Well, my impression, and this may only be a subjective thing that exists inside my head, is that the imagery of the privileged is tied to high-tech in a MUCH MUCH stronger way than in, say The Hunger Games. Certainly the Capitol was more high-tech than the Districts, but it didn't feel like THAT was what divided the haves from the have-nots.(I would say your last bit up there definitely describes the Capitol.)

I keep coming back to the insta-cancer-screen bit. To me, that feels like the climax of the section of the trailer that sets up what Elysium is like; the part that says "Do they have it all? THIS will show you they REALLY have it all!" And it's a bit that combines high-tech and health care. Not high-tech and conspicuous consumption the way, say, instant and painless cosmetic surgery would.

I may be wrong. The end of the movie may show them peacefully coming back down and working to share what they have. (and, y'know, not getting lynched) But there's nothing in the trailer to suggest hope of a peaceful resolution, and given the current social context I'm not optimistic.

But this trailer is in the same world as the Microsoft Surface Pro ads (god, I hate those), right? It's hardly part of an overwhelming "scientific advancement is evil and suffering is what elevates us" message to the masses.

I'm rewatching the trailer, and Jodie Foster and her ilk have:

• sweeping architectures
• well tended hair and clothes
• prime real estate (and when I say "location, location, location" I mean they give us three or more angles of how lovely the view is)
• technology
• no poverty
• no war
• no sickness

In thirty seconds of trailer, health has so far been mentioned as a word, and technology is a farback shot of what looks like a high speed train track. Then a gorgeous woman in a sexy bikini is shown to have "trace amounts of cancer" that she seems to have deliberately and dismissively caused in herself by tanning, which is then healed.

Matt Damon has

• dirt
• crowds
• crime (implied by sirens)
• lack of resources (implied by crowds of people with empty jugs)
• a need to break into Elysium
• hi tech cyborg parts
• the power to "save everyone"
• a Firefly class ship (actually, I have no idea whose that is, but all ships landing look like Serenity to me now)

So I parse the movie as the haves who use indiscriminately and a have not that needs access to those resources for an unspecified reason. The message of dragging the beautiful people down into the muck alongside the noble savages did not come across to me in the images I saw--there's in fact a lingering vibe that he's dragging himself up or somehow trying to acquire what they have, rather than a framing of despoiling them.

How is tanning yourself into cancer you then cure while other people are lining up for water or gas or whatever not conspicuous consumption? Making yourself ill and not suffering because of it screams the sort of messages to me that you feel aren't there.

That's why I'm confused. I am just not parsing what you're parsing.

Damon's character has a machine strapped to his body after all.

I have a fond hope that it's the Large Hadron Collider.

an overwhelming "scientific advancement is evil and suffering is what elevates us" message to the masses

You don't feel like you've ever been told that? Maybe not from Microsoft Surface ads, but gods know I feel I've been bombarded with it plenty of times.

Anyway, like I said above, it's a Luddite vibe that I get from the trailer, and it's probably completely subjective. I suppose I'll have to see the movie to decide if I can blame this on the Marketing dept again.

all ships landing look like Serenity to me now

I confess I'm still stuck back on the Millennium Falcon.

You don't feel like you've ever been told that?

Ever? Surely you're not irritated by something I might have been told *once*? The existence past and present of Luddites is what's under discussion? Or is it whether or not this movie doevetails into and reinforces some sort of prevalent message?

Given the stream of "some images simulated" technology ads where the reality can't even match up to what we're being told we need (how many people are waving their hands at their TV, or asking their phone if it's raining out?) I don't feel like the loudest, or even significantly loud voices are telling me I shouldn't aspire to high technology, no.

And given that both the bad guys and good guys in the trailer have high tech, and what I see being held up for judgement here is money and the disregard it can allow for things that are life and death for normal people (and maybe I'm supposed to hate people with good views--good guys don't seem to have as many infinity pools), I don't see the Luddite vibe in those hundred and fifty odd seconds, not that either.

The existence past and present of Luddites is what's under discussion?

I kind of feel like we're talking past each other. My point, boiled down, is that, in the context of the prevalence of similar messages in past movies/TV/other works and in the culture at large, I see a Luddite message in the trailer. So in that sense, I'd say it is under discussion.

Now if you haven't experienced those messages, ("told once") or you see them but don't find them overwhelming, then I absolutely see how you'd read the trailer differently than I do. I'm not making some kind of claim about absolute truth, but I will say it jumped out at me hard enough, and pissed me off enough, that I was still awake and fuming hours after I made that first post and closed the window.

The woman puts herself in minimal danger and uses expensive technology to wipe her slate clean. The poor man with no resources uses what looks like radical (rare) technology to "save everyone". Now, I'm not an idiot--I know that there are anti-tech virtues being preached elsewhere (take the trailer out of the loop for a second). I think these are overwhelmed by the rampant consumerism and pushing of cellphones into wider and wider applicatons and all the must-haves these days seem to be as much about processing power as the brand of your jeans.

So, while Luddites exist, is their voice louder and more piercing than the onslaught of tech ads and the Forbes lists of companies on any topic where Apple and Google are vying for top place, and Microsoft is grabbing at it? Not in LA so far.

Are you saying yo don't notice that the planned technical obsolescence and oversell because you can't be everything you want to be if you aren't a fandroid or don't take your iphone to the bathroom?

So yes, we are talking past each other. The temperature where I'm standing wants to stick a micrichip in everything and make it flatscreen and to spend a lot of money on those shoes, because how perfect are we???

When I look at a trailer for a movie where a guy looks like he has a "big" problem, and wants to "save everyone" embraces tech to go to the tech place to get tech.

So far, Jobs: 2, Luddites: 0, IMO.

Hey, I'm in IT too. You don't have to tell me about the abandonment of previous generations of technology in favor of the sexy new thing; I see it happening in front of my eyes. And I'm 100% in favor of technology being, instead of hoarded to a few, available to benefit all.(like, y'know, cell phones. Which happened without anyone flying into Nokia HQ in a powersuit and blowing it up.) But the tech needs to be, y'know available and not destroyed crashing to Earth in firey re-entry.

Do I know that last is going to happen? No, but I'm not optimistic. Which is really my entire point.

So you think that the lead character is going to destroy the technology he says he needs? What is telling you that? Technology is the prize here. I don't understand your conviction of its vilification.

Not the specific tech he needs, no. But I'm assuming there's a revolution coming at the end of the movie( Which I may be wrong about, but this doesn't seem like the sort of story where the status stays quo at the end) and the easiest and most visually dramatic way is to destroy the habitat and force the Elysites back down to Earth. It's not " I actually see this in the trailer", it's "I can project this happning in the movie".

But again, what's triggering me is not the plot specifics, but the way the imagery associates high-tech with the villainous side. Not the actual story being told about an oppressed person getting the opportunity to strike against the oppressors and better his people, but the way that story is framed in terms of the moral associations of advanced tech. Not the text, but the subtext. If you don't see that subtext in the trailer, then maybe it's all in my head. We'll see when the movie comes out.