I would like to provide an answer with a bit more embedded details.
The weaknesses of the Black-Scholes framework you refer come from the fact that it assumes that stock prices are following a Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM). This model assumes that stock prices evolve as follows:
$$ dS_t = \mu S_t dt + \sigma S_t dW_t$$
You can solve this differential equation and get that, given $S_t$:
$$ S_T = S_t e^{(\mu - \frac{\sigma^2}{2})(T-t) + \sigma (W_T-W_t)}$$
This means that stock prices are log-normally distributed, and that returns are normally distributed.
First, if you simply look at historical data, you can clearly see that returns do not seem to be normal. So it seems like GBM is an over-simplistic model for stock prices. Indeed, it fails to model (and this list is not exhaustive):
- Skewness
- Excess kurtosis (i.e. it underestimates the probability of rare events)
- Heteroskedasticity (the fact that, unlike in the GBM framework, it seems like $\sigma$ is not constant)
If you want to find improvements to the BS model, you could google for derivative pricing methods which assume models including the features listed above. For example, you could look at Monte-Carlo approach using the GARCH model.