George Harrison. Handsome or hideous?

Jolie laide is not the term for men.

It is "beau merde."

He had strong features...his brows and eyes. Good hair. Not conventionally handsome, but can be very attractive. His talent was a big part of his appeal, especially when he sent solo.

He wasn't ever THAT ugly. What the fuck?

Charlotte Gainsbourg is the quintessential jolie laide.

Sarah Jessica Parker depending on the angle.

Thanks R1, I didn’t know. What men do you think are beau merde? Adam Driver just jumped to mind. -OP

Jolie has been laide countless times.

He had the biggest dick in Christendom.

He had his moments for sure, dependening on what hairstyle he was rocking at that particular time.

He was gorgeous and his mixed race son is too.

He wasn't interesting enough looking to merit either descriptor.

Team Gorgeous

No. Just No.

None of the Beatles were particularly good looking , but he was the best they could do.

I think Adam Driver is the male jolie laide poster child. George harrison, not at all.

Adrian Brody comes to mind. Willem Dafoe.

Handsome and his son Dani is his mini me.

Team Handsome as well.

He looks good in the hard days night movie, I bet he was the kind of guy who was very attractive in person but not generally photogenic

Harrison was rough looking and his hair and style always only made him look worse.

The visual equivalent of the faux Indian, nasal, earnestly smug music of the man. Hit gold about three times and the rest can be tossed.

I read recently that a few months before he died he visited his first wife, Patti Boyd. She said he was obviously unwell but it was a good get together and she was glad it happened.

The secretary here is clearly meant to react to him as handsome. He was also naturally funny and a natural actor. Paul was the cute Beatle but George was the sexy one.

Check out the two queens here. I think the first is meant to initially smitten when George walks in.

He fucked hundreds of birds.

I think he was fairly handsome, but I've always thought Ringo was the stealth hottie of the group. Goofy looking, sure, but weirdly adorable. I admittedly have offbeat taste in men.

Ringo?? Ugh.

His face screams Special Needs.

He was photogenic in an unusual way, the camera likes people with angular features, good bone structure, and large eyes.

I also suspect he didn't look like much in person! In person he probably looked haggard and skinny.

You rang?

He looked haggard and skinny in the pic you posted.

OP, he’s been dead 21 years, I doubt that he’s looking particularly hot right now.

He's dead, OP.

He’s was a t wink-daddy in his 30s.

Very handsome and ruggedly masculine, especially during the later Beatles years (sorry, I forgot which years those were). He also seemed quiet and mysterious and that plus his talent made him very appealing to me.

Ringo with a beard in his 40s was sexy.

Actually, I think ALL of them were striking, maybe not conventionally handsome but very attractive. Again, I’m sure the massive talent helped.

He was good looking when he was younger, but once he hit 50, he was gross looking. The beard/mustache also made him look terrible.

Ringo looks good.

Paul looks horrible. He would look better (but still wouldn't be good looking) if he ate some meat or at least some chicken & fish.

George and Ringo were quite good-looking IMO. Paul and John, not good-looking at all.

George looked handsome (though, I agree, scrawny) in some pictures and certainly was a vital contributor to The Beatles, as were they all. My overall impression of him is that he was sometimes a wet blanket and could be stubbornly negative.

John Lennon was one of the only famous men I have found to be sexy (I'm gay). I think he would have been hard to get along with in real life, but from afar, his wit and wordplay and especially his voice just grabbed me. I thought he was hilarious and magnetic.

I have read that George was a misogynistic control freak. He wanted his women at home, quite, passive. No idea if that is true.

He was also a massive asshole R35. Cruel and nasty.

R37, yes, I've heard that (that's why I put "from afar" in my comment), but my impression of him was formed way before any of that was known.

With the exception of Pau McCartney, who was on the lower end of average, every single member of The Beatles was ugly enough to scare children. George was ugly with a capital U, but John and Ringo didn't have faces: they had sins. On top of that, they were bad singers and mediocre players at best who are, to this day, massively overrated.

Ringo was unattractive when young. (His strongest suit wasn't his face.) But got better looking when he got older.

What "sins" did they have R39?

I found George Harrison's solo work the best and he was the best looking.

You mean a twaddy, r30?

Only in some photos like this one...

Or this one...

Would Vincent Cassel and Jeremy Allen White be ugly hot?

R40 the drummer is always the one packing

I agree with R34. George sometimes looked like a Manson family member, but there was something attractive about him. Paul and John both had zero sex appeal to me. Ringo was gorgeous IMO.

Sometimes Ringo could be quite sexy. That's a extraordinary good photo @R47. He had a Mediterranean look. He experienced some antisemitism at some point as a Beatle but claimed he had no Jewish background. I find that hard to believe.

Paul was cute but not sexy.

John Lennon was the most unattractive of the four. Very witty and funny but also very acerbic. He was verbally cutting and abusive when drunk. ( Allegedly)

I always knew that Paul would age badly, baby-faced cute young men always do.

But he's actually lucky that he started looking like an old lesbian by forty, the less fortunate cute young baby-faced guys turn into gnomes at thirty.

R49 Nothing alleged about that. He beat up his first wife, he beat up Yoko. He even admit it. I think he also beat up Beatles manager pretty badly. What exactly makes a cunt?

Ringo looks great, now. His looks remind me of Maurice Gibb, who I think is attractive in his own way, as well.

George Harrison's apparent sour personality pushes him into unattractive category. (His looks were borderline, IMO.) In "You'll Never Make Love in This Town Again," one of the prostitutes said she gave him a blow job. She said he was sour-faced, kept strumming his guitar, and barely acknowledged she was there, much less giving him a blow-job.

George had amazing hair! It was thick and wavy and it always looked good, no matter the hairstyle.

Mes amis, there is no French expression "beau merde".

Peter Capaldi portrayed George? Who knew.

Apparently, he could never understand why he lost the copyright infringement case re: "My Sweet Lord" / "He's So Fine."

R33 All of the Beatles are/were vegetarian. Eating meat doesn’t make you look younger. A life time of drugs, heavy smoking and drinking CAN make you look older. Just ask Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow. They both eat meat and look wizened.

I thought John was very sexy in A Hard Day’s Night.

Ironically, the 'cute' Beatle, Paul, ended up looking the worst. He looks like an old woman.

Ringo, even now, looks amazing!

R53 that’s pretty funny. She should’ve gotten his attention by proclaiming “Dats da suckjob!” at the end!

In all seriousness, I wonder what it feels like to have whatever you want - drugs, houses, glorious vacations, good looking people begging to have sex with you. I wonder if you do become jaded and nothing is thrilling anymore.

Many rich and famous people DO seem sour.

He was kind of blah when he first became famous as a Beatle. Then George Harrison became handsome.

R39 “teh Beatles sucked” is one of the worst Millenial memes. We get it. You’re so edgy.

R59 That's not irony. John Lennon died at 40, George Harrison at 58. We don't know how they would look like at Paul's age. And Ringo would look a lot worse without his facial hair. Maybe McCartney should grow a beard

Ringo has gotten more attractive with age, as he's relaxed and grown into himself. He has always been monumentally charming, and therefore attractive, but he never seemed terribly happy during his Beatle years. And after seeing "Get Back" on Disney Plus I can see why, he was obviously last in the band's pecking order, and he spent the whole show being ignored and taken for granted. The only times he ever smiled during the whole thing was when the band let loose and took a moment to just play for the fun of it, the rest of the time he looked sad and lonely.

So he's only gotten more charming with age, and hell yes I'd do him, I'd marry him! But then, everyone would marry him. Oh well, he seems to have married well enough, it's been forty years with his ageless Bond Girl.

R63, do you have reading comprehension problems?

Paul was known as the cute Beatle. Are you really this dense? It has nothing to do with the ages John and George died, for the cute Beatle, Paul hasn't aged all that well. Period.

Ringo looks terrific for his age, perhaps he did the least drugs of all The Beatles. Ringo is 82.

Guess all that pot Paul smokes hasn't helped his looks. I know a lot of potheads, they all look like shit, especially the older ones.

Jean-Paul Belmondo was a joli laid. George Harrison was just unattractive.

[quote]the drummer is always the one packing

Tell me about it.

Ringo Starr and Joe Walsh (Eagles) are married to sisters.

I recall reading that George was appalled when Harry Nilsson rejected George's suggestion that he join Brian Epstein's stable of artists as Nilsson did not want a gay man as a manager. I don't think Nilsson used "gay man," though.

When I was younger, I thought George Harrison (circa '74-'75) was incredibly good looking.

Looking back now, I'm not sure what it was exactly that I saw in him...probably the high, hollow cheekbones and the big, beautiful smile. And maybe the lack of body fat.

And Ringo had always had those beautiful baby blue eyes.

[Quote] the drummer is always the one packing

on the pounds

[quote] I recall reading that George was appalled when Harry Nilsson rejected George's suggestion that he join Brian Epstein's stable of artists as Nilsson did not want a gay man as a manager. I don't think Nilsson used "gay man," though.

Something is "off" about that story.

The Beatles only became aware of Harry Nilsson after he released his first album, "Pandemonium Shadow Show", in December of 1967. Brian Epstein died in August of 1967.

[Quote] Jock McLean, who worked as an assistant to George Harrison 50 years ago, noticed the depth of the relationship between the Beatles and Mr. Epstein one August day not long before the manager’s death. Mr. McLean’s job was to pick up the singer-songwriter Harry Nilsson, a promising new artist in those days, and drive him to a meeting with Mr. Harrison at the house he was renting on Blue Jay Way in the Hollywood Hills, Calif.

[Quote] There was talk of Mr. Nilsson perhaps joining the Beatles’ nascent company. That’s when things went sour, Mr. McLean said.

[Quote] “George was talking about how wonderful the whole thing was going to be, trying to convince Harry to join the company,” Mr. McLean recalled. “It was all great until Harry said, ‘The only thing is, I don’t think I could be managed by a gay man.’” (Mr. Epstein’s sexuality was known by many in the industry at the time.)

[Quote] Incensed, Mr. Harrison gave his assistant a nod.

[Quote] “In a heartbeat, Harry was out of the house,” Mr. McLean said. “George, like all the Beatles, was extremely supportive of Brian. To them, Brian was the man.” (After Mr. Epstein died, Mr. Nilsson had a rapprochement with the band and worked closely with John Lennon.)

Phil Spector had recorded an early Nilsson song. Ditto Shadow Morton. The Beatles may have become aware of him around this time, before his solo album debut.

Again, something is off there.

The Beatles' company, Apple Records, wasn't formed until after Brian Epstein's death. Its formation was a direct response to his death, and their being left without a business manager. There would have been no "Beatles' nascent company" for George to pitch to Harry Nilsson to join in August of 1967.

Maybe it's just the details that are off, though, and the incident did happen in some form or another.

R65 "Ironically, the 'cute' Beatle, Paul, ended up looking the worst"

Do YOU have reading comprehension problems? Out of the two of them that reached the old age. We don't know if John and George would end up looking worse than him. Are you really that dense?

R51- Yoko? What made her a cunt? Let's see, her voice, insisting on being in the recording studio with the Beatles and actually having the balls or stupidity to advise them on how to do their songs. Cutting in on Keith Richards, Brian Jones, and John when they were playing, then opening her dragon mouth and attempting to sing, thus ruining everything and giving everyone except John second hand embarrassment. The disgusting, cruel, greedy, petty way she treated Julian Lennon about his inheritance from John. She would not give him anything of his father's and after many years he had to finally slap the bitch with a lawsuit which he won.

Just to add Paul hated her so much he did not allow her to attend the funeral for Linda. He allowed Linda's horse to be there, but no dragons were permitted.

R77 In other words, you are a sexist prick

He had beautiful, soulful eyes, and fabulous hair. He didn't have perfect bone structure, bit it was certainly above average.

The hawtest of the Beatles.

George became more interesting-looking, and sexier, as he got older.....

I tend to dislike the new ruling managerial class which are all younger white skinny people. I’m not a fat but I don’t have that skinny body they have and need to have to rule over us. But I’m often drawn to skinny dudes. George was skeletal sometimes. So hawt!

Yes, by all accounts Yoko was a weirdo down to the bone and could be a huge cunt, but Lennon was just as much of a weirdo and a cunt! She was at his side 24/7 because HE wanted her at his side 24/7, and most of the fandom hate comes from the usual source - blaming the celebrity's spouse for all the celebrity's own faults. The fans who want to idolize a person find spouses very convenient, because as long as they can blame the spouse for everything the idol ever did wrong, they can continue believing that the celebrity is what they wish he is or was.

And BTW, this is IMHO one of the reasons that RIngo was such a huge part of the band's success - the fact that Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison could all be massive assholes. At best, they were bitches with sharp senses of humor, but Ringo radiated sweetness and mellowness. He made them seem like nice people by association!

[quote] Ringo looks terrific for his age, perhaps he did the least drugs of all The Beatles.

Ringo by his own admission did lots of drinking and drugs and doesn’t remember years of his life.

Hard-working musician who created some great songs, and seemingly a very nice guy. But…

…resting bitch face (male equivalent).

Ringo and George were the straight Beatles. John and Paul not so much.

If Paul were not straight, Heather Mills would have told us about it.

He’s mostly straight.

George was the hottest Beatle in 1967/68 when he grew the long shaggy beard. Maybe it helped that it covered up half his face.

Paul paid me billions not to reveal the fact that I used to plow him up the bum with my stump!

R79-:And Yucko is still a raging, junkie cunt.

Sutcliffe was the best looking Beatle.

R83- I agree with you about all of them being assholes. When you look at the incredible fame they all had it is easy to see how and why. I had admired Lennon until my late 20's when I learned how cruel he was to his ex-wife, but especially his cruelty to Julian. That is shameful and inexcusable and you have to imagine how poor Julian must have felt seeing John lavish time and attention on his son with Ono. Julian appears to be a very nice man, well adjusted and humble. He looks and sounds like lla clone of his father. John was cruel to people, he just was.

When ugly become a musician when beautiful become a screen star.