No. China had movable type printing presses by 1040 AD, yet there's no evidence that it led to a mass uprising against the state religion at that time.
You're trying to undermine the historical singificance of Martin Luther's spirit and vision by saying that he just happened to be in the right place at the right time when the printing press came along. I don't buy it.
Just saying that Chinese had "moveable type" omits the technological and practical considerations that made European printing press success.
ps. Moveable type did bring some educational and political changes in China (centralism, opposition against government) but the effect was limited because Chinese writing system and inferior printing press technology.
OK but just saying the Europeans had a superior printing press omits the the radical thinking and acting that made Martin Luther's doctrines a success.
Your position is like saying, baseball became America's national pass-time because of radio. Yes, radio existed and helped, but it wasn't radio broadcasts of soccer or regional hopscotch tournaments. Baseball made a particular appeal to the soul of the people and the time which soccer and hopscotch did not. The medium is not the message; content is king.
And you cannot. Why would the people uprise, printing press or not? Hell, Confucius was practically the inventor of meritocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Meritocracy). See also the Chinese chapters in the "Penguin history of the world" by Roberts.
On the other hand, there isn't a single "heretic" that made a sliver of difference before the printing press, while after you have countless ones, Luther being merely the first.