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.

I'd like to know what all those sellers are thinking. Really! I mean, look at this chart. There we have it, down down and more down. MSFT is now at its 52-week low -- in fact, the stock hasn't been this low since October 4, 2002. I know! Today, the stock closed at $23.17, down 3.5%. It's now trading 15% below its high last week. Ouch. Guess everyone does believe Gartner's report about Vista delays.

Those who are selling right now? In my opinion, it's irrational depression. Why sell at the low? Panic, I suppose, but it seems highly, um, foolish. Tim Beyers, he who is Motley Foolish but not, you know, foolish, agrees. He argues that, even if you buy the idea that Microsoft might be taking second fiddle to Google (the Evil-Empire-come-lately), it's still a good company to own. After all, they are rife with cash-ola and they absolutely, totally dominate the average laptop. Come on now, look around you at the coffee shop. How many laptops don't have Windows-based software?

Unless you're tapping away at my favorite worker-owned coffee collective (where everyone either has an iBook or a built-from-scratch Linux geek-machine), the answer is: few. If I owned Mr. Softee right now, I'd be holding. And if I owned a pile full of cash right now, I'd be buying. There may be more down. But I'd bet at least some of my children's future on the long-term up.