Hi Shaun, this is some very thought-provoking stuff. You make some great insights and your analysis is spot-on. Without taking away from your arguments at all, I did want to offer a little bit of information that I thought was relevant. I write in Los Angeles full-time for a Chinese-language publication and we encounter a lot of different barriers, some of them internal from our editorial team, others external, from the government. And as absurd as it may seem, as an external limitation, mentioning Tibet in virtually any context is forbidden. While the people of China indeed recognize the people of Tibet, we as reporters — about entertainment, not politics — are instructed not to write or discuss it in any way. The government monitors and exerts the right to censor, or even shut down, a web site that it perceives to be publishing harmful content, no matter how innocuous it seems to us. I do not mean in any way for this to undermine your observations or suggest that it legitimizes the creative choices in Dr. Strange. But as ridiculous as it seems from a Western perspective, where mentioning something does not equal endorsement or acknowledging something isn’t a statement of political support, this “blackout” is a reality which, I would say broadly, understandably might motivate a company with a significant financial stake in a film’s success to make a different creative choice. Even if it’s misguided, greedy, or just not the “right” choice morally. Again, an extremely insightful piece that I agree with completely.