Are You There, Chelsea?

I liked that girl on "That 70s Show." But in this show, she acts just like herself. She has Chelsea Handler's flat tone down (because it's her own tone as well) but it's like she's trying to be so cool and hard. She doesn't exhibit any of Handler's happy-go-lucky, chuckling, self-deprecating crassness. I'm watching this week's episode (01x08). She just said, "Wiggling, my friend. Wiggling." The real Chelsea would totally say that, but not the way that girl did. Sorry I don't know her name. This could be a lot better if she had the character down a little better. I dunno, it's just disappointing when we love the real Chelsea so much.

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.

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.

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.

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.