"Twelve Angry Men" was written as a tele-play in 1954 by Reginald Rose. This play in time was made into a movie of black and white, and the in color some years after that. The better of the two which was in black and white was created in 1957; directed by Sydney Lumet. The colored version was made in 1997; directed by William Freidkin. Both movies have similarities to the movies and differences. The movies had many changes in characters physical and mental states, and I think that is why the movies turned out in my opinion either good or bad.
In the first movie directed by Sydney Lumet, there were many more similarities with the tele play than with the movie directed by William Friedkin. In this movie each character seemed to have a significant part that eventually led up to the climax of the film. The most obvious change was that in the tele play it said the lady had testified with glasses on, but in the movie it said only that she had marks on the side of her nose. I also noticed that they slightly shifted the script to add length to it. But over all the director really made sure that the actors played the character well and that they showed the right emotion but not too much and that they didn't bring anything into the case, like in the play. Over all I think the entire movie was a very good success, after the play.
The second movie, on the other hand, was not as successful in my opinion. The colored version overall showed way too much emotion from each character, it shower too much back round from each character, and let too much of each characters own business be seen to the audience, which loses the whole affect, because in the tele play the writer did it so, the audience didn't know anything about the back round of the character so all they understood was the actions that took place in the jury room. For example, I think juror number three, in the movie showed way too much emotion when he was talking about his son and the incident that he had with him.