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.

Since the movie appears to me to be a technology-enhanced quest for technology, no, I don't see the villainous subtext that got you so upset. I'm sure there will be more press on it as time passes.

I know trailers are supposed to be decision-influencers, but don't we also spend a lot of time complaining how misleading they are? That's why I don't often get negatively emotional about what's in them--even if I could see your subtext, I'd have too much experience telling me it's unclear how it is related to the movie itself, and so I only let the good stuff hit home, inasmuch as I can.

I understand your problem is with the visuals, and not the plot of the movie itself (although your last post now greatly confuses even that issue, as you're upset about a *possible* ending.... that's part of the plot of the film, not just the visuals). But the vehemence with which you're attacking something that I'm not seeing there (and neither are many other people) is quite baffling.

I have seen one poster for this movie so far, and it's Matt Damon all wrapped up in technology. Then I found an IO9 article, where the director explains how the technology is vital to the character's mission, and I'm now drifting further from "I don't see that criticism" and towards "wow, they sure like their tech, don't they?"

Yeah, I've been *trying* to see the neo-Luddite vibe that has chrismg so upset, and I'm with you ita. Not only don't I see it, I see the opposite. Or, more accurately, I see visuals (to play the confusing semantics game) that are about class warfare, with tech on both sides, making tech just a tool, with no political aspirations at all.

Yeah, I've been *trying* to see the neo-Luddite vibe that has chrismg so upset, and I'm with you ita. Not only don't I see it, I see the opposite. Or, more accurately, I see visuals (to play the confusing semantics game) that are about class warfare, with tech on both sides, making tech just a tool, with no political aspirations at all.

Pretty much this on my part, too. I also don't see how the 1% are the "bad" guys. I suppose there's an implicit structure where the rich get richer and the poor get children, but it doesn't follow that ALL of the 1%, despite having machines that zap their cancer, are "bad."

Also? Even if there is some massive neo-Luddite message there, and all over the place elsewhere, I think ita's other point also stands: Very few people are buying that message today, from where I'm sitting.

I really do not see a society on the verge of flinging their wooden shoes into the machines and casting technology down in the muck.