Are You There, Chelsea?

I'll start by saying in general, I like everything Chelseas's done before this show. I've read the books and watch Lately regularly. This show however is a disaster. First of all, it's very difficult to follow the show when Prepon, who is portraying Handler is speaking to Handler, who is portraying Sloan. It's like Chelsea is speaking to herself and it makes it nearly impossible not to think about while watching the two converse. Also, I feel like i'm on the set watching them act during the entire show. None of the conversations so far have flowed well at all. I really do hate the fact that I don't like this show because the book was a lot of fun to read. Oh well, good luck with your next project Chelsea.

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.

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.

Where do I begin? Laura Prepon couldn't act her way out of a box; the timing and delivery of whatever comedic value there is in the writing is completely lost when it falls limply out of her mouth.

Some of the acting is so bad that I'm in disbelief they wouldn't have done another take; I think they must have filmed the pilot in almost realtime.

The show seems like it was written by a team of 17 year olds. The characters unbelievable, unlikeable, generic cookie cutter stereotypes with about as much attitude as a loaf of bread.

This is probably one of the worst shows on television at the moment.

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.