After watching the pilot for "Hunters", I was disappointed. Although it is not unusual for a show to start quickly, hoping to catch the interest of viewers from the start, that strategy is difficult to pull off, requiring clarity. The audience must know what is happening, even if it doesn't yet understand all the intentions of the characters. And viewers should be given a character (or two) they can identify with.
"Hunters" is a failure of style and story. The action is dark, full of shadows that obscure identities. This method can create mystery, but the viewer should at least know what the mystery is. When he is given little or no context, the first episode is only a collection of actions to be remembered, in hopes of later understanding.
The story seems implausible. There is a troubled FBI agent, Flynn (Nathan Phillips), who lives with a wife we barely see and a former partner's daughter who is also troubled. There is a shadow organization that tracks down undefined entities that belong to another shadow organization with unknown goals. For some reason, all of these entities converge, Flynn is told he now works for the first organization, and people start chasing each other.
Flynn receives no indoctrination or training. He is never read in regarding his new employer's objectives or its history. And neither are we.
Usually, good scripts don't have the characters explain everything that happens; they just show us. But some exposition through dialogue is necessary if a backstory is not provided through flashbacks.
Perhaps later episodes can clean up the mess that the pilot lays at viewers' feet. And maybe other viewers are willing to wait for the framework that is missing. Personally, I am not motivated to wait, particularly because none of the characters intrigue me.
