Yesterday, I wrote about my nervousness over Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk. Today, I'd like to talk about how I wouldn't be so nervous if the Iron Man sequel ended up being directed by someone other than Jon Favreau. There are two excellent articles on The Motley Fool discussing this issue, one by Nathan Alderman and one by Marvel expert Tim Beyers. At the time those articles were published earlier in the week, it had seemed that Marvel was reticent about ponying up a higher compensation package for Mr. Favreau on the heels of the awesome success of the first movie starring Robert Downey, Jr. David Maisel, chairman of Marvel Studios, apparently wants to be very conservative about the company's above-the-line costs. Alderman thinks Marvel should give Favreau the requested raise, while Beyers understands the Hollywood dynamics going on and can see why both sides are doing what they are doing.

By the time my own piece is published, it's possible Favreau may be confirmed as the director of the second Iron Man (as I write this, there are rumors that a deal has been offered). Regardless of what happens, I'd like to offer my opinion on whether or not Favreau is an absolutely necessary component for an Iron Man sequel.

He isn't. And if shareholders think he is, then they had better rethink their investment in Marvel. What shareholders must ask themselves is this: Is it the director that is responsible for the ultimate success of a Marvel film, or is it Marvel management and the intangible value of the Marvel intellectual-property portfolio? Which element adds more equity? As far as I'm concerned as a shareholder, I'm investing in Marvel. I'm not investing in Jon Favreau. Any investor who believes that any one director is indispensable is going to be in for a stomach-churning ride, because when the day comes that a Jon Favreau or a Sam Raimi (he directed the Spider-Man flicks) decides that Marvel is no longer paying them what they're worth and jumps ship, the stock could easily see an overreaction sell-off.

Indeed, shareholders need to also remember that Marvel has given a rough estimate of the effect different box-office milestones will have on the value of the company. If one of the self-produced movies grosses $100 million at the multiplex, it will have a different effect than a movie that grosses $300 million. I'd have to presume that if Marvel continues to give all kinds of raises and increased participation schemes to above-the-line talent as new sequels are announced, then shareholders might not see the predicted effect on earnings flow that Marvel has stated in the past. It's hard to say without knowing specifics of each deal (it's too bad Marvel doesn't have to disclose that information).

According to Beyers, Favreau stated in a radio interview that he received $4 million for Iron Man. If Favreau were to receive $4 million for a sequel and no backend participation, call me crazy, but I find that fair. It's not like he's risking anything. Hey, I'm risking my money here. If his sequel tanks, I get punished. He still gets to keep a ton of dough, and he gets to have fun doing a job that most of us will never get a chance of doing. I'm a wannabe screenwriter, and I can tell you this -- I'd write the sequel for a heck of a lot less than whatever they'll be paying the writer that actually does it.

Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and any other media company looking to create value for its shareholders needs to keep budgets under control. If signing up a cheaper director is what needs to be done, then do it. I'd be willing to bet that Jon Favreau isn't the only guy out there who can direct an Iron Man feature. And I'm sure Marvel has the skill to find a replacement if need be.

Disclosure: I own Disney and Marvel; positions can change at any time.