Posted 3 years ago on IMDB by Phrixotrichus

Why did they have to break the character's anonymity at the very end? Quite the useless scene.

RESPONSES:

guy_in_west_houston
I disagree, these two men were the only ones willing to re-think the evidence. It just seems fitting we got to put a name to them.

DracTarashV
I, for one, was pleasantly surprised with that ending. Unnecessary? Perhaps it is, but still a nice scene in my book.

jaydub1138 I disagree. I think it is meant to show that after these men do their public duty of serving on a jury to determine the life of another man, they then go back into the real world to live their life.

ofuoku71
I thought that scene was very appropriate given their friendship during the time in the jury room.

ElMaruecan82
Like another user pointed out, if you look closely, you can see each juror leaving the place in his own rhythm, with number 7 in a rush to get to his baseball game and the penultimate shot of Lee J. Cobb walking down the stairs in a way that makes you think he's finally relieved after getting something off of his heart. I guess Lumet needed some dialogues to fill the moment and give the audience a much needed relief too, what better than a last friendly exchange?

planetmutty
I didn't think it was unnecessary. However, what I found interesting was that they seemed to connect in the jury room during the deliberations. Yet when they got outside and introduced themselves, they couldn't find anything to talk about and had nothing in common. It was like their connection, whatever it was, only existed within the bounds of the jury deliberations.

soullimbo
I couldn't have put it better myself, have to agree 100%.