There have been one or two developments on the Modern Family story I posted yesterday, along with some questions and issues raised by people who commented on a version of that story that was syndicated over here. First and foremost, the cast went back to doing their jobs yesterday and production seemingly will not be further delayed.

20th Century Fox and the cast are still talking, but the lawsuit remains.

As to comments on the other site, here are some of those issues in no particular order.

1. Modern Family is enormously profitable.

That actually remains to be seen. It's public knowledge that ABC made $164 million in advertising revenue from the show last year. But ABC doesn't produce the show, they just license it from 20th Century Fox. 20th foots the bill to produce the show, which means the real issue is how profitable the show is for them, not ABC.

Graph comparing the salary's of the Modern
Family cast to the median American
household.

This is one of the many reasons that people legitimately loathe actors, directors, and other Hollywood celebrities.

A story in THR reports that the cast of Modern Family is endangering production of the fourth season over plain and simple greed. It may be common practice for actors to try to break their contracts a few years after their show becomes a hit, and it may be just as common for studios to put up with it, because everybody wins in the end.

But that doesn't make it right.

These actors are already earning more for a single episode -- a few weeks worth of work -- than the median American household makes in a year. It would take such a household composed of two working adults almost 32 years to earn as much as these people make in a single season.

If I were pretending to be him, I might write this line of dialogue:

"Good things happen to good people. It's not true, you know. But it ought to be."

A few weeks from now, it's going to come true for someone who has more than earned it.

If you mention a certain name to most people, you'll probably draw an uncomfortable but brief blank stare, like they are waiting for the punchline of a joke, followed by a glance at the ground and if you look closely, even a squint or two, as they desperately search their memory for clues. Is this someone who was awesome back in the day, but I missed it because I always miss this crap? Is it someone brand new from a generation removed of pop culture that I'm missing because I always miss this crap?

But if you know that name, then you're already hastily throwing together a shrine made from whatever you can grab that's nearby. Pebbles on the side of the road. A doodle on a napkin. An impressive and distinguished mountain of empty pop cans.

Hallowed quotes thatyou can't get from anyone else in the world will inevitably follow:

"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back. Wife or no, you are no one's property to be tossed aside. You got the right same as anyone to live and try to kill people."

Steve Zeitchick has a short piece in an LA Times blog, wondering "what will the [Hunger Games] franchise look like without [Director Gary Ross], and what will his career look like without it?".

I'd take issue with this point:

Recent Hollywood history suggests that, "Harry Potter" notwithstanding, sequels work best when the same director stays with them. "Jurassic Park" took a pretty big dive when Joe Johnston stepped in for Steven Spielberg. In contrast, a franchise conceived and helmed by one person over the course of its life tends to turn out pretty well (see under: Peter Jackson and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy).

This is an old and cheap trick, dismissing a very important exception to the proposed new rule precisely because it disproves the thesis of the author. Especially cheap when you don't give a valid reason for doing it, and Zeitchick didn't. It allows you to spend five minutes on a blog post instead of spending an hour or two doing research to find out why the Potter franchise is a standout exception.

First, this past weekend's box office numbers:

1. The Hunger Games: $21.5 million ($337m total)
2. *The Three Stooges: $17.1m
3. *The Cabin in the Woods: $14.8m
4. Titanic 3D (2012): $11.6m ($44m)
5. American Reunion: $10.7m ($39.9)
9. *Lockout: $6.2m
14. Woman Thou Art Loosed!: $650,000 (limited release)*+
15. Bully: $534,000 (limited release)*+

*New release.
+Limited release.

These are domestic numbers only. The Hunger Games has earned $531 million worldwide between March 23 and April 15th. Here's how the first installment matches up against other freshman franchise films (title, domestic sales, worldwide gross, budget not including marketing):