Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Wrong juror number
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
* CommonNonsenseJury: Only barely averted and thoroughly explored. If not for the actions of Juror #6, the accused teen would have been voted "guilty" within a couple of minutes because of things as dumb as racing to get to a baseball game, racism and misplaced rage from a family dispute. The jurors are forced to admit their skewed priorities as the play goes on.
to:
* CommonNonsenseJury: Only barely averted and thoroughly explored. If not for the actions of Juror #6, #8, the accused teen would have been voted "guilty" within a couple of minutes because of things as dumb as racing to get to a baseball game, racism and misplaced rage from a family dispute. The jurors are forced to admit their skewed priorities as the play goes on.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* CommonNonsenseJury: Only barely averted and thoroughly explored. If not for the actions of Juror #6, the accused teen would have been voted "guilty" within a couple of minutes because of things as dumb as racing to get to a baseball game, racism and misplaced rage from a family dispute. The jurors are forced to admit their skewed priorities as the play goes on.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Adding Artistic License Law
Added DiffLines:
* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Juror #8 performs outside research and enters a second knife into the proceeding. [[UsefulNotes/AmericanCourts US Supreme Court]] Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that this would lead to a mistrial (if the law allowed the jury's deliberations to be revealed).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* AggressiveCategorism: Juror #10 is one of the last holdouts for a guilty verdict. As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that he doesn't care about the evidence; the defendant is a young man from a slum, and for #10 that is enough to think he's guilty. [[EveryoneHasStandards None of the other jurors, even #3 and #4]], agree with him and instead ignore his last rant about the defendant until he runs out of steam.
to:
* AggressiveCategorism: Juror #10 is one of the last holdouts for a guilty verdict. As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that he doesn't care about the evidence; the defendant is a young man from a slum, the slums, and for #10 that is enough to think he's guilty. [[EveryoneHasStandards None of the other jurors, even #3 and #4]], agree with him and instead ignore his last rant about the defendant until he runs out of steam.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
General clarification on work content
Changed line(s) 32 (click to see context) from:
* AdaptationalNiceGuy: Of all people, Juror #4. In the original 1954 TV movie, when Juror #10 goes on his racist rant towards the end, Juror #4 basically intimidates him into shutting up by telling him that if he open his mouth again, he (#4) will "split his skull". This makes it seem like #10 only relents because he's too terrified not to. But in the movie, when Juror #10 asks why they aren't listening to him, #4 merely says quietly "We have. Now, sit down and don't open your mouth again." This seems to make #10 realize at last just how much the others despise him, and he shuts up not because he's frightened but because he's ashamed to realise that he doesn't speak for anyone else.
to:
* AdaptationalNiceGuy: Of all people, Juror #4. In the original 1954 TV movie, when Juror #10 goes on his racist prejudiced rant towards the end, Juror #4 basically intimidates him into shutting up by telling him that if he open his mouth again, he (#4) will "split his skull". This makes it seem like #10 only relents because he's too terrified not to. But in the movie, when Juror #10 asks why they aren't listening to him, #4 merely says quietly "We have. Now, sit down and don't open your mouth again." This seems to make #10 realize at last just how much the others despise him, and he shuts up not because he's frightened but because he's ashamed to realise that he doesn't speak for anyone else.
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* AggressiveCategorism: Juror #10 is one of the last holdouts for a guilty verdict. As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that he doesn't care about the evidence; the defendant is a AmbiguouslyBrown young man from a slum, and for #10 that is enough to think he's guilty. [[EveryoneHasStandards None of the other jurors, even #3 and #4]], agree with him and instead ignore his last rant about the defendant until he runs out of steam.
to:
* AggressiveCategorism: Juror #10 is one of the last holdouts for a guilty verdict. As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that he doesn't care about the evidence; the defendant is a AmbiguouslyBrown young man from a slum, and for #10 that is enough to think he's guilty. [[EveryoneHasStandards None of the other jurors, even #3 and #4]], agree with him and instead ignore his last rant about the defendant until he runs out of steam.
Deleted line(s) 36 (click to see context) :
* AmbiguouslyBrown: The defendant has 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, though implied to be Puerto Rican due to the constant stereotypes against him. The actor, John Savoca, is of southern Italian descent (his surname is a toponym that ties his family origin to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoca Savoca]], Sicily).
Changed line(s) 55 (click to see context) from:
* BewareTheQuietOnes: Juror #4 is soft-spoken, calm, polite. He is also the one who sternly answers Juror #10 when he goes on his racist tirade and shuts him up for good. In some versions, it's taken further as he threatens him with physical violence.
to:
* BewareTheQuietOnes: Juror #4 is soft-spoken, calm, polite. He is also the one who sternly answers Juror #10 when he goes on his racist prejudiced tirade and shuts him up for good. In some versions, it's taken further as he threatens him with physical violence.
Changed line(s) 71 (click to see context) from:
* 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 retreats to one when, after one of his racist bigoted 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).
Changed line(s) 105 (click to see context) from:
** Vaguely {{implied|Trope}} for Juror #10. When he rants at length about how "they" (the unspecified ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of hotheaded liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with silent open contempt for his views, followed by #4's [[ShutUpHannibal command to sit down and not say another word]] causes him to go practically catatonic. He spends the remainder of the deliberation silently [[ThousandYardStare staring at nothing]], and after #4 changes his vote to not guilty, #10 soon follows. It is left ambiguous, if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated. The original teleplay and the Showtime version aren't as ambiguous; when the final vote is taken, #10 flat out says he believes the defendant is guilty, he's just voting "not guilty" cause he's done butting heads with the others.
to:
** Vaguely {{implied|Trope}} for Juror #10. When he rants at length about how "they" (the unspecified ethnic social/ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of hotheaded liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with silent open contempt for his views, followed by #4's [[ShutUpHannibal command to sit down and not say another word]] causes him to go practically catatonic. He spends the remainder of the deliberation silently [[ThousandYardStare staring at nothing]], and after #4 changes his vote to not guilty, #10 soon follows. It is left ambiguous, if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated. The original teleplay and the Showtime version aren't as ambiguous; when the final vote is taken, #10 flat out says he believes the defendant is guilty, he's just voting "not guilty" cause he's done butting heads with the others.
Changed line(s) 123 (click to see context) from:
** Juror #10 doesn't have any logical reason for his guilty vote; he's just ''extremely'' racist, to the point where he eventually drops all pretenses and goes on a lengthy bigoted tirade to which the other jurors refuse to listen.
to:
** Juror #10 doesn't have any logical reason for his guilty vote; he's just ''extremely'' racist, prejudiced, to the point where he eventually drops all pretenses and goes on a lengthy bigoted tirade to which the other jurors refuse to listen.
Changed line(s) 145 (click to see context) from:
* NonSpecificallyForeign: Several characters are noted for their ethnicity or nationality, but ''what'' ethnicity or nationality they are is never stated. Most notably, the defendant is of some sort of ethnic minority and lives in a low-income neighborhood, which has several of the jurors, particularly #10, predisposed into mistrusting him. Juror #5 is noted several times to have a similar economic background to the defendant and is implied to be an ethnic minority as well, while #11 is from an unspecified European country and is proud to be taking part in an American democratic process. The vagueness allows stagings of the play to get creative, the examples from both films being:
to:
* NonSpecificallyForeign: Several characters are noted for their ethnicity or nationality, but ''what'' ethnicity or nationality they are is never stated. Most notably, the defendant is either of some sort of ethnic minority or lower social class and lives in a low-income neighborhood, slum, which has several of the jurors, particularly #10, predisposed into mistrusting him. Juror #5 is noted several times to have a similar economic background to the defendant and is implied to be an ethnic minority as well, while #11 is from an unspecified European country and is proud to be taking part in an American democratic process. The vagueness allows stagings of the play to get creative, the examples from both films being:
Changed line(s) 153 (click to see context) from:
* PerfectHealth: {{Averted}}. Juror #10 has a head cold. It's not a plot point or anything. He just has a head cold. It's one of many distractions that cause some jurors to want to rush through the deliberation and go back to their lives.
to:
* PerfectHealth: {{Averted}}. Juror #10 #9 has a head cold. It's not a plot point or anything. He just has a head cold. It's one of many distractions that cause some jurors to want to rush through the deliberation and go back to their lives.
Changed line(s) 155 (click to see context) from:
* {{Profiling}}: The defendant's skin color is the main reason Juror #10 wants a guilty verdict.
to:
* {{Profiling}}: The defendant's skin color background is the main reason Juror #10 wants a guilty verdict.verdict. It is not made clear what the background of the defendant is, however, presenting a generalised prejudicial outlook from Juror #10. It is possible that the defendant is of an ethic minority, or belongs to a lower class in the eyes of #10.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I hid the Lawful Neutral example since these are now classified as flamebait and belong on a flamebait tab, which this page doesn't have.
Changed line(s) 132 (click to see context) from:
* LawfulNeutral: The entire point of the movie: Juror #8 only wants the procedure to be done thoughtfully and respectfully, with the adequate care. Juror #11 also counts,often defending the american judiciary system and chewing into juror #7 for not voting according to conscience. And of course juror #4, always following factual evidence and listening to all arguments.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I removed the Artistic License – Law example. This relies on two points.The first idea is that it would result in a be mistrial for Juror #8 to buy his own switchblade. The work never suggested that anyone outside the jury room knew about the second switchblade. It was even specifically mentioned that Juror #8 had broken the law by buying the switchblade. Of course, he didn’t get in trouble with the police because he didn’t go and confess to buying it. His breach of jury protocol falls into a similar place. This is more a case where “Reality is Unrealistic”. Yes, in reality juries are only supposed to consider evidence presented in court. Of course, if a jury considers evidence they gather themselves and don’t tell the court (exactly as happened in the film), no mistrial will happen.
The second point was about how, if his defence attorney knew what he was doing, he would have presented the knife in evidence. However, it already argues against itself, pointing out that it was a plot point that the attorney wasn’t very good. So, I’ve removed both points.
Deleted line(s) 46 (click to see context) :
* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Juror #8 pulling out the second switchblade would have been ''immediate'' grounds for a mistrial, as the second switchblade was not presented in the courtroom. The discovery process of a criminal trial demands that both the defense ''and'' the prosecution be aware beforehand of every piece of evidence that is to be presented, and a jury is instructed to only consider evidence presented in the trial proceedings. In real life, if the defense attorney was worth his salt, buying the identical switchblade to show it's not unique would have been one of the first things he'd have done to poke holes in the prosecution's case (although, it must be pointed out, the defense attorney ''not'' being worth his salt is one of the first reason brought up by juror #8 for his doubts).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 146 (click to see context) from:
* NonSpecificallyForeign: Several characters are noted for their ethnicity or nationality, but ''what'' ethnicity or nationality they are is never stated. Most notably, the defendant is of some sort of ethnic minority and lives in a low-income neighborhood, which has several of the jurors, particularly #10, predisposed into mistrusting him. Juror #5 is noted several times to have a similar economic background to the defendant and is implied to be an ethnic minority as well, while #11 is from an unspecified European country and is proud to be taking part in an American democratic process. The vagueness allows stagings of the play to get creative. The film's interpretation has the defendant appearing to be Latino or Italian; #5 is played by Jack Klugman, who is Jewish; and #11 is played by George Voskovec, who is Czech (born in what was then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire).
to:
* NonSpecificallyForeign: Several characters are noted for their ethnicity or nationality, but ''what'' ethnicity or nationality they are is never stated. Most notably, the defendant is of some sort of ethnic minority and lives in a low-income neighborhood, which has several of the jurors, particularly #10, predisposed into mistrusting him. Juror #5 is noted several times to have a similar economic background to the defendant and is implied to be an ethnic minority as well, while #11 is from an unspecified European country and is proud to be taking part in an American democratic process. The vagueness allows stagings of the play to get creative. creative, the examples from both films being:
** The film's interpretation has the defendant appearing to beLatino Italian or Italian; possibly Latino; #5 is played by Jack Klugman, who is Jewish; and #11 is played by George Voskovec, who is Czech (born in what was then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire).empire).
** In the 1997 version, the defendant is explicitly Latino, #5 is Black (as are #1, #2, and interestingly enough, #10, whose racism stems from being a card-carrying member of the Nation of Islam movement), and #11 is Latino instead of European -- and not the only immigrant this time, as #4 is German.
** The film's interpretation has the defendant appearing to be
** In the 1997 version, the defendant is explicitly Latino, #5 is Black (as are #1, #2, and interestingly enough, #10, whose racism stems from being a card-carrying member of the Nation of Islam movement), and #11 is Latino instead of European -- and not the only immigrant this time, as #4 is German.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 80 (click to see context) from:
* DudeNotFunny: The other jurors' reaction to #3 pretending to raise the knife to stab #8, considering the tensions between them.
to:
* DudeNotFunny: The other jurors' reaction to #3 pretending to raise the knife to stab #8, considering the tensions between them. The only exceptions are Juror #4, who simply rolls his eyes at the theatrics, Juror #5 who seems like he's trying to inspect something (he moments later points out the improper handling of a switchblade, another sign the defendant might not be the assailant), and Juror #7 who simply leans forward in his chair almost as if he hoped it would happen
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
* BewareTheQuietOnes: Juror #4 is soft-spoken, calm, polite. He is also the one who sternly answer juror #10 when he goes on his racist tirade and shut him up for good. In some versions, it's taken further as he threatens him with physical violence.
to:
* BewareTheQuietOnes: Juror #4 is soft-spoken, calm, polite. He is also the one who sternly answer juror answers Juror #10 when he goes on his racist tirade and shut shuts him up for good. In some versions, it's taken further as he threatens him with physical violence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
* AffablyEvil: For a flexible definition of "evil", since he is more of an antagonist than a villain (although his actions would lead to the death of a kid): juror #4 is calm, polite, doesn't mock juror #8 or his doubts and only bring up logical and factual arguments for his position. He doesn't act out of malice or prejudice, but because he sincerely believes the kid to be guilty
to:
* AffablyEvil: For a flexible definition of "evil", since he is more of an antagonist than a villain (although his actions would lead to the death of a kid): juror #4 is calm, polite, doesn't mock juror #8 or his doubts and only bring brings up logical and factual arguments for his position. He doesn't act out of malice or prejudice, but because he sincerely believes the kid to be guiltyguilty.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22,23 (click to see context) from:
* ''Film/{{Twelve}}'': 2007 Russian version
to:
* ''Film/{{Twelve}}'': ''Film/{{Twelve|2007}}'': 2007 Russian version
