Why don't Oscar winners become movie critics? Former athletes become sports !
Question: That would be awesome if guys like Denzel, DeNiro and Pacino wrote movie reviews for the papers in New York. Why do all of you assume that they would have to quit acting to be a movie critic?
Answers: That would be awesome if guys like Denzel, DeNiro and Pacino wrote movie reviews for the papers in New York. Why do all of you assume that they would have to quit acting to be a movie critic?
They can make more money cashing in that Oscar for better roles
When athletes become older they can no longer perform in the field, so they become commentators or coaches....
Actors on the other hand can still act when they get older (jack nicholson for instance) and an oscar only gets them better roles (with more money)
I would say that it's because football players eventually have to retire, as their bodies can no longer handle the strenuous task of playing the game as they age. However, actors can still act, just taking on different roles. Also, the number of options for an actor are greater - they branch out into writing, producing, directing, whereas former athletes have little they can do other than just retire or become commentators.
Oscar winners for acting might properly become judges for acting, but a movie is a multi-faceted thing. The actors are only a part of the deal. You get Oscars for best editing. Should THEY be critics? Best sound - as a critic?
Besides, critics are overly pretentious snobs who dare to think they know better than you do what you should like at the theater. You'd do better by giving Yahoo's movies section a movie list and let it do some simple analysis of what you like to tell what is similar enough that you might like specific other movies, too. That, at least, is rationally based in statistics. The drivel put forth by some movie critics makes me want to puke.
For instance, a few years ago when Siskel & Ebert were still going strong, if Ebert liked it and Siskel didn't, I knew it would be too artsy-cutesy for my tastes. If Siskel liked it and Ebert didn't, I knew I would love it. Because Siskel actually had a clue to what makes a movie enjoyable. Ebert was always far too "cerebral" - he went out of his way to figure out why this movie or that one was so literary, so uplifting, so ... yada yada yada.
So why would you want to saddle a talented person with the burden of being a critic? When they still have the chance to repeat their Oscar performance.
Louise Brooks, one of the great actresses of the silent era, later in life became a superb writer about movies. Check out the movie "Pandora's Box" to see her acting talents, and the book "Lulu in Hollywood" for her essays.
umm they do.
try watching any football game on tv.
John Madden, Jimmy Johnson, and all of those others. TONS of players go on to do commentary.
As for movies.. why?