I just saw this film this evening with a few of my friends. what we noticed and couldn't figure out was the reason for the hearing/trial in the first place? He was arrested for assaulting that aggrieved fake santa on the street right? Shouldn't he be defending himself against that?
How did it turn into a case of whether he was really Santa Claus or not?
Did we miss something?
sort of, the trial was to assatain the mental state of kris kringle by the judge ruling he was the living embodiment of santa claus he was also declared legally sane. there wasn't any case of assault against the drunk santa as he had no injuries
all good teenagers take off your clothes
Judge ruling he was the living embodiment of Santa? What I saw was the Judge saying Santa exsisted but not that Kris was Santa. It was like "Santa exsists, case closed." With that ruling anyone could claim to be Santa and get off when their mental stability was questioned.
share"Santa Claus exists, and he exists in the person of Kris Kringle"
"Do you even remember what you came here to find?"
If I recall, they do give a passing mention to Kris intentionally failing his psych eval like in the original. They just didn't focus on that nearly as much. (frankly, in both movies, I am not sure why he couldn't have just taken another test?) He "disgraced" himself and so he threw the eval and got committed. So the trials were done for the same reason in each film. Although I think each trial is quite contrived. IMO, neither would really stand up in court, hence why the ridiculous rulings in each are what they are.
__
Writing is my favorite hobby. Writing something that many can enjoy is my favorite dream.