Hmmmmm. I'd say they played the case itself fairly straight ... the case they were deliberating seemed like a legitimate one ... although because of the limited time and the detached nature of the case (the case itself wasn't important, but the fact that Monk was serving on a jury tied in to the other, main storyline that was going on) required that the characters and reactions were simplified and sped up a bit. For example, the whole "You've made some excellent points ..." to "Alright, you've convinced me, not guilty" conversion of the logical character was there, but very quick, almost tokenized. It was almost like watching a "play within a play" version of the movie.
I guess the end result was that anyone who hasn't seen 12 Angry Men would see a bunch of passable dialogue that looked like a legitimate case going on, but anyone familiar with it would recognize it and be amused by it.
Ahah ... the episode is already available on iTunes for $2. :D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-18 06:43 pm (UTC)I guess the end result was that anyone who hasn't seen 12 Angry Men would see a bunch of passable dialogue that looked like a legitimate case going on, but anyone familiar with it would recognize it and be amused by it.
Ahah ... the episode is already available on iTunes for $2. :D