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.