@leftatmars: Is he really getting nothing for the film? I'm no fan of Liefeld, but he made a ton of money for Marvel, and it would be pretty awful of them to give him nothing.
@Bill-Lee: But in the world of Star Trek, food and health are apparently given. Wouldn't this have a dramatic effect on the way on the way people behave? And without money, a big concern in the 1600s and today, what do people pursue? The introduction of cash economies is a huge change to a society, certainly its removal would be as well.
@mst3k4ever: Again, it's not about the level of comfort with a technology, it's about acknowledging the changes that the technology would have on a society. People today are totally used to the ideas of instant worldwide communication, being able to fly to the other side of the world in a day and literacy being the norm rather than the exception. That doesn't mean that these advances don't affect all of us in profound ways every day.
Back to Star Trek, a 'post-scarcity' society would be wildly different from ours. Would there still be a desire to view something, anything as having value? Would knowledge be commoditized and hoarded? I missed large chunks of Voyager and Enterprise, and maybe those questions were answered there, but based on what I've seen, huge issues like that are just thrown out there for decoration and not seriously considered.
@Bill-Lee: I don't think Stross is calling for all characters in scifi to have a 'gee-whiz, look at how neat this is' attitude toward technology, just to acknowledge that it has an effect on us. The printing press and space travel may not be something we marvel every day, but they've had an incredible impact on what we do day-to-day. The huge technical advances in Star Trek seem to only have superficial impacts on society.
@collex: That's not what he's saying. "Science fiction is about observing the human condition when circumstances and technologies change."
I read that as placing people and their reactions first and foremost. He just wants Scifi works to be scifi for a reason, and create stories that couldn't just as easily be told on a ship, in the wild west, in middle earth, etc.
@Sunshineyness: I don't know of any opinions Freud had on Autism (It wasn't really considered a condition until very late in Freud's life), but the prevailing theory in the 50's and 60's was just the opposite: That emotionally distant 'refrigerator mothers' failed to bond with their children, leading to autistic behavior.
I think there are plenty of better, far more deserving movies that underperformed even more than this film to spend time worrying about Jennifer's Body missing out on a few more million.
Comics gaining some respectability hasn't hurt the medium at all; I'd say we're in a golden age of that art form.
That being said, SF has more mainstream respectability than most people in the fan community care to acknowledge.
I know this has been touched on by other commenters, but going by LeGuin's definition, Brazil is about as far from escapism as is possible, and is practically the opposite of what she's criticizing. Criticizing escapism isn't the same as criticizing the fantastic, and it has nothing to do with a genre-induced inferiority complex.
@Ryan Brady: I like Hamill in the cartoons, but I would hope they would get someone who, while not impersonating Ledger, could play the character in the same spirit.
I know very few people would agree with this, but if Nolan does a third Batman film, I think they should re-cast the Joker. Very few of Batman's villains fit the atmosphere Nolan has created, and he's sort of painted in a corner with killing two-face.