Bullz-Eye: So The Game is now officially a game.

Neil Strauss: Yes. In a matter of speaking. [Laughs.]

How weird was that? Was it an idea that you came up with, or did someone else pitch it to you?

Yeah, I don’t think I ever would’ve come up with that on my own. [Laughs.] But now I’m really into it. Now I really love it. There’s two elements. One, it’s really fun – Adam (Kornblum) made a game, and I made it into more of a game that I’d want to play with my friends – and, two, it’s just kind of fun to have a game. It’s kind of a childhood dream. It’s not just Monopoly or Sorry! or Mousetrap or Chutes and Ladders or…there’s this game 221B Baker Street, which is, like, a better Clue. [Laughs.] But all those games…I’d always wanted to do a game, but what I think really motivated me to want to do it was that Adam contacted me, and…I didn’t know him at all, but sometimes in the deluge there’s a compelling email where we sit around and think, “Maybe we should contact this guy.” And he had done a game for Hasbro, so he had some credibility there. He said he had made a game based on the books I’d done already that he’d been, like, taking out to bars and playing there just to meet women. So I thought, okay, this guy’s field-tested his idea, he’s not just writing about an idea that he’s come up with while he’s sitting in front of his email. I guess he’s now engaged, so obviously it worked to some degree. [Laughs.] Anyway, I thought, “Okay, let’s kind of entertain this and take it seriously.” And he sent it over, and I kept just playing it with different friends and then adding tweaks and changing it and adding new types of cards. Like, I really wanted the game to be something that you play in bars but, like, for example, when I’d go out, I’d end up bringing people back to my house and I’d be, like, “Fuck, now what do I do with them?” And the game’s kind of like social lubrication, a way to get to know people and having everybody having fun and laughing and bonding without any awkwardness.

You said Adam got the ball rolling, but when someone’s playing the game of The Game, what’s something that you personally added to the game?

I think a couple of my favorite things are the Neg cards, where, like, whoever has the worst driver’s license picture or the most wrinkled shirt loses points. [Laughs.] It’s, like, I thought, what’s fun is people laughing at themselves and their own foibles in a non-malicious way, where you’re teasing someone like they’re friends might tease them. Another favorite is the Secret cards, which are basically…it’s a secret social mission to pull off over the course of the game. For example, if you make up something conversationally and someone else in the group believes it’s true, you get two points. So all through the game there are these two layers: the game itself, and the social mission. And it’s a fun layer. It’s a fun form of manipulation, because you’re, like, “How can I get everyone to believe this and get my points?” The social dynamics part is something that, as far as I know, hasn’t been seen in a game yet. There are games with fun challenges, tests, points giving and taking, but where you’re actually trying to execute a social mission within the group…? That’s where it becomes unique.

It definitely seems that you don’t have to be single or on the market, as it were, to enjoy the game.

Oh, definitely not. In fact, we had a dinner party a few nights ago, it was about 12 people, and I’d say about eight of them were couples in serious relationships. So, no, it doesn’t matter at all. Either it’s good to get to know someone or it’s just fun to play with friends. But, I mean, my girlfriend and I play it all the time. It’s fun to go to a party and bring your own game. By the way, you only do that at parties with really good friends who are proud of you and can appreciate that you have your own game, and not with casual acquaintances who are, like, “Why is this asshole bringing his game to our party?” [Laughs.]

Having brought up the fact that you have a girlfriend begs a question about the original book: how quickly did you admit to her that you were the guy behind The Game? Or did she know from the get-go?

Uh, yeah, at this point, I think I’m kind of screwed. I kind of have to say it up front, because if I don’t, one of these things happens: they know the book already, their friends are going to tell them, or they’re going to Google me and find out. Better that I be the bearer of the news. [Laughs.] It can definitely make it more difficult as far as getting people to trust anything you’re saying. I think my only recourse is to be as sincere as possible, because everything is tainted with suspicion.

So what was the original impetus for writing The Game? You’d written in the medium of pop culture quite a bit prior to that, certainly, but…

I think the initial impetus was being a rock critic at Rolling Stone and The New York Times and going to all these shows, which are carnivals of flesh and sexuality, really. But that’s rock ‘n’ roll. [Laughs.] And I’m just the lonely guy with the notepad watching everybody else have all the fun, hoping that maybe some girl’s going to come up and talk to me because I’m writing something in my notepad. And then I’d say, “Oh, yeah, I’m going to this show next week and these other shows the following week, if you want to come with me,” and I assumed that was going to be a date, and…I remember once I met this girl at one, and she ended up making out with the guy sitting next to me. And I was, like, “What the fuck…? What’s wrong with me?” So it really came not from a desire to go underground and assume an identity and be an investigative journalist or even to write a book but, rather, to help get over my own problems with women. [Laughs.]

So what’s the status of the movie version of The Game?

It looks like…they’re in casting mode for the movie version, which I think is probably a great leap forward. [Laughs.] I’m always hesitant. Until the day they begin shooting, I don’t believe it’s going to happen. But it’s definitely the closest it’s been.

Is that how you feel about the movie version of The Dirt as well?

No. Unfortunately, I’m a lot less certain about The Dirt. [Laughs.] But, by the way, The Dirt‘s script is fricking incredible. This guy Rich Wilkes wrote it, and…I think it’s the first book of mine that was optioned for a movie, and that was, what, 10 years ago now? I don’t even know how long it’s been anymore. And, literally, people come up to me who’ve read the script for The Dirt that haven’t read the book, and they’re, like, “Great script! I really need to go read the book now!” That never happens. I just hope…they’ve got to make it. They’ve got to. I just don’t when it’s going to happen. But if you haven’t read the script, you really need to. He really captured it well. I read it, and I was, like, “This is why I don’t write the scripts for my own books. I never could’ve done as good a job as he did.”

Of the other books you’ve collaborated on with musicians…well, I’m hard pressed to believe that The Dirt can be topped, but do you have another favorite experience among them?

Well, I’d say the Marilyn Manson book, but all my books were kind of crazy experiences. The Marilyn Manson book was really the first, and it was fun. The fun books are when a band is just getting huge and they’re sort of really enjoying the decadence of that. I remember when I first went out with Marilyn Manson, calling my friend back home and saying, “I think I’m gonna die if I’m on tour with this band.” [Laughs.] And then I did a book with Dave Navarro which was just crazy, because I basically kind of lived with him for a year while he was shooting up cocaine every 15 minutes and heroin every few hours. Doing that book, I thought he was going to die.  I can’t even really explain it. I mean, I got a call from him once, and he said, “Dude, I’m overdosing.” I’m, like, “Fuck, man, what do you want me to do?” “I just want you to make sure you record this and get it in the book.” I’m, like, “Okay, I think you’re going to be fine, if you’re worried about wanting me to record this.” [Laughs.] But, yeah, that was really, really dark, that book.

We had a weird experience with him right when the new Jane’s Addiction album was coming out. We had a chance to interview him – this was actually my buddy David who did the interview – and he’s trying to ask Navarro about the album, and he just has almost nothing to say. Finally, he’s, like, “I thought this was for a guy’s site.” Apparently, he just figured we were going to be asking him about porn stars.

Ah, so he wanted to talk about that stuff and not the music…?

Yep. He had almost nothing to say about the music.

Yeah, it’s funny. I suppose it shows where his mind is at these days, huh? [Laughs.]

Has there been any book that you’ve attempted to write that fell through, either because the person ended up not wanting to give you the go-ahead for all-access that you’d anticipated?

There are definitely books where I’ve met with the person and decided not to write the book, for sure. And there were even, like, very, very famous people whose books would sell well. But they weren’t willing to go to the mat and say everything and were, y’know, too worried about how they were gonna come across or what they looked like, so I didn’t take them.

Did any of them eventually move forward with someone else?

Yeah. But I don’t want to call them out. [Laughs.] And there were a couple of books early on that I kind of started to write but never got past the first chapter. I thought it’d be fun someday just to put out the excerpts from unpublished autobiographies. Some of them were of kind of funny characters. There’s one I’m doing right now, though, that…I can’t say who it is, but it…I mean, the person’s telling me these stories, and I can’t even focus, they’re so intense. And it’s not someone you’d ever guess, but when you hear who it is, you’ll be, like, “Okay, that makes sense.” But it’s not someone you’d ever guess.

Can you say if it’s a musician or an actor?

Someone from the music world. Musicians have better stories, y’know? Actors have to behave to get a job. Musicians don’t. Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen behave a certain way and lose their jobs, but rock stars do it and get raises. [Laughs.] No one would have blinked an eye if a rock star behave the way Charlie Sheen has.

How did you make the jump from writing articles to writing books?

I think the transition was…I started out doing an article on Marilyn Manson for Rolling Stone, and I originally took it because I just didn’t like him. I just thought, “This guy’s a big phony,” and I’d never written a negative article, but I was just going to call this guy out. And then I ended up really liking him and ended up writing a positive article. So his book editor contacted me and said, “Hey, how’d you like to try writing a book?” And I said, “Sure,” but I remember I put it in the contract that if I didn’t like it, I could remove my name from the book itself. I thought, “Hey, this way I get experience writing a book, but I’m not on the hook for it.” [Laughs.] I probably wrote for…I don’t know, but probably for at least ten years before writing a book. And I probably wrote other people’s book for five, six, seven years before I finally had the balls to write my own book. So it’s really been a slow build. But the good news is that by the time I finally wrote my own book, I had so much writing experience that it held together.

With Emergency: This Book Will Save Your Life, the content is a significant jump forward from The Game. I think a lot of people might’ve envisioned you as being a one-trick pony, like, “Oh, the pick-up artist guy,” but that’s a much deeper topic.

Exactly. And, y’know, I think that’s the whole thing. [Exhales loudly.] God, all the topics I want to write about are so deep. My biggest challenge is…I’ve got four books under contract that are non-collaborations, and they all require so much research and immersion like Emergency did. But I think the secret is that you just write what’s interesting to you. You don’t write what you think other people are going to like. That way you’re passionate about it. I remember thinking I could sit there all day trying to figure out what people are going to like and do surveys and things like that, but I think they’ll like anything that you’re really passionate about and connect with and communicate well. I’ve read plenty of books on subjects that I wasn’t interested in that were great books.

I’m sure there were several moments while writing Emergency that would qualify for this, but…was there a particular revelation you discovered about the financial situation in America and the economic downturn that was just heartstopping?

Well, you know what really got me? The fact that people aren’t worried about anything in the world until it affects their wallets and their bankbooks. Do you know what I mean? Like, what gets people more panicked than anything is when gas prices go up. More than terrorists acts, more than natural disasters, more than all these things that are more likely to happen than a complete economic Armageddon. People in various places are experiencing earthquakes or wildfires or tornadoes, yet no one really thinks about themselves until they suddenly go, “Omigod, gas prices went up,” and feel it in their own bankbook. That seems to be the only way to get people to respond. And that was just sort of…worrisome. And disappointing. If you look at the Great Depression, the people who survived that were, like, “You suffer, and it makes you stronger. You survive.” You learn to have community gardens, you learn to economize your resources, and in the end, having to struggle and suffer isn’t so bad. I was surprised and yet not surprised that the big epiphany was that no one takes anything seriously until it hits their own wallet.

You’ve had some pretty high profile pieces in your career, including your piece about Kurt Cobain’s suicide and the Eric Clapton profile you did for The New York Times. Is there an article you’ve written about someone perhaps not as immediately notable that you’re particularly proud of?

Yeah, for me, I think it’s the article about Paul Nelson (“The Man Who Disappeared”). He was a music critic at Rolling Stone, and…basically he gave Bob Dylan these Woody Guthrie albums and said, “Oh, you should check these out!” And Bob Dylan became Bob Dylan. He signed the first punk band – the New York Dolls – to Mercury. And he was just a great rock critic. Unlike the Lester Bangs style, he had a very literary style. And he died alone of starvation in his apartment, just completely neglected and with 10 years of writers block. It was very humbling. You spend all this time, you care about culture and film and music, you sacrifice personal relationships to culture. He couldn’t have personal relationships. He could only have relationships with culture. And in the end he died alone. I mean, you sit there, you write all this copy, and in the end you think, “Well, what am I doing with my life? What is it adding up to? I’m not going out at night because on my deadlines. What am I doing?” It was a very brooding, humbling article to write. It took me so long to write it, just because it struck so close to home. You just don’t want to end up like him, because, y’know, he had an estranged son, an ex-wife, and…he was forgotten about.

Just to wrap up, as a TV critic, I have to ask you about The Product, the series that you, Navarro, and Cliff Dorfman (Entourage) were set to do for FX. It obviously never made it to air, but how far along did it get? Did you make a pilot, or was is strictly a concept?

Yeah, The Product was an actual pilot, it made it over to FX, but they didn’t greenlight it in the end. I’m actually doing a show now that…I guess it hasn’t been announced, but I’m writing a show for HBO. We’ll see what happens with that. But, you know, it seems like a lot of writers…now, I’m not saying I’m the same pantheon here… [Laughs.] But you look at, like, Ayn Rand, William Faulkner, they did some of their worst work in Hollywood. In the end, it just kind of sucked up a lot of their time and kept them from doing the writing they really should’ve been doing.

So…where were we?

Oh, fine, let’s go ahead and deal with the elephant in the room: it’s been nine months since Bullz-Eye doled out its last TV Power Rankings. What can we say? There were a lot of good shows on the air between May 2011 and February 2012, and somewhere around late October, it just kind of reached a point where we said, “You know what? It’s way more fun to watch TV than it is to write about it.” Eventually, though, the powers that be pried us off the couch (there’s still an indentation where we were sitting), set us back in front of the computer, and said, “Look, the readers demand to know Bullz-Eye’s take on the best shows of the past year* and, frankly, they’re starting to get a little belligerent about it.”

(*Rounded up for statistical purposes.)

So here we are, ready to offer up our list of the 25 best shows on television** as well as several shows bubbling just under our list, plus a new section called “Still Too New to Call,” where we praise shows that seem pretty damned good after their first few episodes but simply haven’t been around long enough for us to feel comfortable including them in the other two lists.

(**Okay, technically, it’s the 24 best shows on television plus one show that hasn’t been on since 2010, but we’re so excited about that particular show coming back that we included it, anyway.)

All told, we hope you’ll walk away from this piece either nodding your head in agreement or wondering why you haven’t been watching some of these shows. If not, however, there’s a perfectly good Comments section that’s just waiting for your opinions about what’s good on TV.

Everybody ready? Then let’s get this thing started…

No, it’s not quite the same show it used to be, owing to the fact that the cast now consists of almost as many women as it does men, but with the series now in its fifth season, the trio of Kaley Cuouo, Melissa Rauch, and Mayim Bialik have probably infused “The Big Bang Theory” with more laughs than the it would’ve had at this point if it had stuck strictly to the original four geeks. The only question now is how much longer we’ll have to wait for Raj to come out of the closet…because, seriously, you don’t need to possess gay-dar to see that that’s what they’re leading up to.

When we first picked back up with Nancy Botwin (Mary-Louise Parker) for the seventh season of “Weeds,” she’d spent three years cooling her heels in the clink while the rest of the Botwin clan had been chillin’ in Copenhagen, but with Nancy being shifted to a halfway house in New York City, a family reunion was only inevitable. Big shock: Nancy started selling pot again. Possibly bigger shock: even going into its eighth season, “Weeds” is still reliably entertaining.

When it comes to watching “New Girl,” one’s level of appreciation is directly proportionate to how one feels about the concept of “adorkability,” which Zooey Deschanel brings to the small screen in seemingly limitless quantities as Jess, a too-cute twentysomething who moves in with a trio of guys on the heels of an excruciatingly bad breakup. As with most ensemble comedies, it’s taken time for the chemistry of the cast to find its feet, but it’s coming along nicely.

Some shows are perfect fare for guys and gals to kick back and enjoy together, but, guys, unless you have one of the most awesome girlfriends ever, then “Archer” probably doesn’t quality as one of those shows. Sterling Archer has the libido of James Bond and Austin Powers put together but without any of the charm, and not only is he unfailingly uncouth, but he’s a mama’s boy to boot. Damned if he isn’t funny, though, and Season 3 has started off just as funny as its predecessors…but, then, what would you expect when you’ve got Burt Reynolds playing himself?

As long as the beautiful ménage à trois between stupid people, video cameras, and the internet continues to flourish, Daniel Tosh’s career will stay in full bloom. Now in its fourth season, “Tosh.0″ may not be the most highbrow series on the air, but it’s never at a loss for material and still offers a solid number of laughs per episode.

Okay, so maybe it wasn’t entirely coincidental. Look, I’ve been smitten with Natalie Zea since she first crossed my radar as part of the cast of ABC’s “Dirty Sexy Money,” and I had the chance to talk to her in a perfectly legitimate capacity. So sue me.

Also, just so it’s out there, I should probably also mention that I sound like a complete doofus a couple of times, responding to her responses by simply saying, “Really?” I’m not usually like that, but, hey, this is what happens when you’re blindsided by a beautiful woman…

Bullz-Eye: So what was it like when the cast gathered back together for the first table read of Season Three?

Natalie Zea: We, uh, don’t do table reads. [Laughs.]

BE: [Surprised.] Really?

NZ: Regretfully. I think they’re very handy. I think it’s that Graham (Yost) is not a fan of table reads. I’m not sure why. So, yeah, you kind of get thrown back into it on the first day. My first scene of Season Three was a love scene. And it’s, like, “Oh, hello, haven’t seen you in six months! How are you doing? Great! Let’s get into bed!” [Laughs.] And then, y’know, after the first 15 minutes, it’s like I never left.

BE: There’s at least a slightly different dynamic with your character this season, owing to her pregnancy, but you indicated during the panel that you’re not planning to play her a whole lot differently.

NZ: No, I’m not. Also, in regards to the pregnancy, what I realized but didn’t say is… We’re not really talking about the pregnancy as much as we are the baby. So I think probably Winona’s pregnancy is going quite well. [Laughs.] She’s having a really easy time of it. Which I like. I think…y’know, if there are concerns with viewers – and I think there would be, given the nature of this show – that it’s going to turn into this, like, “Baby? Pregnancy? I want ice cream and pickles! My feet hurt!” [Laughs.] It’s not happening. The pregnancy almost never gets addressed. But the issues…the outcome and the issues regarding the outcome, those are discussed. Because it’s life. And you have to discuss it.

BE: Speaking of ice cream, that was a great line Raylan had at the end of Season Two. As if anyone would ever believe that he’d settle down and sell ice cream. Ever.

NZ: It could happen… [Laughs.]

BE: Sure. Sure it could. [Laughs.] So when you first started “Justified,” did you get any indication about where your character was going to be going?

NZ: At the very beginning? No. And I was actually somewhat hesitant to take the job because of that, because I had run into a situation where I had been on a show and the character seemed to not quite find its feet, and I didn’t want a repeat of that. Graham was actually very honest with me, though. He said, “Look, I can’t make you any promises, but I can tell you that there’s a reason that we want you on permanently, so you can trust us or you can take a hike, but we really would like to have you.” So, uh, I was in escrow… [Laughs.] And I was, like, “Well, I’m not gonna say no to that!” So I really did sort of jump in quite blindly.

BE: That kind of parallels Anna Gunn’s experiences on “Breaking Bad,” where she wanted to make sure that Skyler White wasn’t just going to be the harried wife, and Vince Gilligan basically assured her, “She’s going to start off in the dark, but eventually she’ll be in on the crime.”

NZ: Right. Because, you know, it’s an archetype that has become… [Sighs.] …troublesome, playing the reactive significant other to the hero just because of the need for dramatic conflict. It happens a lot, and I think actresses – at least the ones who’ve been doing this for awhile – are concerned that they’re going to sort of become that trope. And it’s happened with Winona. At times. I mean, there’s no way for it not to have happened. But it’s something that you try to avoid at all costs, I think.

BE: Sure. But, like, for instance, when the series first kicked off, I think most viewers figured, “Oh, here’s his ex, she’s back in the picture, you just know they’re gonna get back together…”

NZ: Yeah, I mean, I assumed it as well. But I certainly didn’t think it was any kind of guarantee.

BE: I think the most surprising plot development with Winona came last season, when she stole the money.

NZ: And…that was a bit of a misstep, I thought.

BE: Really?

NZ: Yes, because the reason behind all that wasn’t fleshed out enough, only because there was so much else going on. I just think it kind of got lost. And I don’t think I’m telling tales out of school when I say that. I think it just didn’t resonate the way we had intended for it to, because the buildup was…not quite right.

BE: How quickly did you and Timothy Olyphant find your onscreen chemistry?

NZ: [Long pause.] I would say…I mean, I think it’s all subjective, but probably about halfway through the season. I would say “Hatless,” which was Episode Six of the first season, when we got to spend a lot of time together as our characters in the episode. I think that’s when we really locked into the rhythm and sort of began to understand the relationship.

BE: For a second, I thought you were trying to say, “I’d say we have more chemistry when he’s hatless.”

NZ: [Bursts out laughing.] Well, I have to say, I do enjoy him more without the hat. Just because I can see him, you know?

BE: “Justified” obviously has a ridiculously talented writing staff, but have you yourself brought anything specific to the character of Winona?

NZ: For me…as superficial as it might sound, I tend to work from the outside in. Nails are really important for me for any character. The voice is really important for me for any character. And, of course, the hair and the makeup. But I try to take care of what you see, and then I let them sort of take care of what I say and think and feel. [Laughs.] And hopefully the combination makes a fully realized person.

BE: How has it been working with Elmore Leonard?

NZ: I, uh, met him today.

BE: Really? For the first time…?

NZ: Yep. And he was wonderful. [Laughs.]

BE: I know we’re up against the wall, but I attended my first TCA tour when “Dirty Sexy Money” was being presented, so I was just wondering about your thoughts when you look back on that show.

NZ: I have such fond memories. You know, I get approached all the time on the street by such disparate, interesting people – just such a wide array of people – who really seriously lament the fact that that show went too soon. And I have to say, as much as I enjoyed it and as great an experience as it was, I sort of relish it in the fact that it went out on greatness. You know? I think we could’ve done another season. I think after that it would’ve… [Hesitates.] My fear is that it would’ve just gotten to be too much. It would’ve been too over the top, too campy, too ridiculous. So I sort of like that we went out in a blaze of glory. And I loved that character. But I was fine to let her go.

BE: How was the experience of working on “Hung”?

NZ: It was a challenge, I have to say. It was one of the more challenging projects that I’ve worked on. But, conversely, it was also the project that has gotten me the most acclaim in my career. So I guess it was worth it. [Laughs]

BE: Lastly, I can’t remember: did you and Walton Goggins ever have any scenes together during the brief period when you were both appearing on “The Shield”?

NZ: No. In fact, Walton and I have never in our lives ever acted together in the same scene. [Laughs.] We’ve been in the same scene, passing each other, but that’s it!

After seven seasons on the air and surviving a switch between networks (from NBC to CBS), it’s hard to say that “Medium” didn’t live a good, long life. With that said, however, the show had continued to find new ways to keep things interesting, and with the trio of DuBois daughters growing up and getting their own storylines almost as often as their mom. As such, Allison, Joe, and the gang could’ve easily kept going for another few seasons without any complaints from me.

Am I going to try to defend my enjoyment of this show? No, I am not, because there’s no point in wasting your time or mine. You may not have thought it was very funny, and if you didn’t, that would be your right. I, however, did. And I still miss it.

There’s nothing I dislike more than a series that doesn’t know when to leave good enough alone, and for my part, I don’t know why they felt the need to change the formula and kick Skeet Ulrich‘s character to the curb. Sorry, did I say “curb”? I meant “grave,” of course. Not that there’s anything wrong with giving an actor of Alfred Molina’s caliber a more substantial role, but to do so in midseason can’t have pleased the existing viewership very much. Truth be told, I’d rather they’d just kept the original “Law & Order” around, but in its absence, this was a nice substitute, and it sucks that it never had a chance to really spread its wings.

When it comes to casualties in the alien-invasion field, I can accept the cancellation of “V” a bit more than that of “The Event,” if only because it was a minor surprise that it made it to a second season in the first place. And if I’m to be honest, I’m not really surprised that NBC couldn’t be bothered to give “The Event” a shot at a sophomore year, since they probably figured it’d only let them down the way “Heroes” did. But whereas “Heroes” really dropped the ball in its second year, I felt like “The Event” had a better chance of upping the ante. Guess I’ll never know for sure.

My wife’s the one who tipped me to this show, describing it as being more than a little bit “Buffy”-inspired, and I don’t disagree with that assessment, though it’s inevitable that any ABC Family series isn’t going to be as rough and tumble as the adventures of our favorite vampire slayer. Also inevitable, unfortunately, was the fact that it only lasted a single season. Apparently, if a sci-fi series doesn’t feature a hot teenage boy as its lead (stand up, please, “Kyle X-Y”), then it doesn’t have a chance in hell at making it very long on ABC Family.

And what’s the deal with the lack of love for new cop shows? Apparently, America loves crime procedurals to the point where the thought of a little extra character development scares them away. Thankfully, “Blue Bloods” has proven to be at least somewhat of an exception to that rule, but it doesn’t come anywhere near the work that was being done on “The Chicago Code.” Hell, even “Detroit 1-8-7″ didn’t touch “The Chicago Code,” but at least filming in the Motor City gave it a slightly different look than your typical cop show…though, in fairness, having Michael Imperioli and James McDaniel in the cast would’ve made it worth watching no matter where it was set.

If the Germans can learn to love David Hasselhoff, then, dammit, why can’t we as a country see fit to embrace the brilliance that is Norm MacDonald? I don’t even like sports, and I still TiVoed the damned thing every week. America, you’re on notice. Again. (Seriously, I’m about ready to move to Canada. They like me better up there, anyway.)

Yes, I agree that “Happy Endings” has grown substantially as a series since last season, which means that, okay, fine, maybe my previous claims that it should’ve been cancelled instead of “Traffic Light” were said in haste. But I still think “Traffic Light” was a better-than-average comedy about a bunch of friends, and I thought so from the very first episode, so to watch it get even better as it went along and still get denied a second-season pick-up was downright infuriating…though not, I suspect, as infuriating as it was for Tyler Labine to see “Mad Love” lose its battle to stay on the air. The ensemble of Labine, Jason Biggs, Judy Greer, and Sarah Chalke didn’t gel quite as instantly as one might have liked, given the comedic abilities of the foursome, but, again, by the end of season, it was tooling along quite nicely. And what did we get in its place? “2 Broke Girls.” Not that I don’t love Beth Behrs’ impossibly-long legs and the way Kat Dennings always looks like she’s about to bust out of her waitress outfit, but all things being equal, I’d still trade ‘em for another session of “Mad Love.”

I’ll be the first to admit that Season 2 of “Hung” was a less than stellar showing from the series, so much so that I probably wouldn’t have picked it back up in Season 3 if I hadn’t pulled a gig blogging the show for the Onion A.V. Club. That, as it turns out, would’ve been a tremendous mistake, as just about everything that had annoyed me during the show’s second year was discarded (so long, subplots about Ray’s creepy kids!) in favor of ramping up the things that had actually worked…like, say, Lennie James, who worked his acting magic every time he turned up as Tanya’s former-pimp boyfriend. I don’t know that the show has a fanbase substantial enough for us to ever see “Hung: The Movie,” but I’d sure as hell pay to see it.

Just as I was starting to get over FX’s decision to cancel one of 2010′s best new series (“Terriers”), they decided to pull the plug on another great show. I’m sure the reason it never took off was because casual viewers couldn’t get beyond the fact that it sounded like a rehash of “Rocky Balboa,” but it was so much more than that, thanks to Holt McCallany’s performance as Patrick “Lights” Leary, the boxer who, as a result of bad investments over the years, was forced to battle back against pugilistic dementia and get into the ring again in order to support his wife and three daughters. With a supporting cast featuring Stacey Keach as Leary’s dad and an impressively threatening performance by Bill Irwin (between this and “CSI,” I just can’t look at Mr. Noodle the same way ever again), “Lights Out” deserved far better than to hit the canvas after only one season.

Dammit, dammit, dammit. Just typing the title of the show and looking at the shot of Ray Romano, Scott Bakula, and Andre Braugher is making me sad all over again. Some people couldn’t understand all the love that was lavished on the series, but those who saw a bit of themselves in these three men – and, believe me, you didn’t have to be their certain age to be struck by the familiarity – quickly found “Men” to be must-see TV. Joe, Owen and Terry weren’t just characters. They felt like real guys. You don’t get nearly enough of their like on television. I don’t blame TNT for pulling the plug if the ratings weren’t there, but I do blame audiences for not branching out and investigating series that fall slightly outside of their usual viewing patterns. Set aside the predictable once in awhile, wouldja? There’s a lot of great television out there that deserves to thrive, and all it takes is for you to give it a chance.

Now in its third season on HBO, “Hung” was created by Dmitry Lipkin and Colette Burson. I was well familiar with Lipkin’s name from his previous small-screen creation, “The Riches,” which lasted for an all-too-short two seasons on FX. As such, I would’ve followed him anywhere his next project might have taken him…and when I discovered that it revolved around a well-endowed high school baseball coach who turns to prostitution as a way of making ends meet, I’d have to say that I wasn’t entirely surprised that it took him to a premium cable network.

Alas, as is often the case in the life of a TV critic, there never seem to be enough hours in the day to keep up with every series you’d like to watch, and although I was decidedly curious to see how a concept such as this might play as a series, I wasn’t really able to give it a good look until Season 1 made its DVD debut. Unsurprisingly, those first ten episodes proved highly entertaining, making it easy as pie to dole out a four-star review while musing on the conceptual (if not necessarily tonal) similarities between “Hung” and “Breaking Bad,” both focusing on what a father is willing to do to make ends meet for his family. Sadly, though, I wasn’t nearly as charmed by the goings-on in Season 2, and by the end of those ten episodes, I’d reached a point where I was left wondering whether or not it was going to worth the time and effort to follow the series into its third season.

Despite this uncertainty, I found myself in the position to taking on the weekly “Hung” blog for the Onion AV Club, and since I was, if nothing else, at least up to date on the series by the time the new season was on the cusp of premiering, I figured, “Oh, what the heck, let’s give it one more season…” Mind you, the fact that I was getting paid for my trouble didn’t hurt, but there was another check in the “pro” column as well: the news that my favorite Season 2 guest star – Lennie James, who’d played a pimp named Charlie – was going to be returning for a not-insubstantial stint in Season 3.

As it turned out, that wasn’t the only reason to stick around. One of my biggest issues in the previous season had been the fact that Ray’s kids, God bless ‘em, were A) incredibly weird, and B) prone to dragging the show down virtually every time they were made the predominant thrust of a scene. Clearly, I was not the only one to feel this way, as they’ve only popped up on a handful of occasions this go-round, rarely doing anything particularly outrageous…and, you know, it’s not as if I have any problem with outrageousness, per se, but when it feels like it’s outrageousness simply for outrageousness’ sake, that really starts to grate on the nerves pretty damned quickly. So watching Damon and Darby (Charlie Saxton and Sianoa Smit-McPhee) transition from the spotlight onto the sidelines has, at least from my perspective, been a very good thing, indeed.

So why, aside from the demotion of two main characters and the return of a guest star, has Season 3 proven to be so much more successful? Part of it is because the ongoing competition between Ray’s two pimps, Tanya (Jane Adams) and Lenore (Rebecca Creskoff), has been so hysterical, especially with the addition of a new stud – Jason, played by Steve Amell – into the mix. The most unexpected twist, however, has been the prominence of Jason’s fiancée, Sandee (Analeigh Tipton), who seemed so sweet and innocent in her first appearance but has turned out to be at least as cutthroat as Lenore. We’ve also gotten to see Ray venture into more interesting customer relationships, including a former student and, uh, Kyla. I hesitant to say any more about Kyla except that there’s more to her than meets the eye. Heck, even Ray’s ex-wife, Jessica (Anne Heche), has had a fun storyline this season, thanks to an unexpected but ultimately hilarious close encounter with Dr. Matt (Matt Walsh).

Basically, what I’m saying is that if you’re like me and found yourself so underwhelmed with Season 2 of “Hung” that you couldn’t be bothered to give it another season pass on your DVR, you made a mistake. Well, probably, anyway. I mean, maybe you liked the kids. If so, you’d really be pissed about now. Also, anyone who was coming back week after week because they wanted to bask in the presence of the great Gregg Henry must surely be throwing things at their TV by now, as the poor bastard has literally only shown his face once this season…and on the one occasion when he did turn up, they didn’t even give him any lines! Except for that stuff, though, Season 3 of “Hung” has fully redeemed the series for me. I realize there’s still a few episodes left ’til the season finale, but as it stands right now, they’d have to screw things up royally in a really rapid fashion to keep me from coming back for Season 4.

Creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk were in attendance to introduce the pilot, along with cast member Connie Britton, and, as is par for the course for series creators when they’re standing in front of an audience of TV critics, Murphy and Falchuk seemed as excited for us to see the episode as they were nervous to learn what we thought of it. Indeed, unless they were skulking in the back of the auditorium, they didn’t stick around to witness our reactions to the events unfolding onscreen, let alone to hear any of our discussions after the closing credits had rolled.

It should come as no surprise to learn that critical reaction was mixed – I mean, that’s pretty much a given for any new series, right? – but if there was one recurring theme to the many conversations going on about “American Horror Story” during our post-screening dinner, it was that a great number of the people who wouldn’t necessarily commit to actually liking what they’d seen were at least willing to concede that it was going to stay near the forefront of their thoughts for quite some time to come…which, as it happens, is where I was with the show, too.

If you’ve seen the pilot, you can probably appreciate my position: it’s creepy, disconcerting, and, yes, there are a few legitimate scares amidst the cheap but effective made-ya-jump moments, but it’s also full of a multitude of horror tropes and plot devices, including (but not limited to) a haunted house, gory murders, ghostly apparitions, eccentric neighbors, a sinister stranger delivering a warning of impending tragedy, and a pregnancy possibly brought about by evil forces.

Was it memorable? Absolutely. Did it make an impact? I dare say it did: even though I didn’t know if I liked it, I already couldn’t wait to watch it again. Was it sufficiently intriguing for me to want to seek out a second episode? You better believe it. But even with these things said, in addition to getting the feeling that Murphy and Falchuk were throwing things against the wall to see what stuck, I was also left with nagging uncertainty about where the hell they were going with this thing.

Now that I’m six episodes into the proceedings, I’m far more confident about the situation, but I won’t lie to you: it was a little bit touch-and-go for a bit.

Not that there hasn’t consistently been plenty of horror in “American Horror Story,” and the back story of the house that was bought by the Harmon family – husband Ben (Dylan McDermott), wife Vivien (Connie Britton), and daughter Violet (Taissa Farmiga) – has continued to grow almost as quickly as the number of problems the Harmons are having to deal with, but what of the Harmons themselves? They aren’t exactly the deepest characters on TV. Ben’s a cheating louse of a husband, Vivien scores our sympathy because she had a miscarriage, and Violet is your typical sullen teenager. It was entertaining to see the strange and unexplained events going on in their house, but without seeing more sides of the characters, I kept wondering how much sympathy I was going to be able to muster for the Harmons.

For me, the turning point came with last week’s episode, the second part of the show’s Halloween saga. Not only did we finally start to get the true story of Tate Langdon (Evan Peters), thereby giving both Peters and Farmiga a chance to shine, but we also saw the further disintegration of the Harmons’ marriage, and, perhaps most surprisingly, the character of Constance (Jessica Lange) is actually becoming a sympathetic figure. There’s no doubt in my mind that Lange was already in position to score an Emmy nod for her work on this show, but given the way they’re fleshing out Constance in a big way, I’m now betting on her taking the trophy home with her.

It might seem easy enough to lump “American Horror Story” in with the other “scary” shows on the air at the moment – I’m looking at you, “True Blood” and “The Walking Dead” – but whether you love or hate the work that Murphy and Falchuk are doing here, you have to admit that it’s definitely in a category of its own.

In closing, I thought I’d throw out a couple of “American Horror Story”-related moments from the TCA tour, starting with my brief encounter with Dylan McDermott during Fox’s all-star party. Not entirely unsurprisingly, he couldn’t stop expressing his excitement about the series.

“As an actor, you pray for those great directors to come along, and Ryan Murphy is one of those directors,” he said. “He really got me. We just had this simpatico with this project. But, you know, I love that world of horror, too – ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ and all that – and the whole ‘what’s real, what’s unreal’ thing is just fascinating to me. But in a funny way, I don’t want to know what’s going to happen. I want to go script by script. I trust Ryan’s vision. A lot of actors were afraid of the nudity and the sexuality, but it didn’t scare me.”

* Denis O’Hare, who, given his makeup, you may or may not recognize from his work on “True Blood,” was also giddy about what he’d done on the series thus far, although he admitted that he didn’t really even know much of what his future on the show would hold when he first got there.

“Ryan called and asked if I wanted to read the script, and I said, ‘Absolutely!’” he said. “And then I read it and loved, and he said, ‘Would you be interested in doing it?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, bring me on!’ He didn’t really know what he was going to with my character at the time, though. He was still kind of figuring it out. So when I came on board, I was just Larry the Burn Guy. That’s what they called him. He didn’t even have a last name. They basically just gave me his plot: he’s a figure who’s hanging around the house because he was involved in a tragedy, he has this kind of symbiotic relationship with the house and the inhabitants within it, and he desperately wants to save them from going down the same path he did. The make-up’s pretty crazy, isn’t it? I think it’s one of the more shocking things I’ve seen in a long time…and I love it!”

Lastly, during the “American Horror Story” panel, Murphy offered up a few words that, fingers crossed, will put you a bit more at ease when it comes to concerns about how the season will play out:

“To me, the pilot of a show is a blueprint, and I always love when pilots have a lot of characters and a lot of story. That being said, I think when you have actors like this, you have an obligation to write them really good, emotional, grounded stories, which we are doing. I think people will come to this, hopefully, for two things: for really good emotional stories that are zeitgeist based, and because there really will be some scary stuff in there. But we do know where it’s going, we do know what that great last episode is, and I think it’s very unexpected and exciting.”