Taylor Sheridan says he does not care what critics think, and he openly frames antagonizing them as a feature of his work. In a recent interview on The Bill Simmons Podcast, the Oscar-nominated screenwriter and Western soap opera force behind Yellowstone and Landman went scorched earth while discussing why he “rage-baits” reviewers on purpose.

The sharpest example is Landman, where some critics complained that he “underutilized” star Demi Moore in the first season. Sheridan’s response: Moore signed on knowing she would be a glorified extra in season one, and he is “100% not mad” that critics said he “can't write for women.” He points to the narrative plan that critics might have disliked at the time, including how Sheridan killed off Cami Miller’s husband, Monty (Jon Hamm), and left Cami in charge of the oil company.

So why does this matter beyond showbiz drama? Because Sheridan is describing an intentional incentive system. In his framing, critics are not a steering wheel. They are, at best, a heckler. He even says the part of him that rage-baits critics annoys them because “the critics and me-I don't care what they think, and it annoys the shit out of them that I don't care.” The point is not that critics are wrong. The point is that he has concluded they are not the deciding audience. That is a dangerous conclusion in most industries, but in entertainment it can be a profitable one.

Sheridan also makes the case that he will use development decisions to provoke, not just to tell a story. He argues this is not an accident, saying, “I'll be the first to tell you that there are things that I do that rage-bait them a bit, and this is one of them. Fuck 'em, honestly.” In other words, character arcs and screen time are not only creative choices, they can be levers. If a character stays poolside in the first season, it may be designed to bait frustration, then pay it off later when the plot shifts. For boards, studio executives, and media investors, that is a model worth understanding: narrative withholding can create backlash content. But backlash content is not the same thing as sustainable viewer satisfaction.

That tension is already showing up in the data the source cites. According to Rotten Tomatoes, critics are “not nearly as critical of Landman as Sheridan's viewers.” Landman currently sports an 80% fresh rating on the site and a rotten 57% audience score. Those numbers are a reminder that there are at least two markets for entertainment judgment. Critics evaluate craft and execution. Audiences evaluate whether the experience feels rewarding right now. Sheridan’s strategy seems built for the second market, but the audience score suggests a split: enough viewers watch to keep the show afloat, yet a meaningful share does not love the method.

The second-order implication is that this kind of brand of defiance can become a content engine that thrives even when reviewer consensus is calmer than viewer sentiment. When an author insists that antagonizing critics is deliberate, it can also attract a certain kind of fandom, people who enjoy being in the “only we get it” club. That can raise engagement and protect the title from critical dilution. But it can also harden viewer polarization, because a portion of the audience is essentially paying for a fight, not just a narrative. In Sheridan’s case, the source also notes that empty provocation plays a big role, including during the last season of Yellowstone when he cast himself as an ultra-cool, sex-having card sharp. The stated purpose there was to prove he is “just as charismatic as movie star Kevin Costner,” who had quit the show.

For decision-makers, there is a real governance lesson in that. The entertainment business typically involves multiple gatekeepers: showrunners, studios, networks or streamers, marketing teams, and sometimes awards strategists. Sheridan’s posture suggests he believes at least some of those gatekeepers place too much weight on critic validation. If his work consistently performs with enough viewers, internal pressure to “fix” what critics dislike may weaken. Yet audience metrics like the 57% rotten score are a warning light, because sustained commercial success generally requires both: enough viewers to justify renewal and enough goodwill to avoid reputational drift that limits new audience conversion.

Sheridan’s scorched-earth message to critics is also a signal to peers in adjacent roles, including other screenwriters, showrunners, and producer-CEOs. Rage-bait can be a tactic, but it is not a business model by itself. As the source puts it, “Rage-bait alone does not a television show make.” If you are building a franchise, you need the audience to keep returning after the provocation stops being fresh and starts feeling like a pattern. Sheridan’s interviews show how he thinks about critics as an externality. The Rotten Tomatoes split shows where the risk sits: with the people who watch, not the people who review.