The three metrics I've been pointing out in this little debate were a) critical review b) commercial success and c) audience reception.Haha, Shyamalan is funny. So, what you are saying is that, to you, if you go onto Rotten Tomatoes and a movie has 59% or less you are not going to bother with it, as critics set what is a good movie and what is not?
If you want to use Rotten Tomatoes as your source, then be aware that is is both a collection of critical reviews and also has a section devoted to audience reviews. Shyamalan's latest movies failed by critics and by audiences.
Tarantino, on the other hand, just keeps producing movies that get good overall reviews, great audience reception, and are almost all extremely commercially successful.
Then all I'd ask for is consistency.I assume, in a discussion about movies, that everything said is to be taken as subjective. I shouldn't need a disclaimer saying "oh, well my subjective perspective on Tarantino is that he sucks". Then again, this is a world where Tarantino movies are paradigm shattering and Nolan movies are a mind ****.
It was pointed out that Tarantino should just stop, so it makes sense to point out that in terms of critical reception, audience reception, and commercial success, he just keeps winning every single time.