Creating a Market for Technology through Film: Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia Fiction presents a version of reality that can affect an audience’s perceptions and beliefs. This effect is amplified in audio-visual media, where the medium helps convince the viewer that what they are watching is real. Scientists consulting on films have used this effect to promote their own agendas, including using what David Kirby has called ‘diegetic prototypes’ - fictional instances of not-yet realized technologies. These operate like a regular prototype, demonstrating the technology’s function, uses, and implications. They can build anticipation for, and acceptance of, emerging technologies, and can even attract funding to construct those technologies in real life. There has, however, been little scholarship to determine what makes an effective diegetic prototype. We used the Iron Man trilogy of science-fiction films to investigate this. Through a survey and focus groups we explored which futuristic technologies viewers remembered from the films, and whether they anticipated and encouraged those technologies’ development. We found that film-making concerns such as a depicted technology’s relationship to the plot or main characters, and its capacity for spectacle, were more important in fixing the prototype in the audience’s mind than the nature of the technology itself. We also found audiences anticipated and encouraged the development of technologies they saw as morally good. We recommend people wanting to use diegetic prototypes design them to have both a significant on-screen presence and to be depicted as being generally benevolent, the upsides outweighing the downsides. A major obstacle to the development of new technologies is obtaining funding for research. Often, engineers and scientists must show that there is a need for their work in order to receive the backing they require, and a prototype may demonstrate that need. Yet building prototypes itself requires funding, creating a vicious circle hindering development. As an alternative to producing real-world prototypes, some scientists and engineers have used fiction film to showcase potential new technologies. David A. Kirby coined the term ‘diegetic prototypes’ to describe such AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 47 · Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ AAA-2022-0013 Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 226 fictional technologies (2010: 193-218). ‘Diegetic’ is a term used to describe elements of a film that are part of the world that the film is set in (Elam 1980). As an element in a fictional work, the technology is a completed, functioning product, but to the audience, the depiction of the technology is a prototype, illustrating what the technology will do and how it will affect the world (Kirby 2010: 193-218). Kirby thus states that audio-visual fiction can be used as a vehicle for “establishing a technology’s necessity, its viability and its benevolence within society” (Kirby 2010: 44). Kirby has investigated historical examples of scientists and engineers inserting their undeveloped technologies into fiction films, and gaining funding and support by doing so. For example, he has described the case of John Underkoffler, consultant on Minority Report (2002), who was tasked with developing the film’s gesture-controlled computer system. Underkoffler wrote an entire language of hand signals for the system, creating a self-consistent and believable diegetic prototype. In the film’s wake, Underkoffler and production designer Alex McDowell were approached by individuals and organisations wanting to know if the system was real and, if not, if they would be able to fund its creation. Underkoffler started the company Oblong Industries with resulting funds and produced a real-world prototype of the system (Kirby 2011). We also see adaptations of this principle in the form of “vision videos” (Kinsley 2010: 2773) created by the computer industry, in which potential future computer technology is showcased in fictional situations. Samuel Kinsley argues that these videos form part of the “politics of anticipation”, their visions engendering desire in viewers (2010: 2774). There are further parallels between diegetic prototypes and technology scenarios used in futures research: Dominic Idier (2000) argues technology scenarios and science fiction are similar in that both anticipate changes in technology and explore implications of the changes (see also Delgado et al. 2012). Previous research shows that audio-visual fiction such as film, television programs, and theatrical productions can sometimes influence audiences’ real-world beliefs and knowledge about science and technology, a necessary precondition for diegetic prototypes to work. Generally speaking, audio-visual fiction is more likely to set agendas for viewers to think about the ethical aspects of science and social roles of technology than to teach viewers science ‘facts’ (Brodie et al. 2001, Lowe et al. 2006, Shelton et al. 2006, Orthia et al. 2012, Donkers & Orthia 2016, Li & Orthia 2016, Orthia 2019). As a result, fiction’s impact is not easily predictable for a specific person or fiction text, instead varying with context, as might be expected for social and ethical topics (Orthia 2019 and references therein). In addition, most audiences interpret fiction aware that it is fiction, rather than naively accepting a fiction text’s messages wholesale (Kitzinger 2010, Orthia et al. 2012, Green 2019). This may enhance the potential for audiences to extrapolate technological concepts from fiction to real life, using what Carolyn Michelle (2007) terms the ‘referential’ mode of reception in Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 227 which audiences compare how a fictional world is like life. Science facts can become memorable to audiences under specific conditions: repetition is important (e.g. Hether et al. 2008), as is contextualisation within familiar social scenarios (e.g. Levy 2015). Given this body of research, audiences responding to diegetic prototypes seems highly plausible. Diegetic prototypes capitalise on one of the key affordances of fiction by depicting technologies in social and ethical contexts, setting agendas for viewers to remember and think about them. Repeated use of new technologies in fiction may further enhance their memorability. However, previous work, including Kirby’s, has only studied successful examples of diegetic prototypes, so it remains to be seen how diegetic prototypes work from the audience’s perspective. For example, are diegetic prototypes always successful? If they are not, what conditions are likely to foster success? In this study, we investigated such questions. We conducted a social study to find out whether audiences of the technology-rich Iron Man film series recalled any non-existent technologies from the films. We also explored whether they felt those technologies were desirable, feasible, and morally appropriate (building on Kirby’s concepts of necessity, viability, and benevolence). In other words, we sought to identify potential diegetic prototypes from the films, which technologists might plausibly develop in the real world. We then identified what technological or diegetic traits the memorable technologies possessed. We use the results to offer practical suggestions to professionals wishing to use the diegetic prototype approach to gain support for undeveloped technologies in the future. The Iron Man Trilogy We chose the Iron Man trilogy as the focal set of fiction texts for the study because it functions as a series of technology scenarios, contains many futuristic technologies from the fantastic to the mundane, it has gained a wide audience, and is relatively recent, so most technologies forming the diegetic prototypes have not yet been realized or rendered irrelevant. Iron Man is a superhero originating in Marvel Comics who was realised onscreen in a series of films by Marvel Studios, including the trilogy Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), and Iron Man 3 (2013). Iron Man is the alter ego of Tony Stark, a genius inventor, billionaire, and owner of the American weapons manufacturer Stark Industries. Wounded and captured by terrorists after a weapons demonstration, he installs an electromagnet in his chest to prevent shrapnel from working its way to his heart. He creates a miniaturised free energy device - the arc reactor - to power both his electromagnet and a powered armour suit that he uses to escape. Upon returning to the U.S., Stark refines his designs and creates the Iron Man suit, using it to uphold world peace. This leads him into confrontations with various technologically themed villains. Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 228 Aside from the suit and arc reactor, other technologies of note in the films include JARVIS, an artificial intelligence who serves as Stark’s butler and co-pilot, and DUM-E and U, a pair of semi-sentient robotic arms who assist Stark in his workshop. Many computer technologies in the movies use holographic displays, including the computer in Stark’s workshop and the head-up display in the suit, and most of these are controlled using hand gestures and voice commands. The gestural and voice command interfaces were designed by John Underkoffler (Weinberger 2015), mentioned above regarding Minority Report, so this example is a direct test of Kirby’s concept of diegetic prototypes. If the holographic displays engender a positive audience reaction indicative of anticipation and support, more weight is added to Kirby’s case. At least one Iron Man technology created by Underkoffler has already borne fruit. In 2013, technology entrepreneur Elon Musk announced on Twitter that his company was using a gestural control technology to design rocket parts (2013b). In response to a query by Iron Man director Jon Favreau (2013), Musk confirmed that the technology was inspired by that in the movie (2013a). While this shows Underkoffler’s diegetic prototype works in the context of industry, the focus of the present study is on the efficacy of diegetic prototypes on the viewing public as potential future consumers of the technology. Table 1 contains a list of futuristic technologies in the Iron Man series and the number of scenes in which each appears. For technologies like the arc reactor - which is technically present in every scene with Stark after it is created - only scenes where characters or plot draw attention to the technology were counted. We defined a scene as a film section set in a single location at a single time. Note that the list is organised using categories we created from the survey results discussed below, to enable comparisons. Number of scenes in which the technology was present Participants who recalled it (total n=76) Technology Category Iron Man Iron Man 2 Iron Man 3 No. % Advanced Aircraft 1 0 0 2 2.63 Advanced Computers 3 1 1 5 6.58 Advanced Manufacturing 1 0 0 2 2.63 Advanced Materials 1 0 0 8 10.53 Advanced Medical Sensors 0 2 2 4 5.26 Advanced Medicine 1 0 1 2 2.63 Advanced Robotics 5 1 1 9 11.84 Advanced Weaponry 5 2 2 19 25.00 Arc Reactor 7 6 1 57 75.00 Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 229 Artificial Intelligence 11 7 11 62 81.58 Artificial Intelligence - Generic 0 0 0 24 31.58 Artificial Intelligence - DUM-E and U 5 3 3 3 3.95 Artificial Intelligence - J.A.R.V.I.S 6 4 8 35 46.05 Automated Object Scanning and Analysis 4 1 1 1 1.32 Communications Technology 0 0 1 3 3.95 Electric Whips 0 4 0 16 21.05 Extremis 0 0 10 32 42.11 Facial Recognition 0 0 1 1 1.32 Formula 1 Car 0 1 0 1 1.32 Friend/ Foe Recognition Software 1 0 0 4 5.26 H.A.M.M.E.R. Drones 0 2 0 7 9.21 Holographic Displays 8 5 8 38 50.00 Holographic Displays - Generic 4 1 1 19 25.00 Holographic Displays - Gestural Interaction 2 2 1 11 14.47 Holographic Displays - Suit Heads Up Display 2 2 6 8 10.53 Home-Made Particle Accelerator 0 1 0 4 5.26 Immunity to Hangovers 0 0 0 1 1.32 Inertia Control 0 0 0 2 2.63 Iron Man Suit 5 7 11 51 67.11 Iron Man Suit - Generic 5 6 3 39 51.32 Iron Man Suit - Remote Control (Mk. XXXXII) 0 0 8 9 11.84 Iron Man Suit - Suitcase Armour (Mk. V) 0 1 0 3 3.95 Jericho Missile 2 0 0 8 10.53 LaserWeapons 0 1 0 13 17.11 Mental Interface 0 0 2 3 3.95 Nanotechnology 2 0 0 2 2.63 New Element 0 1 0 8 10.53 Paralysis Device 2 0 0 6 7.89 Powered Exoskeletons 5 2 0 7 9.21 Repulsor Blasts 4 3 2 12 15.79 Repulsor Technology 5 1 4 30 39.47 Shrapnel Electromagnet 1 0 2 5 6.58 Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 230 Superconductors 0 0 0 1 1.32 Television Broadcast Hacking 0 0 2 1 1.32 The Tesseract 0 0 0 1 1.32 Transparent Touch Screens 1 1 1 6 7.89 Vanko’s Suit 0 1 0 1 1.32 Vibranium 0 0 0 2 2.63 Voice Activation 1 0 0 4 5.26 War Machine Suit 0 2 8 1 1.32 Wearable Technology 0 0 1 1 1.32 Table 1. Recurrence of technology categories in the Iron Man films and level of recall. Authors’ illustration. This list demonstrates the significant potential the Iron Man trilogy has to showcase diegetic prototypes to viewers. The question is: did viewers remember these technologies afterwards? Which were the most memorable? And how did viewers feel about them in terms of feasibility, desirability, and morality? Method To test the concept of diegetic prototypes, our primary aim was to determine if audiences recalled futuristic technologies from our chosen fiction text. If audience members do not recall the diegetic prototypes, the concept becomes invalid. Different diegetic prototypes may have different levels of audience impact. If so, different technologies are expected to have different levels of recall. A secondary aim was to find out what factors affect recall, including potentially:  recurrence - the number of scenes the technology appeared in;  feasibility - the technology’s perceived feasibility or plausibility;  desire - how much the audience wants or needs the technology; and  morality - the moral perception of the technology. We chose two data gathering strategies to provide answers to these questions. First, an online survey gathered broad patterns of audience response to the chosen fiction text. A smaller scale focus group study then elicited longer responses to clarify and expand on survey results. Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 231 Survey We recruited survey participants in several ways. We displayed physical posters in the local study area on shop and community notice boards, and advertised through online forums associated with comic books and popular culture including IGN and Reddit. Some additional recruits were sourced from a popular fiction course offered by a local university. Recruitment material simply asked if people had seen the Iron Man films, to avoid priming participants to start thinking about its technologies. To maximise the potential pool, anyone who had seen at least one Iron Man film could participate. Once recruited, we asked survey participants to nominate up to twelve futuristic technologies from the Iron Man movies. No prompt examples were given to ensure the answers were a genuine indication of recall. We then asked participants to answer questions related to our factors of interest, for each technology they listed: whether it was feasible, and if so, how long it might take to be realised in the real world; if they wanted to see it in the world (societal want); if they thought society needed it (societal need); if they wanted to have it (personal want); if they needed it (personal need); and how they would rate it morally (good, evil or neutral). We also asked demographic questions: participants’ nationality, age, and which Iron Man films they had seen. 76 participants completed the survey. While this sample size may seem low, it is comparable to similar mixed-methods studies in this field (e.g. Barnett et al. 2006 had 82 participants), and the number of technologies identified comprised a substantial dataset for analysis as described below. Most completing participants were from Australia (77.6%) and the U.S.A. (14.5%); 80.3% were 18-25 years old, the rest older; 92.1% had seen Iron Man, 86.8% Iron Man 2, 76.3% Iron Man 3, and 67.1% had seen all three films. After closing the survey, we grouped the nominated technologies into categories based on trends in the responses (Table 1). For example, all aircraft were grouped into a single category, ‘Advanced Aircraft’. Some prominent technologies were listed both in a group and individually, e.g. JAR- VIS was grouped under ‘artificial intelligence’ but was sometimes analysed separately in its own category. We performed statistical analyses on the survey data to test for correlations between recall and the factors that potentially affect it. We primarily used the Pearson correlation coefficient, or where that was not suitable, more appropriate tests were used. In all cases, one variable was the proportion of contributing participants who recalled a technology category. The other was the proportion of participants identifying that technology category who also nominated the factor being investigated. For example, in the case of arc reactor feasibility, the first variable is the proportion of participants who recalled the arc reactor, and the second is the proportion Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 232 of them who thought it was feasible. Proportions were used to avoid a false dependence created by the differing recall levels between technology categories. In short, less recalled technologies are likely to have fewer participants who think they are feasible than more recalled technologies, based purely on the difference in sample size. Focus Groups We conducted three focus groups with a subset of nine survey participants to give context to the survey results, through a 20-40-minute guided discussion on the same topics broached in the survey. Participants were each rewarded with a movie ticket. Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim with participant names anonymised. Major themes responding to the research questions were identified, and a diverse set of the most informative quotes selected for reporting. Despite every attempt being made to avoid influencing participants’ responses in the discussions, some topics, especially the discussion on morality, may have led to ‘socially desirable’ responses. The effect this slight bias may have had on the results is negligible, however, as public support for proposed technology is also constrained by social norms. Results The 76 participants each identified between one and eleven technologies in the survey, with most (71.1%) identifying between four and seven. Together, the participants listed a total of 443 separate technologies. From these, we defined 42 technology categories and grouped the responses into them (Table 1). If the same participant identified both a generic technology (e.g. artificial intelligence) and a specific subset of that technology (e.g. JARVIS), only the specific subset was counted. This was to ensure that the total measure for that technology was the number of individual participants who identified it. Since different numbers of participants recalled each technology category, clearly some technologies are more memorable than others (Table 1, Figure 1). The most recalled technologies (with over 50% of respondents identifying them) were:  artificial intelligence: 81.6%  arc reactor: 75.0%  Iron Man suit: 67.1%  holographic displays: 50.0%, with 12.5% mentioning gestural interaction. Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 233 Other significant technologies (with over 25% of respondents identifying them) were:  JARVIS: 46.1%  Extremis: 42.1% (a technology from Iron Man 3)  repulsor technology: 39.5% (used to make the Iron Man suit fly)  advanced weaponry: 25.0% It should be noted that a specific subset of artificial intelligence, JARVIS, was more memorable than several more generic technologies such as advanced weaponry and repulsor technology. This indicates that some aspects of JARVIS were conducive to recall, as is perhaps unsurprising for a named character who talks (discussed further below). A one-way ANOVA test found participants who had seen all three movies recalled more technologies than those who had only seen one or two (r=−0.204, p<0.05). Accordingly, when analysing quantitative data to investigate relationships between influencing factors and audience recall (below), we only used data from participants who had seen all three films. Additional testing found that there was no significant relationship between the age or nationality of the participant and the number or type of technologies they recalled. Hypothesised Factors Potentially Influencing Recall One factor we hypothesised to influence audience recall of a fictional technology is the number of scenes in which it is present, since increased exposure to a technology and repeated reminders via more scenes may improve recall of that technology. We tested this by calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the number of scenes a technology appeared in and the number of participants who identified it. The two were strongly correlated (r=0.702, p<0.01), supporting this hypothesis (Figure 1). Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 234 Figure 1. Recurrence of technology categories in the Iron Man films and level of recall. The data mirror the numbers reported in Table 1, but with the number of scenes combined for all three films in this figure. Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 235 Another possible influencing factor on memory is the technology’s feasibility. Audience members may be more likely to remember technologies they think are possible, discounting those that are too fantastical. Alternatively, audiences may remember the more fantastical technologies because they are inherently unfeasible. In the survey, 62.1% of technologies identified were deemed feasible. While participants tended to recall feasible technologies, a Pearson’s correlation found recall was not connected to perceived feasibility (r=−0.282, p>0.05). Rather than recalling feasible technologies more than unfeasible ones, it seems audiences generally saw the technologies in the films as feasible. One measure of a diegetic prototype’s success is that audience members support or anticipate the realisation of that technology. If diegetic prototypes work as intended, participants will desire them. We defined four kinds of desire (societal vs personal x want vs need) and tested each for impact on recall. While 74.7% of participants stated that they generally wanted to see the technologies they identified in the real world (societal want), there was no correlation between this and recall (r=−0.209, p>0.05). This result was mirrored for the other three desire categories (64.2% societally needed; r=−0.181, p>0.05; 51.3% personally wanted, r=−0.183, p>0.05; 23% personally needed, r=−0.118, p>0.05). This indicates considerations of want and need have no generalisable effect on recall, but there is desire for futuristic technology in general. It is possible that most recalled technologies from the Iron Man series were too futuristic, so participants had difficulty finding reasons to desire them. This was reflected in group discussions regarding the Iron Man suit. Most participants who did want an Iron Man suit wanted it for transport: G3P1: It’d be handy for flying and, you know, flying around, like, going home for the holidays without having to get on an economy flight. Some participants did not want a suit: G2P2: I’m content with the way I live at the moment. Cars are fine, transport’s fine, um, I’m not in poverty or anything, I don’t need to sell it for money, so, like, I’m pretty content the way I live. G2P1: I’m generally capable at fending off the constant ninja attacks on my life. Participants also listed the downsides of having a suit: G2P3: I recognize it as one of those that’d attract more trouble than it would be worth. Unless everybody had one, then no one would care. Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 236 It seems that, when deciding if they want or need a piece of futuristic technology, participants considered how the technology would fit into their current life rather than how their life would fit around that technology. Participants also had difficulty working out if there was a societal need for the suit, partly due to a perceived lack of applications for it. Some decided that there was a societal need because it provides protection to its wearer in dangerous environments, but only half-heartedly: G3P2: I can think of, like, you make a list of certain things that we could use. I dunno, maybe not an Iron Man suit but robots for that, situations which are too dangerous for humans to operate in or stuff like that. It may be the case that the Iron Man suit, and other technologies in the films, are too far out of the ordinary for many participants to find applicable wants or needs for them. This suggests relatively mundane technologies, and technologies with a clear niche, may make better diegetic prototypes. An example of this may be Underkoffler’s holographic displays. They were particularly societally desirable to viewers, with 94.7% of participants who recalled them wanting to see the technology in real life, and 92.1% claiming a societal need for it (plus 65.8% personal want; 39.5% personal need). This high level of desirability may be related to feasibility since an overwhelming majority - 84.2% of participants - thought the technology could be realised, compared to the 2.7% who said the displays were not possible. This suggests that participants believed the holographic displays were extremely likely to be part of their future and they expected this technology to be implemented. Thus, this diegetic prototype was successful. The cinematic presentation of the technology inspired the audience to a significant degree, with one focus group member particularly enamoured with it: G3P3: I just, like, love all his holographic projections that you can grab, and turn around, and throw and all that stuff, it’s really cool. Another factor we hypothesised to influence recall is the morality viewers ascribe to the technology. If a viewer believes that a diegetic prototype is ‘good’ on the moral spectrum, they may be more inclined to support and remember it, while ‘evil’ technologies may be recalled for their infamy. Of the 443 technologies, 41.4% were said to be good, 40.8% neutral, and 15.7% evil, indicating participants were more likely to remember technologies they thought were good or neutral. However, Pearson’s correlation showed recall was not related to this (good r=−0.230, p>0.05; neutral r=−0.198, p>0.05; evil r=0.083, p>0.05). Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 237 This can be explained by participants’ general views on technology. Focus groups revealed most participants felt technology was, on the whole, neutral, and the way it is used determines the morality: G2P4: Neutral would be the starting point and whoever controls it could do either good or bad with it. G1P2: I’d say that neutral depends also on who’s using it and what it’s being used for. Others felt technology averaged out good based on their progressivist concept of human history: G2P1: I would say it’s generally good. If it was neutral, then we wouldn’t be much better than we were three-hundred years ago. I think we are much better and if it was generally evil, we wouldn’t be here anymore. In specific cases, however, different moralities were assigned. For example, participants only categorised technologies as evil if they felt there was no way for it to be put to positive use: G2P3: All the other technologies we’ve discussed have the potential for good things. With weapons, I don’t think there’s much potential for good things. G3P3: Probably bad, just because the, like, something like the Jericho missile was sheer volume of destruction. I can’t really see it being put to a positive use. These results suggest the criteria participants used to determine morality is independent of the depiction of that technology in the films. This means diegetic prototypes cannot depend on a fictional portrayal as morally good if the technology could be put to other, less moral uses in the real world. Alternative Factors The above analysis demonstrates that, apart from the number of scenes in which the technology appears, none of our proposed factors affected participants’ recall of specific diegetic prototypes. The survey and focus group results together, however, indicated some alternative factors that increase recall. Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 238 Iconic technologies. Focus group participants stated some technologies were easier to remember because they were iconic. These are technologies that appear in all the films and are central to the Iron Man character: the arc reactor that keeps him alive and the Iron Man suit that makes him a super-hero. G3P2: I included the suits as one of the futuristic technologies. So, that is the main prominent feature in the films so that is what first came to mind. G2P1: You’ve always got that symbol of the shining heart there. That’s something that’s constantly hitting you and that’s why the first thing I listed was the power source. Without these technologies, Iron Man would not be Iron Man. Thus, recalling the character is likely to recall both technologies. This is reflected in the survey results where the suit was identified by 67.1% of participants and the arc reactor by 75.0%. Some technologies are so iconic that they have seeped into popular culture, expanding the level of exposure audiences have to them, further increasing recall. G2P2: Also, like, the suit was pretty popular, like, pretty much everyone online probably has seen it or like Googled it at one stage of their point in their life. […] You have these constant reminders because it’s popular as well. Technology as a character. If technologies central to a character are more likely to be remembered, what of technologies that are characters in their own right, such as artificial intelligences? Audience members are inclined to pay attention to characters because they contribute to the plot, leading to greater recall of those characters after the film. As noted above, artificial intelligence was the most recalled technology (81.6%), with JAR- VIS specifically having recall prominence (46.1%). Being a character in the narrative may have improved audience recall of the technology. Our results further suggest that to maximise the potential for recalling artificial intelligences, those characters should be able to speak. In the movies, JARVIS is able to, and does, speak, interacting verbally with other characters. DUM-E and U, on the other hand, are mechanical armatures and cannot speak, instead communicating via ‘body language’ as it were. Despite being present in all three films, the two assistants were only specifically mentioned by 4.0% of participants. Their inability to speak seems to have been a factor in this reduced level of recall, and viewers are likely to have placed them under the umbrella of ‘artificial intelligence’ rather than being singled out as JARVIS was. Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 239 Relevance to the plot. Another factor influencing recall was how critical the technology was to the plot, which audiences are generally inclined to pay attention to. Aside from the plot-central arc reactor and Iron Man suit discussed above, the Extremis treatment - critical to the plot of Iron Man 3 - was recalled by 42.1% of participants. This was also reflected in group discussions: G1P2: Because they were mentioned many times throughout the movie, it was like the main thing that held everything together. G2P2: For mine, they were in both movies, so that was JARVIS and the power source, which was the heart, and the suit, so that’s pretty much all, in all the story lines of the three movies. This is related to the number of scenes: if a technology is central to the plot, it is likely to appear in more scenes than technologies tangential to the plot. Spectacle. Another factor is how ‘spectacular’ a technology is. If a technology is visually impressive or showcased in a memorable scene, it is more likely to be remembered. This is especially true for weapons technologies: G2P4: I remembered what I remembered because of the spectacular destruction which they [caused], all the weapons and whatnot, so, the explosions stick in your mind. Further evidence for the role of spectacle is the number of survey participants who identified laser weapons as a technology category. Tony Stark uses a laser weapon in a scene towards the end of Iron Man 2; the laser has approximately five seconds of screen-time and yet it was remembered by 17.1% of participants. By contrast, the enemy the laser was used to fight (the HAMMER drones) was only recalled by 9.2%. The drones had significantly more screen-time than the laser but were not as visually impressive. Other ‘spectacular’ technologies include the electric whips used by Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, the holographic displays in all three movies, and Iron Man’s repulsor blasts. Consistent with this, Kirby alludes to the role of spectacle for diegetic prototypes without naming it. In Fritz Lang’s film Frau im Mond (1929) - mentioned by Kirby as an early use of a diegetic prototype - the spectacular rocket take-off convinced the film’s audience that space travel was not merely possible but held “tremendous possibilities” (2010: 57). What makes a technology ‘spectacular’ is not firmly defined, but there are a number of factors that contribute. Analysing the technologies recalled in the survey, ‘spectacular’ technologies can be inferred to be those which Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 240  are the focal point of a particular scene or shot;  emit bright, coloured light;  are associated with quick motion;  cause above-average amounts of destruction; and  are accompanied by witty or otherwise memorable dialogue. Discussion Our results demonstrate that people do remember some non-existent technologies they encounter in audio-visual fiction. Fictional technologies can also engender desire in viewers to see those technologies in the real world, or in some cases to personally possess them. In many cases, viewers felt the technologies were feasible to create and had the potential to do good. The Iron Man films thus made a case for the implementation of the futuristic technologies therein and their audience was, in most cases, convinced by those arguments. These results support Kirby’s concept of diegetic prototypes and the possibility that they will demonstrate a technology’s necessity, viability, and benevolence. However, viewers also recalled technologies they felt were not feasible and that they did not want or need, including morally suspect technologies. Therefore, not every technology in a film will function as an effective diegetic prototype by attracting public support. In particular, if people cannot see an obvious real-world application for an undeveloped technology, or if the application is destructive, they are less likely to desire it. Viewers will evaluate a technology’s value with respect to such social and ethical factors, drawing on real-world factors and fictional scenarios. This indicates that audio-visual fiction can be used to spark ethical debate about scientific and ethical issues, often setting the agendas for debate as discussed by Delgado et al. (2012) and Donkers and Orthia (2016), but its influence is not deterministic. As with previous studies discussed in the introduction, what people remember will vary somewhat from one individual to another. There is undoubtedly an aspect of personal context to this. However, we did also identify some traits that can contribute to making a technology more likely to be recalled, maximising the possibility that it will be an effective diegetic prototype. The key factors affecting recall are all related to film-making rather than to the technology’s inherent properties. We recommend that if professionals want to use visual fiction to present their prototypes, they should make those technologies ‘big’. They should be central to the plot or the characters or, if tangential, they should dominate the scenes they are present in. The technologies should also appear in a large number of scenes, the one factor we found was statistically significantly related to recall. While the technology does not necessarily have to be physically big, it should have a large Diegetic Prototypes in the Iron Man Trilogy 241 on-screen presence. ‘Big’ technologies become a memorable part of the story and may even become iconic. Once a diegetic prototype is iconic, any moves toward an implementation will be inevitably associated with the fiction text. This can be seen in the development of gestural interaction technologies, referred to in the online press as ‘Minority Report-style interfaces’ (e.g. Baldwin 2013). This further raises the profile of the innovator who created the prototype, increasing the chances of funding to realise the technology. The results of this study show that diegetic prototypes portrayed in audio-visual fiction are effective in creating support and anticipation for future technologies. While the factors that make a diegetic prototype memorable may not match those that build support and anticipation, on the whole, diegetic prototypes are a useful and powerful tool. Data Availability Statement Raw survey data are available at https: / / lindyorthia.files.wordpress.com/ 2022/ 08/ iron-man-survey-results.xlsx. References Baldwin, Roberto (2013). Asus and Leap Motion Bring Minority Report-Style Gestures to Life. Wired. http: / / www.wired.com/ 2013/ 01/ leap-motion-asus/ . [Feb. 2021]. Barnett, Michael et al. (2006). The Impact of Science Fiction Film on Student Understanding of Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology 15 (2). 179- 191. Brodie, Mollyann et al. (2001). Communicating Health Information Through the Entertainment Media. Health Affairs 20 (1). 192-199. Delgado, Ana et al. (2012). Imagining High-Tech Bodies: Science Fiction and the Ethics of Enhancement. Science Communication 34 (2). 200-240. Donkers, Martina & Lindy A. Orthia (2016). Popular Theatre for Science Engagement: Audience Engagement with Human Cloning Following a Production of Caryl Churchill’s A Number. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 6 (1). 23-45. Elam, Keir (1980). The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen. Favreau, Jon (2013). Like in Iron Man? Twitter. 24 Aug. https: / / twitter.com/ Jon_ Favreau/ status/ 371098114964205568. [Feb. 2021]. Green, Jarrod L. (2019). Why Scream about Sound in Space? The Functions of Audience Discourse about Unrealistic Science in Narrative Fiction. Public Understanding of Science 28 (3). 305-319. Hether, Heather J. et al. (2008). Entertainment-Education in a Media-Saturated Environment: Examining the Impact of Single and Multiple Exposures to Breast Cancer Storylines in Two Popular Medical Dramas. Journal of Health Communication 13 (8). 808-823. Idier, Dominic (2000). Science Fiction and Technology Scenarios: Comparing Asimov’s Robots and Gibson’s Cyberspace. Technology in Society 22 (2). 255-272. Rudolf Spennemann and Lindy A. Orthia 242 Kinsley, Samuel (2010). Representing ‘Things to Come’: Feeling the Visions of Future Technologies. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 42 (11). 2771-2790. Kirby, David A. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kirby, David A. (2010). The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular Films in Generating Real-World Technological Development. Social Studies of Science 40 (1). 41-70. Kitzinger, Jenny (2010). Questioning the Sci-Fi Alibi: A Critique of How ‘Science Fiction Fears’ are Used to Explain Away Public Concerns about Risk. Journal of Risk Research 13 (1). 73-86. Krueger, Richard A. & Mary Anne Casey (2009). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Los Angeles: SAGE. Levy, Julie (2015). MTV Shuga: A Multi-Platform Communication Initiative Achieving HIV Behaviour Change for Adolescents in Africa. The Communication Initiative Network. http: / / www.comminit.com/ global/ content/ mtv-shuga-multi-platform-communication-initiative-achieving-hiv-behaviour-change-adolesc. [Feb. 2021]. Li, Rashel & Lindy A. Orthia (2016). Communicating the Nature of Science through The Big Bang Theory: Evidence from a Focus Group Study. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 6 (2). 115-136. Lowe, Thomas et al. (2006). Does Tomorrow Ever Come? Disaster Narrative and Public Perceptions of Climate Change. Public Understanding of Science 15 (4). 435-457. Michelle, Carolyn (2007). Modes of Reception: A Consolidated Analytical Framework. The Communication Review 10 (3): 181-222. Musk, Elon (2013a). We Saw It in the Movie and Made It Real. Twitter. 24 Aug. https: / / twitter.com/ elonmusk/ status/ 371098424294133760. [Feb. 2021]. Musk, Elon (2013b). Will Post Video Next Week. Twitter. 24 Aug. https: / / twitter.com/ elonmusk/ status/ 371032852101484544. [Feb. 2021]. Orthia, Lindy A. (2019). How Does Science Fiction Television Shape Fans’ Relationships to Science? Results from a Survey of 575 Doctor Who Viewers. Journal of Science Communication 18 (4). A08. Orthia, Lindy A. et al. (2012). How Do People Think about the Science They Encounter in Fiction? Undergraduates Investigate Responses to Science in The Simpsons. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 2 (2). 149-174. Shelton, Donald E. et al. (2006). A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the ‘CSI Effect’ Exist? Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 9 (2). 331-367. Weinberger, Matt (2015). The Guy Who Designed the Computers in Iron Man Says Elon Musk Is Wrong to Worry about Killer AI. Business Insider. https: / / www. businessinsider.com.au/ john-underkoffler-elon-musk-iron-man-ai-2015-12. [Feb. 2021]. Rudolf Spennemann Lindy A. Orthia Australian National University