Are You There, Chelsea?

Chelsea Newman (Laura Prepon) is struggling to get her life in order. When she gets a DUI, it's not the drinking but the driving she's cutting out. She and her friend Olivia (Ali Wong) move in with Dee Dee (Lauren Lapkus) whose apartment is within walking distance to her job at the bar.

This is suppose to be based on Chelsea Handler's life and her book. Her drunken exploits may be funny in book form but as a traditional bodied sitcom it never worked. In the show, she plays Chelsea's straight-laced religious sister Sloane which becomes annoying. I think Prepon was miscast. In the 70s Show, she's the straight laced mommy character of the group. She's wrong for this and the group never gels. Honestly, it never had much of a chance but bad writing really meant it had no chance at all. Laura Prepon is strangely out of place. Lauren Lapkus has the quirky best friend down. The rest of the gang is just unlikeable. Jake McDorman's charm is not there. The show doesn't work.

I was also bummed with this show. I was expecting Chelsea Handler to be the main character, but Laura Prepon is. I think Laura can be funny, but they need to chill out with the sexual innuendos. Sex talk ALL. THE. TIME. is not that funny. This was the second pilot I watched this week and all it was about was sex. After awhile, it becomes tasteless. Writers, can you not come up with anything original?

The character Nikki, I believe her name is Natasha Leggero, is completely annoying, not funny. She was in the short-lived Free Agents and played the same type of annoying character. I think her appearances on the show could grind it into the ground even more.

This should could have potential, but without more of Chelsea Handler acting like herself, I don't see it happening.

I guess many of the negative reviewers have never heard of exposition. The first episode is expected to be a little light on jokes because it requires characters, settings, and backgrounds to be explained. The supporting cast is a bunch of circus freaks, which is a plus. The jokes Chelsea bookended on the end of the scenes for obligatory exposition were all very good. While it's too early to make an early good or bad conclusion (in spite of other reviewers' predeterminations), I'm definitely interested.

If anything, Are You There, Chelsea? could end up killing Whitney (a brutally unfunny show that's trying to be Friends...again) because it's actually funny. Hopefully, Whitney won't kill this show by preceding it.

It's unfortunate that the network made the mistake of thinking they needed a young twenty something to make this show marketable.

Chelsea Handler has a rather unique ill-reverent comedy style that is as much about her demeanor as it is about the jokes.

Laura Prepon is absolutely nothing like Chelsea. The timing and delivery of the material is twisted into something completely different. Ms. Prepon has struggled to recapture her success on "That 70s Show"

In this critics opinion Her problem is two fold. She is far more ascetically attractive than she is talented. Perhaps she would do better as a "picture" model. That way we could enjoy her beauty without having to listen to her unflattering...(mannish?) voice.

This show might be saved if instead of having Prepon as the lead, they could write the story from the older sister's point of view. The older sister played by Chelsea Handler. That way Handler could carry the show the way it should have been presented in the first place.

I find this new brand of sitcom, a la Whitney, to be most unimpressive.

No matter what you think of these botoxed femmes, in terms of their stand-up routines, this scripted pap doesn't translate well.

In short, the jokes are nothing we haven't heard too many times, before. It appears the writers have supplanted genuine cleverness, humor and wit, with trying to "shock" people, by pushing the boundaries of decency.

Don't get me wrong; some of the best comedy in history has pushed the boundaries of social ideals of "decency", in the past. HOWEVER – those comedies did so with a purpose. They often challenged our sensibilities and old ways of thinking with unique, clever or thoughtful ways. Conversely, shows like Whitney and Chelsea seem to just try to make the audience say "I can't believe she said that" in social realms, which are already loose and maybe a bit crass. Crass is no substitute for clever.

Anti-intellectualism is taking hold in shows like this.