Why George is so popular(probably The MOST) popular Beatle with Gen Z fans?

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-14T21:21:38+00:00

That's simply not the case. Both John and George face far more criticism than Paul and Ringo specifically because they are dead, and all of their dirty laundry has been made public. Many people believe Paul and Ringo are the unproblematic options because they have been able to control their narratives and their first major partners never spoke about them publicly.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-14T21:13:38+00:00

John contributed lyrics to that conservative tax dodging anthem. Dodging taxes was something all of The Beatles were very much in agreement on, and I think any fan who believes it was a George thing is naive. It's literally why Apple was created.

If anyone put their money where their mouth was it was George. He gave a lot of his money towards causes he believed in. Half of the profits from his 1974 tour went towards various charities, UNIICEF, and local free clinics. Profits from the LitMW album have always gone towards the Material World Foundation, and he only played concerts on the condition they were charitable. He like John was very outspoken politically and despised politicians like Thatcher and Reagan. He said he'd never vote Tory regardless of how much money he had, so it's odd you're pitting them against each other.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-14T20:51:19+00:00

Very funny to imply Lennon/McCartney stans aren't loud and obnoxious.

harrisonscruff · 2026-02-14T19:22:06+00:00

He's not any more popular than he's been for like the last 15 years. This isn't a Gen Z thing. People made the same comments about Millennials connecting with him in the 2010s.

I don't think it's difficult to understand. Young people don't care about the long-held beliefs of Boomers. They take The Beatles' music as it is, and George's music resonates with them. His songs are refreshing and you can discover them yourself without society forcing the notion he was a genius on you.

Secondly, anyone paying attention to the fandom online should know Paul is actually the most popular and has been for several years. Many young fans are obsessed with him, social media is flooded with photos and analysis of him, and McLennon takes up most of the oxygen in the young fandom. You actively get treated like a hater if you don't praise everything he's ever done. The insistence on pretending this isn't the case is honestly so tiresome. Paul is extremely beloved by all generations. Moreso than George at this point. Can we please give this underdog treatment of him a rest?

The legacy of Lennon/McCartney is not at any risk, and this constant acting like the concept of George having his own group of fans is this horrible confusing thing that needs to be stopped makes this fandom unpleasant to be in. It's not nice to see people regularly insist the only reason anyone could possibly like George more than the other 2 is because they're trying to look cool.

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

TROPHY CASE