Just my two cents here, but just because a show is unique in it's subject matter or it's plot twists doesn't make it a great show in and of itself. I wouldn't go as far as OP in calling the show terrible, in my opinion it's a show with great potential but most of the time is just ok.
I'm still very surprised at the near-univeral acclaim the show has received. I started to dig a little deeper in both the negative and positive reviews out there and what i've noticed is that most of the praise as well as the rejection of the show usually depends upon how the viewer in question responded to the many twist and / or gruesome endings the show presents us with.
However, what is less talked about is how the show tackles it's world building, which to me it often does very poorly and leaves open possible plot holes and questions as to how and why people use the technology presented in the first place.
Good sci-fi writing enables the viewer to suspend their disbelief and take certain things for granted simply because the writing / depiction of such a world is fleshed out enough. Take Blade Runner for example. In many ways current technology has strayed so far away from the vision people had 30 to 40 years ago, and Blade Runner was never supposed to be a realistic future depiction to begin with, yet we are still perfectly able to accept the setting and plot on it's own merit during the movie's runtime and indulge it in it's metaphors, philosophy and social/political commentary.
Black Mirror faces huge problems in this regard. Most of the stories depict futures and tech only marginally different or more advanced than ours, and while this makes it easier for us to get comfortable and familiar with world, it also raises way more world and plot related questions, often hurting the believability of said fictional world. One of the best examples where the show completely misses it's target in my opinion is the Christmas Special episode. During this episode the writers seemed the have been more occupied with coming up with grotesque twits than actually building a believable world. Amon other things, I think becomes most clear at the end when Jon Hamm's character is basically perma-banned from everyday life for his past crimes. Yes, it's a *beep* up punishment, but it's completely nonsensical too. Making it so criminals can't communicate verbally but still physically with the majority of the population is a great way to ensure these individuals will turn insane, unstable or even violent towards the general public. Again, here the show seems to be more focussed on being shocking rather than being believable.
Contrast this with 15 Million Merits. Literally speaking this episode's fiction world is probably the furthest divorced from our own compared to the other episodes, but in terms of how this world is built up and presented to us it's arguably the most comprehensive and fleshed out too. Like Blade Runner, this episode is so competent in terms of setting up the tech, rules and social hierarchy, it results in a much tighter and more believable plot. Questions like 'How did the world get to this state? How do they harness enough energy from the bicycles etc.' become irrelevant because the technology itself doesn't drive the plot. It's in service of it, making the social commentary and metaphors all the more accessible and important. Speaking of metaphors. This episode also creates it shock value (metaphorically) through the characters decisions, and not some twisted fate that end up befalling them.
Overall this show could do much, much better than it has done so far. And not to sound arrogant, but I think a lot of viewers are kind of distracted by it's great production value, relevant topics and twist endings to see that those elements in and of themselves 'do not a great show make'.
reply
share