchet (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misquote in synopsis. 

message: I came to this article trying to find out about the movie. The table is extremely confusing. The article says this is about a 1957 film (says so right in the article's title). Yet the table has columns for "1954 actor", "2006-2007 actor", etc. There is no clue why this would be in the lede of the article, and hunting through the rest of the piece doesn't make things easier. I think this needs a serious rewrite or at the very least, provide some context for the Cast of Characters table, because as presented, it makes zero sense with respect to the 1957 film this article proposes to be about.68.144.172.8 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible article 

message: I have gone over the film again. At the last scene I heard the jury #9 call himself McCardle instead of McArdle. Please correct it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.152.243.146 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 14:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Jury #9 

message: I've just finished making some changes to the article based on the MGM DVD.  There are some differences with the article that I'm curious about.  One is this:
:The remaining jurors are intrigued when Juror 11 proves that although the psychiatric test presented in the case stated that the boy had subconscious desires to kill, tests of such do not prove anything other than what could possibly happen.
There is nothing about this on the DVD and I removed it.  Could this be a deleted scene?  Unlike a lot of DVDs, this one has no deleted-scene feature.  Should it be put back in?
Rhsimard (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatric testimony? 

message: In the cast of characters table, I fixed the problem with the sort order in the last column.  There is a template, , which if used with the names in the various actor columns will fix the sort order there as well.  67.101.6.146 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting columns in cast of characters table 

message: There's a real problem with the list of adaptations, particularly the television section. It clearly goes against WP:NOR for Wikipedia editors to decide that any TV show that has a similar plot is an adaptation of 12 Angry Men. We need a reliable source for that and there aren't any sources at all in that subsection. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK TV comedy show Hancock's Half Hour 1959 episode "12 Angry Men" did a wonderful and affectionate parody of Lumet's film - see YouTube here:  - the building shown in the opening shot is the Central Criminal Court - otherwise known as The Old Bailey.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptations 

message: I had originally said that all criminal trials by jury in the US require a unanimous verdict but someone else said there are some places in the US where that is not always the case.  Exactly where and under what circumstances?75.81.197.59 (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article on Juries in the United States states (without citation) that some state and local jurisdiction allow this. It's news to me though. NW (Talk) 04:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where in the US does a criminal trial by jury not need to be unanimous? 

message: i remember the boy (the accused/defendant) grabbing a policeman's gun and shooting someone or getting shot on the courtroom steps after the not guilty verdict.  it was a big shock/twist ending.  I recently watched the film again, and see there is no such ending.  Is there an alternate ending to this film or another film with that same ending I am mixing this one up with.  Thanks in advance. Scott Free (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely not the ending to any version of this particular script. But I don't think you're imagining the scene -- a number of courtroom dramas, full-length or television episodes -- have had twist endings of this general kind. Mandrakos (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Ending 

message: This comic actually got me to watch the movie.  
http://xkcd.com/657/
The 12 Angry Men reference is very funny, especially in contrast to movie Primer.  
However, I'm not smart enough to edit a wikipedia page.  Could someone do it for me?  Don't want to mess something up. Theresavalek (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultural reference: xkcd comic 

message: I see the table lists the real names of most of the jurors. As far as I know, only the last names of Jurors 8 and 9 were mentioned in the film. What is the source for listing the real names of the jurors? 199.86.19.178 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the "real names" come from? 

message: Could someone please fix the aspect ration of the trailer video? --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad aspect ratio 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 12 Angry Men (1957 film). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20020929%2FREVIEWS08%2F209290301%2F1023
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419221742/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Attribution: some of the content and references were copied from 12 Angry Men (1957 film) to Legal drama.  See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not do the copying.  The other editor had included it in the edit summary.  I was just making a supplementary record on the talk page.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Stan! I did not consider for a nano-second that you had. Is it sufficient that "The other editor had included it in the edit summary."? Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: "De Twaalf" is a similar Belgian tv series. Maybe someone can add that? 2A02:1812:2522:7900:45BC:F4F4:D58:6084 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Belgian tv series