No I don't think the studio intended for it to be less enjoyable, but I absolutely think they intended to have a "d&d game style" plot that rushed from one scene to the next at the expense of character development.I doubt any studio is going to intentionally say, "Oh, you're intnetionally screwing up the pacing and making it less enjoyable to watch? Cool." Don't get me wrong - the studios constantly tell directors to do things that screw with pacing, but I just doubt it is ever an intentional goal.
I think they intended to make the movie have the feel of a D&D game to appeal to the player community and the pacing is a direct consequence of that. They did not intend for it to be less enjoyable.
The idea that this made the movie less enjoyable perhaps has merit in hindsight but that part was an unintended consequence, if true.
I won't argue with the statement, but I will say that the approach doesn't have a lot of merit. It makes for a bad movie (and often a lesser game). It does happen a lot, but both the game and the movie are built around story ... and taking shortcuts doesn't hep either.
I am not going to comment on whether this inherently makes a bad movie, FWIW I loved it.
However, the idea that it makes for a lessor game is not supported historically. If you look at the numerous lists of the "greatest D&D adventures of all time", many of them, usually a plurality or a majority even have this element.
Last edited: