S01.E01: The Boy on the Bridge

[tessathereaper]

21 hours ago, eliot90000 said:

If you're worried about such things, then maybe a show about the murders of child prostitutes isn't for you anyway.

I'm not worried about it at all.  LOL For me as long as everyone is a consenting adult, with their faculties intact, I'm good.  They could be 30 years apart and I can't say I'd really care, but I don't even know if they will really go in that direction.  It appears they will but you know, sometimes things can be misleading and it may not lead to much of anything.  

And no 15 year age gaps weren't uncommon that uncommon at the time.  (Now that I think of it I think my one great grandmother was about 20 years younger than my great grandfather but obviously even then I think on average people probably married people within a few years of their own age, but it wasn't really uncommon for their to be larger age differences).   I really think people make way too much of age being a "power gap" anyway.  Age in and of itself really doesn't necessarily give anyone anymore power than someone else.  There are people who are idiots forever and people who are wise beyond their years, you can't just look at numbers and say "power imbalance!!!! WRONG!!!" IMO.  Every relationship is different and can only be judged on it's own merits IMO(again as long as everyone is a consenting adult).  I was just saying specifically in the case of Sarah and John, if they go that way, they are both of the same social class, they certainly emphasized that in the first episode, so really there isn't much of power imbalance there, beyond the power imbalance of male vs female in a strict patriarchical society, which she would have even with a man exactly her own age.  

Also I agree about the undergarments, I can't imagine Sarah showing up in no undergarments - I mean she'd lose her job, point blank.  They don't want her there to begin with, she's facing constantly sexual harrassment but yeah, she's supposed to go walking around the streets of New York and a  police station full of men with no undergarments?  IMO her trying to keep her job as a police officer is far more important than trying to make a statement by wearing no undergarments.  It doesn't mean one has to LIKE those undergarments and never complain about them.  

Edited January 25, 2018 by tessathereaper

[sjohnson]

Also, Sarah Howard wouldn't go to work without a corset any more than a secretary today goes to work in a flannel sweat suit or muumuu. Something so irremediably no class is something no respectably ambitious woman would do. Corsets like that were haute couture. 

[Ms Lark]

On 1/23/2018 at 1:58 PM, shockermolar said:

I agree that at certain times I wanted to adjust brightness on my tv because I felt like I was losing nuance.

I have set a custom setting on my tv (which is about 8-9 years old, so most tvs should have that function by now) that I've adjusted for "dark" shows and I just switch to that. It really helps a lot and you can actually see a lot more.

On 1/23/2018 at 4:11 PM, thuganomics85 said:

I didn't realize that the commissioner is actually suppose to be "the" Teddy Roosevelt.  Yeah, nothing against the actor, but I'm having problems that guy is going to become one of the most infamous Presidents in the history of the United States.

And an outdoorsman and Rough Rider! Although, the glasses were a bit of a giveaway!

[Calamity Jane]

On 1/22/2018 at 7:46 PM, Yokosmom said:

I found the show too dark, and no, I’m not talking about the subject matter.  This seem to be a thing in a lot of tv shows and movies in the past few years. I don’t want to to have to squint at the screen to see what is going on.

i

I found with Game of Thrones that waiting until dark and watching with the lights turned out as if I were in a movie theater helped tremendously; otherwise I always felt I was missing a lot of detail. May have to do that with this one as well.  

[MamaMax]

While I was super impressed with the production values...and this period of NYC history is a favorite of mine--  I was disappointed in the acting overall, with the possible exception of Lazlo.  They all seemed really wooden to me. I'm not looking for them to be conversing like Joey and Chandler on an episode of Friends, but to me it was very "9th graders do Shakespeare", like they didn't really understand what they were saying. Especially ol' Teddy. Good lord, he was a very colorful guy and this actor is making him a total snore. 

I'm still in, though, hoping it picks up steam. And it's surely a feast for the eyes!

Edited January 26, 2018 by MamaMax

[pezgirl7]

On 1/22/2018 at 9:16 PM, sjohnson said:

The police captain was urinating on his own wall? Well, that does explain why Howard is so proactively defensive.

 

Via How The Alienist Re-created 1896 New York in Budapest:

Quote

And because indoor plumbing was a rare luxury in the New York of 1896, that locker-room analogy is uncomfortably apt; in one scene, Sarah opens and then hastily shuts a door to a room where one of her colleagues is relieving himself into an authentic, turn-of-the-century pisspot.

“They’re all over the police station; if you keep your eyes peeled you’ll see them,” said the production designer, who estimated that the production required upwards of 30 pisspots (or “things repurposed as pisspots” — not all of the vessels seen onscreen are strictly regulation pee receptacles). But the ubiquity of the containers serves a dual purpose: In addition to historical accuracy, they provide important feminist context. “That’s another thing we wanted to show,” LePere-Schloop said. “The only women you see in the police station are cleaning up after the men. You think about these women, having to clean those things out and empty them during the day.”

[mythoughtis]

I never read the book. Watched against my better judgement. I don’t think I’ll be back. Beautiful settings, loved the historical time period. Hated trying to decipher what they were saying.  Found the characters boring . Didn’t appreciate the political correctness,  with the jarring prostitute role-playing. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by mythoughtis

[Yeah No]

21 hours ago, MamaMax said:

While I was super impressed with the production values...and this period of NYC history is a favorite of mine--  I was disappointed in the acting overall, with the possible exception of Lazlo.  They all seemed really wooden to me. I'm not looking for them to be conversing like Joey and Chandler on an episode of Friends, but to me it was very "9th graders do Shakespeare", like they didn't really understand what they were saying. Especially ol' Teddy. Good lord, he was a very colorful guy and this actor is making him a total snore. 

I'm still in, though, hoping it picks up steam. And it's surely a feast for the eyes!

I agree.  I loved the chemistry between the cast on "Ripper Street" and this so far is not measuring up that way.  I'm going to give it a chance to see if it improves as I love the time period and the setting since I have NYC policemen in my ancestry from that time.  I knew that Teddy Roosevelt was the commissioner who came along to try to clean up its notorious corruption, which he did have some success with amid controversy.  They also made a brief reference to some reorganization in the department, which I took to mean the addition of Brooklyn, which I think took place around 1898.  That was also the time of some precinct reorganization.

Regarding Dakota Fanning's character, she's just a little too modern for me to find believable.  I agree that the show is trying to inject a woman with modern attitudes to make her into a hero but it is unrealistic.  Even the smoking - yes, the cigarette was inaccurate for the time period but so was her smoking at all in the first place as a woman!

[pezgirl7]

12 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Regarding Dakota Fanning's character, she's just a little too modern for me to find believable.  I agree that the show is trying to inject a woman with modern attitudes to make her into a hero but it is unrealistic.  Even the smoking - yes, the cigarette was inaccurate for the time period but so was her smoking at all in the first place as a woman!

I know we're not suppose to discuss the book here, and I haven't even read the book, but I believe Sara was written to be modern in the book. The show is based on the book, so to change the part of her that makes her unique and is the main basis for her character would not make much sense to me.

Also, how do you guys know the cigarette was inaccurate? They had mass produced cigarettes back then, even ones made specifically for women. Women did smoke in the 1890s, although most smoking was done by upper class women in the home, at private parties, or at socials. So I don't think it's odd to see Sara smoking in her bedroom. Here's some more info:

Quote

In 1885, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union reported that several cities had “ladies’ smoking clubs.”  During those decades, increased immigration from southern and eastern Europe, where cigarette smoking by women at home was common, added to the numbers.  But the habit was becoming more common among native middle- and upper-class women, despite press silence, denial, and stigmatization (largely for reasons of morality, not health).  In fact, the public image that women who smoked cigarettes were unconventional and sexually suggestive could be an incentive to start.  Some society women began smoking while touring Europe, mimicking the supposed sophistication and worldliness of continental women.  Others saw cigarette smoking as a statement that they represented the independent-minded “New Woman” of the 1890s.  For anarchist Emma Goldman, it reflected her political, social, and moral radicalism.

http://tobacco.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=Women

I think Sara definitely fits in with the “New Woman” of the 1890s.

I feel like a lot of the complaints I've read in reviews and from general viewers has to do with the more "modern" elements of the characters, but those elements are why I find the characters interesting, and why I believe they are the focus of the story.

Laszlo Kreizler, a German-born doctor, seems to have very specific, new ideas about psychology, and is called a "fraud" and shunned by some people because of those ideas. He specifically studies and treats children with emotional and psychological disorders, and therefore would not care that the murdered boy was a child prostitute.

You have John Moore, who despite being an upperclass gentleman that is handsome, drinks and frequents brothels, is actually incredibly sensitive, caring, and artistic. When he sees the murdered boy, all he sees is a mutilated, exploited child, and therefore takes issue with the police officer calling him "it".

And then you have Sara Howard, who despite being upperclass, is independent and has ambitions that are were not normal for women of that time. She soliders on despite the discrimination and sexual harassment that she has to deal with.

Even the secondary characters are nonconformists for that time period. The Jewish twins, who are ostracized not only for their religion, but because of their new methods of forensic science that they employ. And Teddy Roosevelt, who seems very unpopular among his subordinates. His main concern seems to be cleaning up the city and the corruption on the force.

I'm looking forward to learning more about the characters as the episodes progress. I think the journey they will go on while hunting down the killer will also bring them closer together and will bring out their character traits even more. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by pezgirl7

[Mojeaux]

I liked it.

My only nitpick was about the corset. The marks on her back was why corsets were worn with chemises, to pad up back there and protect the skin. They were generally made of batiste or a very thin muslin so as not to to ruin the silhouette. A woman in a male-dominated workplace (Rose Wilder Lane was a telegraphist for years) is far more believable than going without a corset.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Mojeaux

[pezgirl7]

6 hours ago, Mojeaux said:

I liked it.

My only nitpick was about the corset. The marks on her back was why corsets were worn with chemises, to pad up back there and protect the skin. They were generally made of batiste or a very thin muslin so as not to to ruin the silhouette. A woman in a male-dominated workplace (Rose Wilder Lane was a telegraphist for years) is far more believable than going without a corset.

 

Sorry, I feel like I'm the history police here, but I thought the reason for wearing a chemise was to protect the corset from the dirt and oil from the skin, not to protect the skin. From what I've read, corsets of the 1890s were much more tightly laced than in the past, and many women did not wear chemises underneath them. I would think they would wrinkle and bunch up. It would be like wearing a cami under your bra now. It just wouldn't look or feel good. Although I think that even if she wore something under the corset, the whale bone would still leave marks. Women did wear corset covers over the corset to minimize the lines of the corset through the dress, and to prevent snagging of the dress on the clasps.

Anyway, I think the whole point of that scene was to emphasize the male-dominated society that Sara lives in. That even women's underwear, which was uncomfortable to the woman, was a necessity in order to make the female figure more pleasing to men.

Edited January 28, 2018 by pezgirl7

[Razzberry]

It's very lurid but I'm liking it a lot. The scene with the grieving Mrs. Zweig was electric.  Glad I haven't read the book and have no idea what will happen next, but I'm really looking forward to the next episode.  

The floor-length hemlines always kill me, especially given the filth.

[proserpina65]

On 1/22/2018 at 1:15 AM, Trampolina said:

I loved the casting, costuming, etc. in this mini series.  I can't wait for the rest of the episodes to see the reason for all the differences between the show and the book.

I found most of this really good, but I did have a problem with one aspect of the costuming.  I get that they were making a point showing the marks left on Sarah by the tight corset, but women did not wear corsets directly against their skin; they wore shifts or chemises under their corsets.

Oh, and the snow looked really fake.

Other than those two nitpicks, I thought this was a really good start.

On 1/23/2018 at 8:32 PM, Hazel55 said:

Furthermore, it seems to me that this show is (like quite a few others on TV) has a bit of a split personality when it comes to confronting sexism and women's issues. On the one hand, with Sarah Howard, there is a thoughtful and sensitive attempt to explore sexism, patriarchal attitudes, and things continuing to affect women down to this day. On the other, it seems uninterested in even questioning the ethics of John Moore visiting prostitutes, or even looking at the aformentioned prostitutes as feeling, thinking human beings rather than objects to be used sexually, then exploited to further develop the male characters. 

It's the first episode - how do you know this might not be addressed as the story progresses?

On 1/28/2018 at 4:43 PM, pezgirl7 said:

From what I've read, corsets of the 1890s were much more tightly laced than in the past, and many women did not wear chemises underneath them. I would think they would wrinkle and bunch up.

They were more tightly laced, but women still did wear chemises underneath them.

[pezgirl7]

Something I noticed upon second viewing is that Sara has to take Laszlo's hand to shake it, because he couldn't lift his arm up all the way. When they showed that scene during the previews, I thought he was jilting her by refusing to shake her hand. I didn't realize that he physically couldn't put his hand out all the way.

6 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

They were more tightly laced, but women still did wear chemises underneath them.

Not all women. Here's an excerpt from a book about The Gilded Age that states some women of the 1890s abandoned the chemise and wore only the corset cover.

I mentioned this before, but I also was really annoyed by the fake snow! It's like the set decorators had never seen real snow before and didn't know that it should have looked smooth on the ground.

[Morrigan2575]

42 minutes ago, pezgirl7 said:

Something I noticed upon second viewing is that Sara has to take Laszlo's hand to shake it, because he couldn't lift his arm up all the way. When they showed that scene during the previews, I thought he was jilting her by refusing to shake her hand. I didn't realize that he physically couldn't put his hand out all the way.

 

I had that thought too, that he snubbed her and wouldn't shake her hand. I realized he had an issue with that arm during the chase scene he never lifted the arm (that I saw). I remember thinking that was great attention to detail by the actor. 

I'm curious as to the backstory with his arm, among several other stories.

[Drumpf1737]

On 1/24/2018 at 3:54 PM, blackwing said:

but I agree with those that say Dakota Fanning is miscast.  I especially agree with the sentiment that her voice and speech sounds too modern.  It's like they took her out of 2018 and plunked her into the 1800s in a period dress.

Is there an example of what she should sound like? I've read that many intelligent women used some sort of affectation to hide their smarts so how can we be sure what a woman in this era should sound like? It's obvious actresses in the classic movie era were putting on their cadence and dialect so just curious at how it was decided that Dakota is miscast.

[proserpina65]

21 hours ago, pezgirl7 said:

Something I noticed upon second viewing is that Sara has to take Laszlo's hand to shake it, because he couldn't lift his arm up all the way. When they showed that scene during the previews, I thought he was jilting her by refusing to shake her hand. I didn't realize that he physically couldn't put his hand out all the way.

Not all women. Here's an excerpt from a book about The Gilded Age that states some women of the 1890s abandoned the chemise and wore only the corset cover.

I mentioned this before, but I also was really annoyed by the fake snow! It's like the set decorators had never seen real snow before and didn't know that it should have looked smooth on the ground.

I agree, not all women but the vast majority of them, and comfort was one of the reasons.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I finally got around to watching this show. Thankfully I'm not too far behind so I can catch up before next week's episode.

On 1/22/2018 at 8:05 PM, TrininisaScorp said:

I Personally, I'm in with Sara/Dakota.  The taking off the corset and seeing it imprinted on her skin made her very sympathetic to me. 

It reminded me of back in ye olden days before we had jeans with 1% lycra to make them stretchy. Taking off tight jeans after getting home used to leave marks like that all over the stomach! Or how smushed my poor toes look after a long day wearing high heel shoes.

On 1/22/2018 at 9:28 PM, Drumpf1737 said:

What I appreciated about the scene where Dakota was sexually harassed is it helps dispel that stupid notion that if women just wore more clothes men would focus on the work at hand.

Same here. Men will always harass women just because they're there. They could wear shapeless suits of armor and there would still be men leering at them and being dicks.

On 1/28/2018 at 5:49 PM, Razzberry said:

The floor-length hemlines always kill me, especially given the filth.

I'm already a germaphobe in this day and age, so seeing women put their handbags on the floors while they're in public bathrooms makes me want to gag (especially knowing that they're going to go home and put those same purses on their beds/sofas/kitchen counters), so seeing all those floor length skirts sweeping through the mud and muck on the street makes me shudder. Then add to that the fact that people were just throwing dirty water, chamber pot contents, and the like out the window onto the streets and blech. And then add into the mix horse shit!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Inside the episode::

 

Clips:
The respect my position demands:

It's all right there:

[Razzberry]

18 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

seeing all those floor length skirts sweeping through the mud and muck on the street makes me shudder.

God only knows what they had to traipse through, or what disease those dress bottoms harbored.   Washing and ironing those things had to be a huge time suck.  You'd think someone would say "Fuck this,  let's at least raise hems a few inches."

A fun day at the beach.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

4 hours ago, Razzberry said:

God only knows what they had to traipse through, or what disease those dress bottoms harbored.   Washing and ironing those things had to be a huge time suck.  You'd think someone would say "Fuck this,  let's at least raise hems a few inches."

When long flared pants were really popular about ten years ago, one girl I knew said that she loved getting hers a little too long because then the fabric would drag along the ground. I was like girl, you walk the streets of San Francisco which are STILL to this day covered in copious amounts of feces (both human and dog) and you WANT to drag your pants through that and then go home and drag that across your floors? Blech. At least these days you can just throw stuff in the washing machine but I can't imagine how much the maids must have hated having to clean all the caked on mud off of those long full skirts and layers of petticoats. Whenever I watch period pieces like this, even when I'm oohing and aahing over the lovely costumes, I am still wondering how much work went into keeping them clean. Even now, I wonder how much of a pain in the ass it is for the costume department to have to clean the bottoms of those dresses!

[Linderhill]

In response to the discussion about the skirt and dress hems dragging on the ground, at one point in time (its been too long since my historic costume class in college and I'm too lazy to look it up) women would replace the last couple of inches of their skirts. Those strips of cloth were stitched on the as the hem and could be torn off and cleaned, replaced, disposed of. I do remember thinking, when I learned this that it was a very practical solution to the problem but it is never shown in movies or television. I enjoyed the show. I always wanted to read the book but never got around to it. I'm looking forward to viewing each week.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

12 hours ago, Linderhill said:

In response to the discussion about the skirt and dress hems dragging on the ground, at one point in time (its been too long since my historic costume class in college and I'm too lazy to look it up) women would replace the last couple of inches of their skirts. Those strips of cloth were stitched on the as the hem and could be torn off and cleaned, replaced, disposed of. I do remember thinking, when I learned this that it was a very practical solution to the problem but it is never shown in movies or television. I enjoyed the show. I always wanted to read the book but never got around to it. I'm looking forward to viewing each week.

I love how practical that is - such a smart solution so that you (heh, or your maid) could clean or replace only the dirty part of the dress.

[Portia]

On 1/23/2018 at 1:52 PM, sugarbaker design said:

I just shut the lights off in my living room and I'm fine.

That's not a perfect solution if one is trying to watch during daylight hours (unless one happens to have a viewing room with no natural light). 

[Morrigan2575]

On 2/8/2018 at 3:33 PM, Linderhill said:

In response to the discussion about the skirt and dress hems dragging on the ground, at one point in time (its been too long since my historic costume class in college and I'm too lazy to look it up) women would replace the last couple of inches of their skirts. Those strips of cloth were stitched on the as the hem and could be torn off and cleaned, replaced, disposed of. I do remember thinking, when I learned this that it was a very practical solution to the problem but it is never shown in movies or television. I enjoyed the show. I always wanted to read the book but never got around to it. I'm looking forward to viewing each week.

That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. You're right you never see that in shows/movies and, to be honest I never gave it much thought. But, it is a practical solution to an obvious problem.

[sugarbaker design]

33 minutes ago, Portia said:

That's not a perfect solution if one is trying to watch during daylight hours (unless one happens to have a viewing room with no natural light). 

When it's a scary show (AHS, The X-Files, The Alienist...) I make sure to watch it in optimum scary conditions.  At night, lights out, phone off, from the comfort of my couch.  It adds to my viewing pleasure.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

On 2/6/2018 at 6:02 PM, Razzberry said:

God only knows what they had to traipse through, or what disease those dress bottoms harbored.   Washing and ironing those things had to be a huge time suck.  You'd think someone would say "Fuck this,  let's at least raise hems a few inches."

 

On 2/8/2018 at 12:33 PM, Linderhill said:

In response to the discussion about the skirt and dress hems dragging on the ground, at one point in time (its been too long since my historic costume class in college and I'm too lazy to look it up) women would replace the last couple of inches of their skirts. Those strips of cloth were stitched on the as the hem and could be torn off and cleaned, replaced, disposed of. I do remember thinking, when I learned this that it was a very practical solution to the problem but it is never shown in movies or television. I enjoyed the show. I always wanted to read the book but never got around to it. I'm looking forward to viewing each week.

I came across this article and it made me think about all the discussion we had here about skirts dragging through the filth of New York City streets: A Filthy History: When New Yorkers Lived Knee-Deep in Trash

It's about how dirty the streets used to be, how the New York Department of Sanitation came about, etc. They even mention Teddy Roosevelt! The new mayor, William Strong, initially asked TR to head up the new street cleaning commission. TR turned it down and instead took over the police department. Bonus: the article includes lots of photos, including one of a bunch of kids sitting a few feet away from a dead horse on the street, just like on the show.

Edited March 18, 2018 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Iju]

okay but what's up with the acceptance gay people in the 19th century? "The other boy was a prostitute. Your son was only following his nature" LMAO yeah sure, his mother would believe that 100%. and why was sarah coming off as bitter when they simply asked her to do something for them? "You think I can do that by batting my eyes and looking cute" look lady they would have asked the same if it was a male, i'm sure of this. i was so disappointed by this, i was hyped up ny the trailer and i get this on my plate. one could say they were only small moments in the episode but things like this always grow bigger and bigger.

On 23/01/2018 at 8:17 AM, benteen said:

 

This episode also felt like one long lesson in political correctness.  As the previous poster stated, I seriously doubt the prostitute dressing as a woman would have elicited much respect from anyone involved in this case.  No doubt going forward we'll be treated to countless speeches per episode from Sarah's character about being a woman in this society.

this tbh. i'll still watch but if it gets into educating every single person that being gay is okay and women need equality in the 1880s i'll definitely drop.

[Reality police]

4 hours ago, Iju said:

okay but what's up with the acceptance gay people in the 19th century? "The other boy was a prostitute. Your son was only following his nature" LMAO yeah sure, his mother would believe that 100%. and why was sarah coming off as bitter when they simply asked her to do something for them? "You think I can do that by batting my eyes and looking cute" look lady they would have asked the same if it was a male, i'm sure of this. i was so disappointed by this, i was hyped up ny the trailer and i get this on my plate. one could say they were only small moments in the episode but things like this always grow bigger and bigger.

this tbh. i'll still watch but if it gets into educating every single person that being gay is okay and women need equality in the 1880s i'll definitely drop.

In response to "following his nature", that is exactly what an Alienist would say. As for the mother, who knows what she believes?  No parent wants their child to be different. 

What acceptance of gay people are you speaking of? There have always been pedophiles preying on the weak.

As for Sara, just stay tuned, enjoy the murder mystery and the glimpse into life at that time. 

[minamurray78]

9 hours ago, Iju said:

 and why was sarah coming off as bitter when they simply asked her to do something for them? "You think I can do that by batting my eyes and looking cute" look lady they would have asked the same if it was a male, i'm sure of this.

It was a jab meant for John, I think. She was in a society feature, and they must have described her in the way she says: "And how should I help do that? With my "especially rosy mouth" or my "sparkling blue eyes"?", and John apologizes, claiming he only did the illustrations.

[Iju]

3 hours ago, minamurray78 said:

It was a jab meant for John, I think. She was in a society feature, and they must have described her in the way she says: "And how should I help do that? With my "especially rosy mouth" or my "sparkling blue eyes"?", and John apologizes, claiming he only did the illustrations.

ah okay, that clarifies things. thanks.

8 hours ago, Reality police said:

In response to "following his nature", that is exactly what an Alienist would say. As for the mother, who knows what she believes?  No parent wants their child to be different. 

What acceptance of gay people are you speaking of? There have always been pedophiles preying on the weak.

As for Sara, just stay tuned, enjoy the murder mystery and the glimpse into life at that time. 

people were very brainwashed during this time, i still doubt the mother would believe, she would probably think he was crazy as well.

and um...i wasn't talking about the gay people being pedophiles, i was talking about the boy. lol

Edited March 27, 2018 by Iju

[rubinia]

On 22/01/2018 at 9:46 PM, Yokosmom said:

Did anyone else think that the actor who played Dr. Lazlo was the same as the one who played Euron Greyjoy? Just me? (Slinks off embarrassed)

Suuuuper late to the discussion here but when I saw the actor who plays Euron Greyjoy in the film “Overlord” I thought it was Daniel Bruhl, so...there’s that.

Edited November 20, 2018 by rubinia

[Quickbeam]

New to the show, might as well have been an audio book, could not see a thing.