It scarcely needs to be said, but Marvels decision to quietly excise Tibet from Doctor Stranges origin story is not apolitical. The studio has absolutely taken a side on the issue of the Tibet-China conflict, and it has sided with the Chinese government an obvious choice, considering that the SAPPRFT is the gatekeeper to Chinas massive population and substantial Marvel fanbase. But unlike awkwardly shoehorned scenes with Chinese actors or product placements for Chinese milk drinks, the erasure of Tibet from a major Hollywood blockbuster isnt so easy to just shrug off. At worst, it could be argued that Marvel is being complicit in the oppression of a people whose troubled history has included human rights violations such as false imprisonment and torture by Chinese officials, many horrifying instances of Tibetans self-immolating in protest, and ongoing restrictions of freedom of religion, speech and the press. With all that in mind, Marvels decision to play along with the Chinese governments stance on Tibet, even by simply avoiding acknowledgement of its existence, suddenly doesnt seem so harmless.
From a business perspective, the decision makes perfect sense. China is, as previously mentioned, the largest film market in the world outside of the U.S., and as far as Marvels primary market is concerned the Tibet-China conflict is (generally speaking) a non-issue. The majority of moviegoers in the Western hemisphere probably couldnt even point to Tibet on a map, let alone care deeply enough about its independence to boycott a movie just because its protagonist goes on a spiritual journey to Nepal instead. People tend to care more about the issues that are closer to home and most relevant to their own daily lives. Its one of the reasons why the removal of Tibet from Doctor Stranges origin story has been so vastly overshadowed by the continuing conversation about whitewashing in Hollywood and the lack of meaty roles for Asian-American actors.
It could be argued that even without the shiny appeal of Chinas box office, Doctor Strange still would have ended up changing settings in order to avoid the potential pitfalls of setting a fun supernatural adventure in a real-world hotbed of political and social issues (Cargills example of a comic book character travelling to Palestine for his training is an apt one). In this case, however, the omission of Tibet is a political move precisely because it serves a particular status quo. Perhaps the best comparison is the fact that no Disney movie has ever featured an explicitly gay character; even in the MCU, characters like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.s Joey Gutierrez and Jessica Jones Jeri Hogarth are kept strictly on the TV side. While some might argue that this is simply a case of Disney not wanting to take a stance on a sensitive topic like LGBT representation, the total lack of LGBT characters is, in itself, a political stance; with each new movie that only features heterosexual characters, Disney incrementally reinforces the idea that gay characters arent suitable for media aimed at children.
