Critics just hate everything YA so they are predisposed to dislike.

It's nothing to do with YA making ratings biased.

But generally in YA the world building is horrible, and alot of justification is thrown out of the window because the author can't be bothered, didn't think it through or don't think the reader will think.

Hunger games had quite alot of world building, though it has some flaws as a movie it felt believable. High society living off the poor etc etc, civil war backstory and such.

Most YA however the author just makes up a idea/concept without thinking it through, then tries to make it work and patching it where it doesnt.

For example here: barrier design, town/society, cost of level and tech, manufacturing, society structure. Then the story which is all predictable outcomes, typical and generally uninspiring.

Take divergence for example, a great example of how creating a world/society is done really badly.

You have to understand that alot of critics go in with a neutral viewpoint and these things stand out, as a fan of fantasy i can overlook this, but i know I could show these kind of movies to plenty of people without telling them what it is (YA) and they will think its garbage after they watched it.

Why it is bad YA stories are too predictable meaning, its not stimulating or interesting:

1. typical romance, if a boy or girl likes someone that person will/does like them back.

2. Main character is generic without a strong personality (A protaganist with a sense of humor? dont be absurd!)

3. main character is a special because they just are without any drawbacks, because its YA.

4. Always black and white, not conflict of interests/difference of opinion. Its good versus evil. And when it isn't they try and make it look like it is.

I can't remember the last PG rated movie I saw that was actually good, so the critics might be on to something here...

Even in a sci-fi you need some realism, and realism can't happen in a PG rated movie. You end up with safe characters and safe dialogue, and it comes off as very unnatural.

I can't speak about The Giver (I'll watch it tonight probably) but when it comes to other YA movies, I mostly agree with critics. I'm not a person who watch movies based on critics ratings or someone's review... even tho it's much more about personal preference but still, if a premise is interesting or/and it has talented cast/director involved, I'll give it a shot.

However, if you try to rate recent YA films based on parameters for quality that could be applied to any other movie of any genre, their average score is quite low.

Mortal Instruments is horrible, generic, bland and overall a forgettable experience. The Host is even worse. Beautiful Creatures slightly better but still extremely mediocre. Divergent, while it had some interesting ideas and some themes were indeed too similar to those seen in The Hunger Games (I don't mind when they compare movies considering that sometimes it can be positive but in this case negativity was inevitable because THG realized all those conceptual themes much better) overall experience seemed unfocused, rushed, script had serious flaws - some dialogues sounded quite forced and unnatural.

IMO reviews weren't unfair to any of those poorly reviewed movies and even if some were it wasn't by much.

In the end, it's not about thematic or structural similarities between movies of certain genres/sub-genres (comic book movies, YA, found footage etc.), it's about realization, or essentially, it's about good and not-so-good filmmaking.

Is a market saturated with that specific genre at the moment? Yes, it is. But still, market was saturated with found footage movies when Chronicle came out; market is saturated with comic book movies and we still have great films like X-Men DOFP and Captain America WS (and just to mention, not all CB movies got those certified fresh tomatoes - The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Kick Ass 2, Ghost Rider SoV... just to name few recent titles).

Although I agree that anyone should judge movies based on his own merits for quality, truth is that most of movies of that specific category don't give too much hope or optimistic expectations for its audience out there (which doesn't mean we wont see any other successful and good YA film besides The Hunger Games series).

That's because every single YA adaptation is complete crap

[deleted]

you keep saying ya book,this book was required reading in school twenty years ago for eleven and twelve year old students.my youngest daughter had to read it at the time.so it is a childrens book.

I'll tell you why quality conscious critics dislike this kind of material, esp. Hunger Games, Divergent and The Giver: Because these stories are deeply conservative. They set up some unlikely future, based on ignorant people's prejudices about communism, and tell us how happy we should be that we don't live there, but live in this real world instead. Message: Our real world is the best of all possible worlds. This is a deeply right-wing and pro-establishment message. It does not address the problems of the world, and it does not try to change the world for the better, which all other great art does! So this stuff is really bad art, and this is also the reason it is not being compared with GOOD art like Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. Next to those, this is hilariously awful. It stops critical thinking and brainwashes you to love the world as it is.

The ignorance and conformity of today's youth is tragic. You should read the classics rather than pore over YA conservative claptrap. Then you could learn something about the true potential of human nature and the true scope of a brighter future.

The second hunger games actually had a good script and good performances.

The giver was a cliched repeat of many movies we have already seen. We all knew exactly what would happen, the performances were stale, there were no twists, nothing great about it.