Irish Travellers in America, TV3 9pm, 02 September 2013

Lapin

This could be comical or shocking.

Link

Its one of Paul Connolly's gigs so we can expect a light dusting of tabloid hyperbole.

Richard Dower

another one.....tv3 are pathetic. tv for scumbags and idiots.

Richard Dower

Richard Dower wrote: »

another one.....tv3 are pathetic. tv for scumbags and idiots.

Another one of your ridiculous statements that's ill informed and exists solely to annoy and insult people. You really need to grow up Richard and stop with these pointless posts. While I doubt that the documentary will be anything other than trash I'd never feel so superior as to call those who watch it scumbagd and idiots.

Lapin

Child abuse going on there.

Lisha

Lapin wrote: »

Child abuse going on there.

It's horrendous

Am hoping its being put on for cameras but I doubt it .

wilson10

Unbelievable, legalised paedophelia and the show of opulence puts the big fat gypsies in the halfpenny place.

Vohnsom Hofmee

wilson10 wrote: »

Unbelievable, legalised paedophilia and the show of opulence puts the big fat gypsies in the halfpenny place.

"As a medical diagnosis, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger."

Andersonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Another one of your ridiculous statements that's ill informed and exists solely to annoy and insult people. You really need to grow up Richard and stop with these pointless posts. While I doubt that the documentary will be anything other than trash I'd never feel so superior as to call those who watch it scumbagd and idiots.

Perhaps scumbags and idiots might be a bit harsh but it is definitely low brow trash and you'd have to question how anyone could sit down and watch it.

Lapin

There was feckall else on.

Andersonisgod

Lapin wrote: »

There was feckall else on.

There's always something else on and there's enough variety in the vast range of channels to find something worthwhile to watch. On top of that there is Netflix, Sky On Demand, a series boxset, a movie on any of the movie channels, a movie on dvd. The choices are many and probably all better than these endless wave of exploitative traveller shows.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Perhaps scumbags and idiots might be a bit harsh but it is definitely low brow trash and you'd have to question how anyone could sit down and watch it.

Anyone with an interest in documentary would give it a go as would anyone looking for a little easy to watch trash. I doubt it's entertaining or educational in any way other than sheer wtf? is this but it's certainly not the last thing you'd consider throwing on.

Andersonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone with an interest in documentary would give it a go as would anyone looking for a little easy to watch trash. I doubt it's entertaining or educational in any way other than sheer wtf? is this but it's certainly not the last thing you'd consider throwing on.

Sure if you have an interest in documentaries then you've probably watched 1 and you will have seen that it's mindless dribble, you might have decided that it's harsh to judge a premise based solely on 1 documentary so you might have watched a second, you will then have noticed that it was the same as the first. Alternatively you may have just read about how bad it is and you may have the common sense to know from the adverts and from reading and hearing about it that it is lowest common denominator tripe and from that you've decided simply to not watch it (just like you may not watch Geordie Shore or The Hills or whatever else MTV produces these days)
Sure there's easy to watch trash, though I'd wager that the majority of people that watched this tonight only ever watch "easy to watch trash" on television and that is why "easy to watch trash" is continually peddled out rather than forcing tv companies to invest in actual quality programming.
For me at least, a documentary which exploits a group of people, which has apparently actually led to further harassment and discrimination against those people and which shoves a camera in the face of a community of people so that others can sit at home and point and laugh and say "wtf" is actually probbly the last thing that I would willingly watch.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Sure if you have an interest in documentaries then you've probably watched 1 and you will have seen that it's mindless dribble, you might have decided that it's harsh to judge a premise based solely on 1 documentary so you might have watched a second, you will then have noticed that it was the same as the first. Alternatively you may have just read about how bad it is and you may have the common sense to know from the adverts and from reading and hearing about it that it is lowest common denominator tripe and from that you've decided simply to not watch it (just like you may not watch Geordie Shore or The Hills or whatever else MTV produces these days)
Sure there's easy to watch trash, though I'd wager that the majority of people that watched this tonight only ever watch "easy to watch trash" on television and that is why "easy to watch trash" is continually peddled out rather than forcing tv companies to invest in actual quality programming.
For me at least, a documentary which exploits a group of people, which has apparently actually led to further harassment and discrimination against those people and which shoves a camera in the face of a community of people so that others can sit at home and point and laugh and say "wtf" is actually probbly the last thing that I would willingly watch.

The only doc I watched on the travelling community was the atrocious Knuckle. I have no interest in watching these type of docs but I don't judge or look down upon those who do. As for saying these docs exploit a group of people, well I don't buy that for a second. Those involved in these docs, aka those in front of the cameras know exactly what they are letting themselves in for. If their behavoir is so outrageous and disgusting that viewers laugh at it or find it disturbing then this is hardly the filmmakers fault. If a community of travellers agree to be documented and act in a disgusting or uncivilised manner then how is a filmmaker capturing that exploiting them?

Andersonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

The only doc I watched on the travelling community was the atrocious Knuckle. I have no interest in watching these type of docs but I don't judge or look down upon those who do. As for saying these docs exploit a group of people, well I don't buy that for a second. Those involved in these docs, aka those in front of the cameras know exactly what they are letting themselves in for. If their behavoir is so outrageous and disgusting that viewers laugh at it or find it disturbing then this is hardly the filmmakers fault. If a community of travellers agree to be documented and act in a disgusting or uncivilised manner then how is a filmmaker capturing that exploiting them?

Why? Why don't you judge those who do watch these shows? You say in your comment that these documentaries aren't exploitative because those being filmed know what they are getting into, equally I would say that the vast majority of people who watched this documentary tonight and others of its ilk will have known what they were sitting down to watch before it had even begun, that being a "point and laugh" documentary with no redeeming qualities.
Google a bit about the criticism of these documentaries and you will see a few articles on the participants complaining about how they have been portrayed, unless you were there during the entire shoot an you were part of the editing process then you don't know what was left in or out or why some things were left in while others were taken out. The people who make these shows know what their audience want to see so you can bet that most, if not all of the things, you can point and laugh at were left in, the condescending nature of these shows is there for all to see and hear, right down to the music they use. It's a 21st century freak show, the television equivalent of the elephant man in a cage, the audience aren't there to hear the elephant man tell his life story or give his opinion on anything, they are there to gawk, point and laugh.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Why? Why don't you judge those who do watch these shows? You say in your comment that these documentaries aren't exploitative because those being filmed know what they are getting into, equally I would say that the vast majority of people who watched this documentary tonight and others of its ilk will have known what they were sitting down to watch before it had even begun, that being a "point and laugh" documentary with no redeeming qualities.
Google a bit about the criticism of these documentaries and you will see a few articles on the participants complaining about how they have been portrayed, unless you were there during the entire shoot an you were part of the editing process then you don't know what was left in or out or why some things were left in while others were taken out. The people who make these shows know what their audience want to see so you can bet that most, if not all of the things, you can point and laugh at were left in, the condescending nature of these shows is there for all to see and hear, right down to the music they use. It's a 21st century freak show, the television equivalent of the elephant man in a cage, the audience aren't there to hear the elephant man tell his life story or give his opinion on anything, they are there to gawk, point and laugh.

Any documentary which portrays the participants in a negative light is met with criticism from those bring portrayed poorly. Sure you can argue that selective editing and manipulation of the footage occurred but at the end of the day this negative footage wasn't fabricated. Take Knuckle for example. I thought that it was an incredibly poorly put together doc that did travellers no favors but the travelling community loved it. I'm not going to lie, I spent most of Knuckle either laughing at how crap it was or thinking that the participants were pathetic.

The people portrayed in these docs know exactly what they are letting themselves in for and if they wanted to help forward travelling culture then they'd behave a little and try yo set a good example. Instead they indulge in every cliche people expect from them. If someone sits down to watch these docs simply to laugh at the antics on display then they're wasting an hour of their lives. But that said if the travelling community want to be portrayed in a good light then it's up to the participants to try and behave in a respectable manner so that there's nothing there to be laughed at.

Andersonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Any documentary which portrays the participants in a negative light is met with criticism from those bring portrayed poorly. Sure you can argue that selective editing and manipulation of the footage occurred but at the end of the day this negative footage wasn't fabricated. Take Knuckle for example. I thought that it was an incredibly poorly put together doc that did travellers no favors but the travelling community loved it. I'm not going to lie, I spent most of Knuckle either laughing at how crap it was or thinking that the participants were pathetic.

The people portrayed in these docs know exactly what they are letting themselves in for and if they wanted to help forward travelling culture then they'd behave a little and try yo set a good example. Instead they indulge in every cliche people expect from them. If someone sits down to watch these docs simply to laugh at the antics on display then they're wasting an hour of their lives. But that said if the travelling community want to be portrayed in a good light then it's up to the participants to try and behave in a respectable manner so that there's nothing there to be laughed at.

Ok here's the thing, if I followed you around for a couple of months with a camera, with the help of some slick editing, some slapstick music and a moronic voiceover I could cobble together enough footage to make a show that suits practically any agenda I wanted it to suit. There's a big difference between going into a documentary with an open mind about what you are going to see and documenting that on a fair and balanced basis or gathering enough footage to suit your agenda, adding in some extras to make it more amusing for the audience and voila, here's your show.

Like I said in my last comment, you are too happy to attack the participants but you seem entirely unwilling to attack the viewer. It's the viewers appetite for such mediocre television that means that shows like this are actually made.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Ok here's the thing, if I followed you around for a couple of months with a camera, with the help of some slick editing, some slapstick music and a moronic voiceover I could cobble together enough footage to make a show that suits practically any agenda I wanted it to suit. There's a big difference between going into a documentary with an open mind about what you are going to see and documenting that on a fair and balanced basis or gathering enough footage to suit your agenda, adding in some extras to make it more amusing for the audience and voila, here's your show.

Like I said in my last comment, you are too happy to attack the participants but you seem entirely unwilling to attack the viewer. It's the viewers appetite for such mediocre television that means that shows like this are actually made.

I'm well aware of how you can manipulate footage and how through the use of score make any sort of film you want. It's documentary 101. I'm not attacking the participants more suggesting that they know exactly what they are getting into when they agree to star in these shows. Are they in on the joke? Perhaps they are but at the end if the day if you know the camera is there then you try not to make too much of a fool of yourself.

If a documentary crew followed me for a few months and then used only the footage that was point and laugh at the stupid, would that doc be classified as exploitive? There are plenty of docs that mock average people but no one ever seems to call then exploitive but the second you portray a minority in a negative light all you hear are cries of exploitation.

If you want to look down upon those who watch the show and mock them, go ahead. But then does that mean that you see yourself as superior to those people.

I have no interest in these type of docs. I find them incredibly stupid but that doesn't mean that I'm going to look down upon either the participants or those that watch it. If the travelling community wish to be portrayed in a more positive light then they shouldn't agree to these low brow docs. And if they do agree then they should actively ensure that they are on their best behaviour. I know it sounds simplistic and obvious but if there's a film crew following you, don't do anything that portrays you in an overtly negative light.

wilson10

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Ok here's the thing, if I followed you around for a couple of months with a camera, with the help of some slick editing, some slapstick music and a moronic voiceover I could cobble together enough footage to make a show that suits practically any agenda I wanted it to suit. There's a big difference between going into a documentary with an open mind about what you are going to see and documenting that on a fair and balanced basis or gathering enough footage to suit your agenda, adding in some extras to make it more amusing for the audience and voila, here's your show.

Like I said in my last comment, you are too happy to attack the participants but you seem entirely unwilling to attack the viewer. It's the viewers appetite for such mediocre television that means that shows like this are actually made.

I happened upon this programme and watched about ten minutes of it. I spent about three minutes on my phone finding this thread on Boards and jotting down my thoughts (17 words).
You have now written 712 words on the subject of slagging off the low life, riff raff like myself who would consider watching it and stayed up till 2 o'clock in the process. I haven't actually read any of your high brow drivel, just scanned a few lines, any more than you watched any of the priogramme in question.
I think a dose of cop on might be in order.

Andersonisgod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm well aware of how you can manipulate footage and how through the use of score make any sort of film you want. It's documentary 101. I'm not attacking the participants more suggesting that they know exactly what they are getting into when they agree to star in these shows. Are they in on the joke? Perhaps they are but at the end if the day if you know the camera is there then you try not to make too much of a fool of yourself.

If a documentary crew followed me for a few months and then used only the footage that was point and laugh at the stupid, would that doc be classified as exploitive? There are plenty of docs that mock average people but no one ever seems to call then exploitive but the second you portray a minority in a negative light all you hear are cries of exploitation.

If you want to look down upon those who watch the show and mock them, go ahead. But then does that mean that you see yourself as superior to those people.

I have no interest in these type of docs. I find them incredibly stupid but that doesn't mean that I'm going to look down upon either the participants or those that watch it. If the travelling community wish to be portrayed in a more positive light then they shouldn't agree to these low brow docs. And if they do agree then they should actively ensure that they are on their best behaviour. I know it sounds simplistic and obvious but if there's a film crew following you, don't do anything that portrays you in an overtly negative light.

That's such a ridiculous comparison. If I were to make this documentary about you and called it "Living with John" (for the sake of this argument I will call you John). Now what if I call the documentary "Living with an average white middle class male" Suddenly the documentary has wider significance. Now you take the traveller documentaries. Throw the word "gypsy" into the title and take a misunderstood and already ridiculed minority that's when you have exploitation.

The thing is though if I go into a documentary with the set goal of creating something to simply ridicule the participants then no matter what group of people you are documenting you will find a way of doing that, add in some clown music, a few shots of horses in a field and a whacky VoiceOver and you can make any group with practises that aren't exactly the same as the majority appear silly.

Do I consider myself superior? As a person? No. Someone who watches these shows might do great charity work, they might be a surgeon that saves lives everyday. Do I consider my television choices to be better than theirs? Yes. Do I consider them to be part of the problem with prime time television on major broadcasters right now? Yes.

Andersonisgod

wilson10 wrote: »

I happened upon this programme and watched about ten minutes of it. I spent about three minutes on my phone finding this thread on Boards and jotting down my thoughts (17 words).
You have now written 712 words on the subject of slagging off the low life, riff raff like myself who would consider watching it and stayed up till 2 o'clock in the process. I haven't actually read any of your high brow drivel, just scanned a few lines, any more than you watched any of the priogramme in question.
I think a dose of cop on might be in order.

I have and I feel confident that I could write more. However I was watching "Freaks and Geeks" while commenting so I am usually up past 12 anyway.

wilson10

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I have and I feel confident that I could write more. However I was watching "Freaks and Geeks" while commenting so I am usually up past 12 anyway.

I've never heard of it but you're watching "Freaks & Geeks" while slagging off people for watching low brow crap.

I'm so slow, it's only dawning on me now that you're a fully fledged troll.

Tipsy McSwagger

wilson10 wrote: »

I've never heard of it but you're watching "Freaks & Geeks" while slagging off people for watching low brow crap.

I'm so slow, it's only dawning on me now that you're a fully fledged troll.

Freaks & Geeks is the greatest tv show about teenagers of all time. Learn to look something up before commenting about it.

wilson10

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Freaks & Geeks is the greatest tv show about teenagers of all time. Learn to look something up before commenting about it.

The greatest TV show ever, prime time viewing, 1 o'clock in the morning on some obscure channel, yeah right.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

That's such a ridiculous comparison. If I were to make this documentary about you and called it "Living with John" (for the sake of this argument I will call you John). Now what if I call the documentary "Living with an average white middle class male" Suddenly the documentary has wider significance. Now you take the traveller documentaries. Throw the word "gypsy" into the title and take a misunderstood and already ridiculed minority that's when you have exploitation.

So by that thinking last nights documentary was less exploitative given that it refers to this subset of people by their preferred term.

Andersonisgod wrote: »

The thing is though if I go into a documentary with the set goal of creating something to simply ridicule the participants then no matter what group of people you are documenting you will find a way of doing that, add in some clown music, a few shots of horses in a field and a whacky VoiceOver and you can make any group with practises that aren't exactly the same as the majority appear silly.

You could argue then that Come Dine With me is exploitative as it utilities all those practices in order to make fun of the participants. Are all those drunken Irish abroad docs exploitative, after all they go out of their way to make fun of the participants. I'm all for integrity when it comes to documentary film making and have no interest in these docs but I have no issue with anyone who watches the show. Granted I don't want to be stuck in a room with someone who thinks the show is hilarious or cutting edge film making but for the most part, a lot of the people who watch this are curious and many, a few people I know mistook it for something else. A few friends of mine thought that the show documented Irish people living in America.

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Do I consider myself superior? As a person? No. Someone who watches these shows might do great charity work, they might be a surgeon that saves lives everyday. Do I consider my television choices to be better than theirs? Yes. Do I consider them to be part of the problem with prime time television on major broadcasters right now? Yes.

What problem? At the minute prime TV is home to some of the finest TV in years. The BBC, ITV and C4 are all turning out some exception TV drama and documentaries. Just because there's some trashy doc every couple of weeks hardly infers that prime time TV is in trouble.

Patty O Furniture

I watched it to see how secretive they are, as i've heard a lot of different stories on how they operate in the US, interesting to say the least as that's probably one of the reasons they wont go on tv with all the other Traveller shows on tv, as that's why maybe yer man Connolly went on to the Fox affiliate station to explain on why he was doin the show.

On a different note, i could have sworn i saw a frame with Mayo letters on it inside the tv producers booth it was directly after the tv studio interview he had, as it went to the producers booth & it was on the right hand side, strange, maybe they had it up for the GAA Final (from last year):p

Tipsy McSwagger

wilson10 wrote: »

The greatest TV show ever, prime time viewing, 1 o'clock in the morning on some obscure channel, yeah right.

Are you stupid? Where did i say it's the greatest tv show ever or prime time viewing? It's a 14 year old show and is really popular on netflix.

Andersonisgod

wilson10 wrote: »

I've never heard of it but you're watching "Freaks & Geeks" while slagging off people for watching low brow crap.

I'm so slow, it's only dawning on me now that you're a fully fledged troll.

Like Tipsy said, it's a brilliant series that incredibly was only given a single season and you will often see it appear top, or at least very near the top, of "shows that got canceled too soon" lists. It's cast consists of James Franco, Seth Rogen and Jason Segel with Judd Apatow as executive producer, it's terrific stuff, you should probably check it out.

Andersonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

So by that thinking last nights documentary was less exploitative given that it refers to this subset of people by their preferred term.



You could argue then that Come Dine With me is exploitative as it utilities all those practices in order to make fun of the participants. Are all those drunken Irish abroad docs exploitative, after all they go out of their way to make fun of the participants. I'm all for integrity when it comes to documentary film making and have no interest in these docs but I have no issue with anyone who watches the show. Granted I don't want to be stuck in a room with someone who thinks the show is hilarious or cutting edge film making but for the most part, a lot of the people who watch this are curious and many, a few people I know mistook it for something else. A few friends of mine thought that the show documented Irish people living in America.



What problem? At the minute prime TV is home to some of the finest TV in years. The BBC, ITV and C4 are all turning out some exception TV drama and documentaries. Just because there's some trashy doc every couple of weeks hardly infers that prime time TV is in trouble.

I think you completely missed my point there, I mean like by a wide margin. What I was getting at is that if in the very title of a show about a minority you refer to that minority then inevitably that minority is being represented to some degree by the participants.

Yes you could argue that it is exploitative and you could argue that it is also trash television. Though I think there's a difference between someone slightly burning their steak and laughing at a cultures traditions and beliefs. Sure it is entirely possible that some people stumbled across it accidentally but it's safe to say that the majority of those watching last night will have known the tone of the show right from the beginning.

Yes there is some excellent shows being made right now. Though to think that trashy tv only occurs once every couple of weeks is wrong. The amount of reality tv shows on primetime slots is indicative of a society which accepts mediocrity as the norm. However I fear that is a different debate, for a different thread, for a different day.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I think you completely missed my point there, I mean like by a wide margin. What I was getting at is that if in the very title of a show about a minority you refer to that minority then inevitably that minority is being represented to some degree by the participants.

I got your point, I just don't see why you have such issue with the program title. It's clear and to the point and tells you everything you need to know about the show in question. The travelling community refer to themselves and want others to refer to them as travellers. And as such, it makes perfect sense for them to title a documentary following a group of Irish travellers in America as Irish Travellers in America. Not really many more fitting titles you can think of, how about An Irish Minority in America. Would that be less or more explotiive?

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Yes you could argue that it is exploitative and you could argue that it is also trash television. Though I think there's a difference between someone slightly burning their steak and laughing at a cultures traditions and beliefs. Sure it is entirely possible that some people stumbled across it accidentally but it's safe to say that the majority of those watching last night will have known the tone of the show right from the beginning.

It can be both exploitive and trash but at the end of the day it's a bit unfair to judge a show based on it's title and even more unfair to criticise those who watch it.

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Yes there is some excellent shows being made right now. Though to think that trashy tv only occurs once every couple of weeks is wrong. The amount of reality tv shows on primetime slots is indicative of a society which accepts mediocrity as the norm. However I fear that is a different debate, for a different thread, for a different day.

There's no doubt that there is crap being shown every day and there's far too much reality TV on but that doesn't mean that mediocrity is the norm. Much as we'd all love for every show to be as good as Broadchurch or Breaking Bad that's simply impossible. I have no interest in any reality TV but I understand that were it not for the success for these cheap to make shows we would not have such great drama being produced. You may hate The X-Factor but without it, we may not see half as much money being spent on drama.

Andersonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

I got your point, I just don't see why you have such issue with the program title. It's clear and to the point and tells you everything you need to know about the show in question. The travelling community refer to themselves and want others to refer to them as travellers. And as such, it makes perfect sense for them to title a documentary following a group of Irish travellers in America as Irish Travellers in America. Not really many more fitting titles you can think of, how about An Irish Minority in America. Would that be less or more explotiive?



It can be both exploitive and trash but at the end of the day it's a bit unfair to judge a show based on it's title and even more unfair to criticise those who watch it.



There's no doubt that there is crap being shown every day and there's far too much reality TV on but that doesn't mean that mediocrity is the norm. Much as we'd all love for every show to be as good as Broadchurch or Breaking Bad that's simply impossible. I have no interest in any reality TV but I understand that were it not for the success for these cheap to make shows we would not have such great drama being produced. You may hate The X-Factor but without it, we may not see half as much money being spent on drama.

I don't mean to sound argumentative but I don't think you did get my point. I am not saying that the term "traveller" is offensive (afterall by saying such a thing it would actually be me doing the offending) nor am I saying that the term "traveller" is exploitative, my original point was that by using the term of the minority then inevitably the participants in the documentary are a representative of that minority, my point in this paragraph for the last couple of messages has been about representation, not exploitation. It is possible that I explained that poorly, if so then my apologies.

You've said this a few times and again I will ask, why? Why is it unfair to criticise those who watched this show and other traveller documentaries? If I set up a circus and put a somebody with a body deformity in a cage and people came and laughed at the person, sure I as the owner should shoulder a lot of the blame but I also believe that those who went to the show, who made the show viable by going to it also deserve to be criticised. In my opinion this is the same thing. Do the participants deserve criticism? Perhaps, though I don't particularly agree with laughing at minorities and their practices, do the creators deserve criticism? Of course, they have gone into the making of these shows with an agenda to ridicule and nothing more. Do those who watched the show deserve criticism? Yes, because if they didn't keep watching these traveller documentaries then they simply wouldn't be made anymore. If people keep going to the circus to see the deformed person then the circus will keep bringing back the deformed people in cages.

Nicolas Lyndhurst recently commented that "Only Fools and Horses" wouldn't be made today because it is so much easier to make a cheap, tacky reality tv show. Personally I think he is right, I also think that currently people lack the patience to let a show and characters develop. Sure there are exceptions and there is examples of quality programming but for every high quality example of a tv show you give me, I will give you 3 bad, cheap shows that are on instead.

Sam Kade

Tried watching this a few minutes ago seems interesting but I couldn't hack your mans over exaggerated false accent. Very hard on the ears :mad: Surely they could have got some reporter that could talk some way normal and less ear grating :rolleyes:

dorito92

how many episodes of this were in total? i watched 2 online but now they arent on the tv3 player site anymore