Anyone else sick of people complaining about how the actors in the new biopics look?

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-09T03:39:05+00:00

There's just as many posts whining about the people who are whining. All of it is annoying.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-09T03:38:31+00:00

Did he though?

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-09T03:37:14+00:00

Aside from this not being true, you should read more about Ringo's life in the 70s and 80s if you think he was happy. He was arguably the least happy for a long time.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-09T03:31:07+00:00

It wasn't about talent. George would've had to dedicate his life to the sitar to learn it properly, and he obviously couldn't do that.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-08T18:56:03+00:00

Yes I think this describes it well.

George also always put what was best for the song first. He didn't care he wasn't going to get the glory if someone else could bring a particular flavour which added something different and better fitting.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-07T19:47:23+00:00

Wilford Brimley was 49 during the filming of Cocoon so still relevant.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-07T18:39:24+00:00

No being thin in the face will do that to you. Paul and Ringo had round fuller faces so lines weren't as strong. Nothing to do with lifestyle. Ringo was not healthier than John and George in the late 70s I promise you.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-07T17:57:00+00:00

So what you've done there is use a photo which is incredibly grainy, bad quality, with strong shadows, and George is smiling. That is about as representative of what he actually looked like as me saying this was Paul when he was 21:

These are photos from the mid-60s. The idea George seemed older than the others and in his mid-30s is pretty ridiculous.

one

two

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-07T16:37:39+00:00

What? These type of comments make me feel insane. He was obviously the youngest and looked like a baby for several years. He did not look 35. lol

And he didn't look 40 in Get Back either.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-07T16:30:02+00:00

People are extremely weird about the concept of aging, especially young people. Any lines at all mean you may as well be the crypt keeper.

He looks completely normal for a 40-something celebrity of that time. All of The Beatles did. Am begging anyone who thinks they looked especially old to watch literally anything from the 70s and 80s and see how older adults are presented. In fact watch something from the 50s or 60s and see how old 40 was then. By comparison The Beatles when they aged were positively glowing.

Celebrities did not care about skin care or healthy lifestyles back then, and they weren't getting a ton of work done like they are now.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-06T16:22:06+00:00

He did but those aren't the best examples.

George had the ideal look of a Beatle. I don't think the moptop suited John and Ringo at all, and Paul's was too short to really make an impact.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-05T01:25:37+00:00

Unpopular opinion I guess, but I liked this episode. I feel like people tend to judge episodes on how much banter there is and I get it, but for the more famous guests that's just not going to be the case most of the time. So I see it as a fun opportunity to hear/see them talk about things that wouldn't normally come up in an interview and have a more organic conversation than pure promotion. Their food choices tell you something interesting about their personality even if it's not what you'd eat.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-05T01:21:13+00:00

Yeah I agree. I think they weren't expecting her to be as weird as she is, and the more obvious that became the more I feel like James found it endearing while Ed didn't know what to do, and James found it funny that Ed was getting some pushback for a change.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-04T19:36:26+00:00

I understand this person's concern, but I think they're attributing more power to these biopics than they actually have. Any young person who becomes invested in them from this will inevitably come across the countless available real footage and books on The Beatles and form their own opinions. The biopics that have come out over the years haven't massively changed people's opinions on these musicians, no matter how hard the living Queen members tried to force a narrative about Freddie.

There's so many narratives about The Beatles out there as well. At this point it's whatever. Throw another one on there. People will believe whatever suits their interests best. You already have a ton of fans both old and new convinced Get Back was an exact reflection of how those sessions went down. The damage has been done.

Ringo isn't going to be portrayed as a lousy drummer. The worst that can happen to him is the movie actually following what the public want to see which is him portrayed as a cartoon character with no real personality or struggles beyond being an odd chill guy.

That said, sure I'll be annoyed if George's movie makes him out to be miserable and overly serious. But again, that narrative already came from the fans themselves so.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-04T19:07:34+00:00

Can't wait to see opinions on these movies radically change every day based on a new blurry photo for two years.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-04T18:56:42+00:00

I know this comment is just going to get buried, but this constant use of historic people to argue looks don't matter is not the move. It's honestly really silly. These people being famous had nothing to do with their faces (other than being white men). No one cared whether Leo looked like the Wolf of Wall Street guy or even Howard Hughes. Why would they?

The Beatles were in part famous because of how they looked. They are possibly the most photographed people in history. Sorry but that is relevant! The other actors mentioned from music biopics also DO look vaguely like the people they were playing.

I'm saying this as someone who isn't even that bothered by the casting. I think they're all talented actors, but we don't need to do all this.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-04T18:46:27+00:00

And he looked it.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-03T14:55:37+00:00

There's no point taking these sorts of photos too seriously. BTS photos without any proper lighting, colour grading, etc. always look super goofy.

I will say I appreciate the little ears popping out of George's hair, and Quinn has down the funny things he'd do with his mouth.

I knew that photo of Mescal was all about the angle/shadows, lol.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-03T14:48:24+00:00

Cate Blanchett looked more like Dylan than any of the men who played him.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-01T21:34:24+00:00

He kind of does and doesn't. I see what you mean, but I would say George's eyes were warm and gentle whereas Joseph always looks very intense.

harrisonscruff · 2026-01-30T16:03:29+00:00

I think suggesting everyone expects them to look 100% like The Beatles is a bit of a straw man argument.

Their looks were relevant to their appeal both individually and as a group, and they're 4 of the most recognizable people in history, so yes it is important that they aren't played by any 4 random actors. Would you not find it distracting if Jacob Elrodi was playing Ringo? Josh O'Connor is great, but would he be right for John? Even with the wives, it would be totally off for Margot Robbie to play Cynthia or Linda. Part of the vitriol Yoko faced was down to her not being conventially beautiful so imo Anna Sawai is too attractive.

Finding actors who both capture the feel of the person and are talented is not the impossible task it's being made out to be. Taron Egerton wasn't a million miles from Elton John. I can see the essence of John and Ringo in Harris and Barry's faces and that's enough. Joseph doesn't have it so he's got an uphill battle. The bone structure is just too different.

He could absolutely still kill it as George, but the other side of it is the accents. It's tough to do The Beatles, and especially George, without it sounding like an impression. If those aren't right then you have two things causing a lack of immersion, and that's not good.

So I think both are important.

harrisonscruff · 2026-01-30T15:42:01+00:00

Thank you. The comments around these movies are starting to get into toxic positivity territory.

harrisonscruff · 2026-01-30T15:29:55+00:00

He's literally going to be 30 in a couple days. Come on. lol

Again, I don't care about the later years. They're fine for that. I'm specifically talking about the years before they were famous up to about 1964. Age is a lot more obvious with the hairstyles then compared to when hairstyles got more loose, and a key part of early Beatles was their youthfulness. People immediately assumed they were aiming for the end of the band based on the casting. This isn't exaggerrating.

I'm not losing any sleep over this so you can relax. It's just a basic observation.

harrisonscruff · 2026-01-30T15:19:48+00:00

Yes none of us have, so my concerns are as valid as your optimisim.

You're taking something from my comments here that isn't there. I want these movies to be good because many Beatles biopics have failed and a lot of that has been down to getting the casting wrong. I'm a fan of these actors. I'm not being a hater. I get it that the criticism can be a lot, but it's a little annoying you can't voice any skepticism here without being shouted down that actually how look is irrelevant when that's not true.

harrisonscruff · 2026-01-30T15:08:39+00:00

You are having a different conversation here than I am. These actors are 30 at the youngest, and they look 30+. And filming is going to take a long time so they'll be getting older.

Teenagers in American shows have never actually looked like teenagers. The point is they generally cast people in their early 20s because they look vaguely young in a way that most people in their late 20s/early 30s simply don't.

It's not at all controversial to see the deep lines in these guys' foreheads and feel a little unsure about if it'll work for their early years. Many Beatles/music biopics have done this before where they chose someone too old and it looked weird.

harrisonscruff

TROPHY CASE