The problem is that none of that is true. First, their plan went ahead exactly as before with producing additional characters to yield the Avengers property, and all of these were IP's previously negotiated as part of the Marvel Studios/Paramount deal. The one variation is that Iron Man made so much money that it was in their best interests to rush a second Iron Man to create a strong appearance for further financing when the screenwriters strike ruined their chances of delivering any features in 2009.

Their financing bridge was always going to happen because their budget cap is around $160 million per picture. Once Thor was complete, they were out of money no matter what. They now had to secure additional financing in the worst economic climate in Hollywood for 30-40 years counting a worldwide recession, a nationwide recession, a state bankruptcy, one strike and a threat of a second. With Hulk doing OK, and Iron Man being extremely profitable, Disney started knocking on their door and wanted in on the teenage boy market.

Their debt holder essentially goes, "HELL YES!", and Marvel realizes that a solid ownership would allow them to continue their business model and expand into both smaller features and television, which was NOT previously available to them regardless of your speculation in this article. Their $525 million was only available for tapping into feature production spending, whereas all other operational, development and overhead costs had to come out of their own pockets. All their TV, animated and direct-to-video projects were still partnerships with other production companies, and through alternative financing. Incredible Hulk had nothing to do with any of that.

Second, there was no buyer's remorse. Disney sought them out, not the other way around. Once Disney realized that Ike Perlmutter simply wanted to retain his position, the buyout of $4 billion was then a pretty good bet. Disney shareholder's real concern was Marvel's lack of rights to some of their biggest titles (Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) and the short-term contract that Paramount still held as the primary distributor.

I'm still not sure how you got the read you did about the impact of The Incredible Hulk, but the real issue there was a remake that nobody asked for when Marvel's only concern was forcing a re-established version of the franchise on the market. The story of Hulk's inclusion in The Avengers has been famous for decades, so other than the strikes holding back their slate, everything is still going according to plan. The only real opportunity to change course, for worse in my opinion, is to drop the creative team they already have in place. Until that happens, nothing significantly negative has happened.

"It's mere speculation, I never put my foot down to say "Marvel's broke!" or something."

The problem isn't just speculation, it's that you made several leaps of assumption to reach just one or two points. Speculating on the movie industry is a hobby of mine too, but we all have to remain weary of making too many jumps to make one conclusion, because it can't possibly be solid if the theory is supported by lack of information or mistakes. In this case, I appreciate your interest in covering Marvel stuff, as I'm sure everybody does, I'm just saying you should dial the story back a few steps and take a second look at the details surrounding their business model and what actually impacted their strategy these past few years.

If you like, I'll even send you a copy of their Power Point presentation of their model. Yes, I'm not joking, I managed to find it on the internet and it even has numbers…

Really, I'm just trying to help.

– Terence (formerly Anon)

Most filmgoers STILL haven't seen the new one, nor do they know that Robert Downey Jr. was in as Tony Stark. People on the Internet take for granted that their nerdy obsessive knowledge of the industry does not reflect the perspective or awareness of the mainstream. Blaming Leterrier for THE INCREDIBLE HULK is like blaming Rodriguez and Tarantino for the instant failure of GRINDHOUSE.

Sometimes awareness and demand play a far bigger role in a film's success or failure than I think a lot of box office analysts wish to acknowledge. Also, your statements about the film causing Marvel to have to re-finance is utterly false.

Marvel Studios started off with a $525 million debt facility that could only, and MUST, be used for production money. With the completion of THOR, they no longer had the operation dough to continue financing their own films. With the tough economy and the overall lack of projects for over a year, due to multiple strike threats, Marvel had to go through with a purchase in order to strengthen their relationship with their debt holders.

Why do you think Merryll Lynch not only negotiated and ran their debt management, but also negotiated their buyout with Disney. I'm not trying to knock you guys, but your personal grudge with Leterrier is pushing you to print things that are simply untrue. Also a fact you didn't mention is that after the film hit DVD, sales of INCREDIBLE HULK were stellar, showing a far greater interest than they thought based on the box office.