If it had been an actual hashing out of issues (as in finding the good both sides are trying to do) I would’ve had no problem with it. If it had just been one line zingers (like in Avatar, Captain America, Iron Man 3) I would’ve rolled my eyes and moved on. As it is, Khan is portrayed sympathetically (!!!) and the big bad military guy is ... Well big and bad and connivingly evil. Until big bad military guy is (justifiably, mind you) killed by Khan and the Khan plays the bad guy... But only because he wants Starfleet utterly destroyed (and maybe kinda sorta all genetic inferiors but that’s only speculated by the characters... Khan never says that himself)
More simply, both the Admiral and Khan were pursuing personal vendettas (the Admiral wanted was to defend Starfleet and Khan wanted war to defend his people) but Khan’s (the terrorist’s) was given moral justification because... Well because... Without rationale... Slap a 9/11 veterans dedication at the end (which, after this movie, is really saying - sorry you guys had to go to go to war for a lie but we love you anyway) and the rationale becomes obvious...
And it ticks me off because Iraq was **and still is** an issue that’s even going on for 20+ years... And so this entire movie is a simpleton regurgitation of propaganda... And we’re bordering on the Liberty Valance effect...
What’s wrong with Khan being sympathetic. Really he’s a sympathetic character, they genetically engineered superbeing and then didn’t like the consequences, and shot them all into space without even having the guts for a nice execution. If you look at it right it’s hard not to see Khan as a guy screwed over by the government that wanted him. Then you get into the plot of this one and some idiot from the military decides they want to bring the super conqueror BACK and then is shocked to find out he can’t control him.
Actually there’s plenty of rationale for the 9/11 veterans dedication, just not from within the movie, here’s an article somebody else linked to:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/j-j-abrams-on-star-trek-into-darkness-the-mission-continues-more.html
And here’s the rational:
“After the first Star Trek movie was made, my wife, Katie, and I talked to Paramount and said, “What if we went to Kuwait and showed the troops the film?” They could’ve easily said no, but they said, “Great!” We got to go to Kuwait and showed the film to the troops on a number of different occasions there. What was incredible was it was the first opportunity the cast and me had to see firsthand men and women serving our country overseas. It was a really emotional, inspiring thing. When I got back from the international tour for Star Trek, Katie and I were trying to find ways to continue to help troops and their families, those who were making this significant sacrifice. We met Eric and we learned about the Mission Continues and did our due diligence and checked around, and they were far and away the most exciting organization that we found, working with veterans in a way that respected them, respected their goals, and respected their skills.”
Doesn’t really seem like something a truther would be saying. I think you’re pissed off because you read stuff into the story that isn’t there. People do that a lot, some read in things they agree with, some read in things they disagree with, but the real source is always them. The story is a story, the dedication is a dedication, they don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other, either conservatively or liberally.