Add a Comment979 comments
Average Guess (97 Votes)
5ft 7.49in (171.4cm)
5ft 7.49in (171.4cm)
Anna said on 27/Aug/07
Well, our opinons are becoming more similar about Emma's height umad80 (although I still believe she is a strong 5'6" and nothing under), so i am assuming you are reckoning Emma has grown since GoF? If so, please tell this to Maya, she would love to hear it. And as for Rupert's strange build, I just think it's sort of weird and unexplainable. He was stocky in GoF (critics commented on this?) and then was skinnier whilst filming OotP and such, but then he has definitely been gaining weight recently, can you explain this? Do you think he has grown or what is the deal?
Well, our opinons are becoming more similar about Emma's height umad80 (although I still believe she is a strong 5'6" and nothing under), so i am assuming you are reckoning Emma has grown since GoF? If so, please tell this to Maya, she would love to hear it. And as for Rupert's strange build, I just think it's sort of weird and unexplainable. He was stocky in GoF (critics commented on this?) and then was skinnier whilst filming OotP and such, but then he has definitely been gaining weight recently, can you explain this? Do you think he has grown or what is the deal?
umad80 said on 26/Aug/07
It was an article talking about his birthday on set. She had bought him a shirt and said she had to get a large size because "he's so broad". But that is why I do think he had to have grown some because remember back with GoF how stocky he was? Even critics were commenting on that. Even when he did Driving Lessons he had such broad shoulders... and then he suddenly got thinner and now he's starting to get that weight back in his upper body. You could tell when they did the press conference photos. Rupert is just huge compared to Dan and Emma. (Yeah, Emma is definitely very healthy looking, just skinny compared to Rupert!)
I'm still going to be in a little debate about Emma's height. I agree she bends her knees a lot like Rupert leans to the side and sometimes slouches. (Depends on the pic, lately he's been better about slouching, but definitely does not stand at attention like Dan! And he still leans to the side.) So it can be hard to tell. But I think she's in reality only a half inch taller than Dan. Maybe close to an inch. JMO though having seen them in person it didn't look like a huge difference. And usually two inches taller, you can start to see a difference when you look at them. I know someone who is at least 5'7" and I'm 5'5" and I can see a difference when I look at her.
It was an article talking about his birthday on set. She had bought him a shirt and said she had to get a large size because "he's so broad". But that is why I do think he had to have grown some because remember back with GoF how stocky he was? Even critics were commenting on that. Even when he did Driving Lessons he had such broad shoulders... and then he suddenly got thinner and now he's starting to get that weight back in his upper body. You could tell when they did the press conference photos. Rupert is just huge compared to Dan and Emma. (Yeah, Emma is definitely very healthy looking, just skinny compared to Rupert!)
I'm still going to be in a little debate about Emma's height. I agree she bends her knees a lot like Rupert leans to the side and sometimes slouches. (Depends on the pic, lately he's been better about slouching, but definitely does not stand at attention like Dan! And he still leans to the side.) So it can be hard to tell. But I think she's in reality only a half inch taller than Dan. Maybe close to an inch. JMO though having seen them in person it didn't look like a huge difference. And usually two inches taller, you can start to see a difference when you look at them. I know someone who is at least 5'7" and I'm 5'5" and I can see a difference when I look at her.
Anna said on 26/Aug/07
When did Emma say that? lol, that's quite funny, but essentially true, he does have a much different build than Dan and Emma, both of who are on the thinner side, although by no means is Emma annorexic looking. However, a thinner build does make one appear taller than a broader person, such as Rupert. But I really think that Dan is probably exactly 5'5" or 5'5.25" and stands up extremely straight, whereas Emma obviously bends her legs. And, nevertheless, when Emma bends her legs she still looks at least 1/2" to 1" taller than Dan, which converts to 1"-2" taller than Dan whilst standing straight, which would put her at, like I've been saying, 5'6" to 5'7". And just for the record, slouchign does make a huge difference as I'm sure umad80 can agree with. And as for you JK, how was I drifting from height in my last comment? I'm sorry if you hate me, but I just find it extremely odd that you want to downgrade every celebrity's height. I mean, Rob puts them at usually the lowest listing possible, so what i don't understand is why you think everyone is shorter?
When did Emma say that? lol, that's quite funny, but essentially true, he does have a much different build than Dan and Emma, both of who are on the thinner side, although by no means is Emma annorexic looking. However, a thinner build does make one appear taller than a broader person, such as Rupert. But I really think that Dan is probably exactly 5'5" or 5'5.25" and stands up extremely straight, whereas Emma obviously bends her legs. And, nevertheless, when Emma bends her legs she still looks at least 1/2" to 1" taller than Dan, which converts to 1"-2" taller than Dan whilst standing straight, which would put her at, like I've been saying, 5'6" to 5'7". And just for the record, slouchign does make a huge difference as I'm sure umad80 can agree with. And as for you JK, how was I drifting from height in my last comment? I'm sorry if you hate me, but I just find it extremely odd that you want to downgrade every celebrity's height. I mean, Rob puts them at usually the lowest listing possible, so what i don't understand is why you think everyone is shorter?
6'3'' JK said on 25/Aug/07
Anna im not going to even bother wasting time commenting on usless childish comments which drift away from height all the time (Rob how come your letting her post since her comments are always drifting away from height?) Tom is really thin so he can look 5'9'' but i think now he is 5'8'' but with footwear can look 5'9''
Anna im not going to even bother wasting time commenting on usless childish comments which drift away from height all the time (Rob how come your letting her post since her comments are always drifting away from height?) Tom is really thin so he can look 5'9'' but i think now he is 5'8'' but with footwear can look 5'9''
umad80 said on 25/Aug/07
Right... when did I say Rupert is 5'11"? I said 5'10" and I said his brother James said 5'11", but I've established that it's at least 5'9" but he is definitely no shorter than 5'8". But I cannot respect your opinion on Tom when you suddenly change it when Rupert looks close to the same height as Tom who had the shoe advantage! Like it or not, when you do that, you can't expect people to respect your opinions.
Anna, I do think that Emma is a strong 5'5" and probably around 5'5.5". I think it just depends. Dan tends to stand so straight that it's hard to tell at times. But I should know that because of how it is with Rupert. Hah!
I also think that sometimes Rupert looks shorter because of his build. Especially compared to Emma and Dan who are more on the thin side and Rupert is built up more in the chest area. Like Emma said, "He's so broad!" (hehe Sorry, that still makes me giggle.)
Right... when did I say Rupert is 5'11"? I said 5'10" and I said his brother James said 5'11", but I've established that it's at least 5'9" but he is definitely no shorter than 5'8". But I cannot respect your opinion on Tom when you suddenly change it when Rupert looks close to the same height as Tom who had the shoe advantage! Like it or not, when you do that, you can't expect people to respect your opinions.
Anna, I do think that Emma is a strong 5'5" and probably around 5'5.5". I think it just depends. Dan tends to stand so straight that it's hard to tell at times. But I should know that because of how it is with Rupert. Hah!
I also think that sometimes Rupert looks shorter because of his build. Especially compared to Emma and Dan who are more on the thin side and Rupert is built up more in the chest area. Like Emma said, "He's so broad!" (hehe Sorry, that still makes me giggle.)
Anna said on 25/Aug/07
And Emma's shoes were at the most 2 inches at the photo call, maybe even only 1.5". Katie's were one inch to 1.5" bigger than Emma's, so if Emma's were 1.5'-2" Katie's would be 2.5"-3.5", which is what they genuinely looked like. Emma's were actually quite small for heels in my opinion and if Evanna Lynch is 5'2.25", then Emma has got to be at least 4 inches taller than her.
And Emma's shoes were at the most 2 inches at the photo call, maybe even only 1.5". Katie's were one inch to 1.5" bigger than Emma's, so if Emma's were 1.5'-2" Katie's would be 2.5"-3.5", which is what they genuinely looked like. Emma's were actually quite small for heels in my opinion and if Evanna Lynch is 5'2.25", then Emma has got to be at least 4 inches taller than her.
Anna said on 25/Aug/07
JK, what are you going on about? I mean, honestly, umad80 is not even saying Rupert is around 5'11", she is saying he is at least 5'8" and at the most 5'9" - at least that's what I'm drawing from her posts. And, just to let you know, I have taken her comments quite seriously seeing as she is the one who has seen Rupert in person, which I suppose is more than you can say. However, I still don't understand how she can say Emma was the same height as Dan. Whatever though, there are photos that prove the contrary. And umad80, I know what you are talking about with JK and Tom. I too noticed that he was saying that Tom is "no more or less" than 5'9", but then he starts questioning it once, like you said, Rupert looks 5'8" or 5'8.5" against him. haha, he takes the mickey out of me (for good reason let me add), but I just think that's funny that he changes his opinion like that. And as for angles, I think people should pay attention to them more because they really make a difference. And I think I was right with the Emma looking smaller because she was in front and the lense was above, was I? I still think Rupert should be upgraded to 5'8" and Emma should be upgraded to at the least 5'6" and the most 5'7". Why do people who have met/seen these two consistently think they are taller than the heights they are listed at?
JK, what are you going on about? I mean, honestly, umad80 is not even saying Rupert is around 5'11", she is saying he is at least 5'8" and at the most 5'9" - at least that's what I'm drawing from her posts. And, just to let you know, I have taken her comments quite seriously seeing as she is the one who has seen Rupert in person, which I suppose is more than you can say. However, I still don't understand how she can say Emma was the same height as Dan. Whatever though, there are photos that prove the contrary. And umad80, I know what you are talking about with JK and Tom. I too noticed that he was saying that Tom is "no more or less" than 5'9", but then he starts questioning it once, like you said, Rupert looks 5'8" or 5'8.5" against him. haha, he takes the mickey out of me (for good reason let me add), but I just think that's funny that he changes his opinion like that. And as for angles, I think people should pay attention to them more because they really make a difference. And I think I was right with the Emma looking smaller because she was in front and the lense was above, was I? I still think Rupert should be upgraded to 5'8" and Emma should be upgraded to at the least 5'6" and the most 5'7". Why do people who have met/seen these two consistently think they are taller than the heights they are listed at?
6'3'' JK said on 25/Aug/07
umad80, you should respect my comments on Toms height, I am trying my best to ignore your "crap" comments on Rupert being around 5'11'', Its my own opinion and i think Rupert is 5'7'' although he can look 5'6'' at times, you're "sorry" that no one can take me seriously anymore lol, well when has your comments been taken seriously? if they were taken seriously Rupert would have been listed at 5'9.5'', I don't know about Tom though He looks 5'9'' sometimes because he is really slim but in reality i think he is closer to 5'8''
umad80, you should respect my comments on Toms height, I am trying my best to ignore your "crap" comments on Rupert being around 5'11'', Its my own opinion and i think Rupert is 5'7'' although he can look 5'6'' at times, you're "sorry" that no one can take me seriously anymore lol, well when has your comments been taken seriously? if they were taken seriously Rupert would have been listed at 5'9.5'', I don't know about Tom though He looks 5'9'' sometimes because he is really slim but in reality i think he is closer to 5'8''
umad80 said on 24/Aug/07
No, closer to the camera you're taller. Though maybe different angles will play it differently?
But any ways, according to Rob you're 4.5 inches from top of the head to middle of the eyes so depending on what part of the nose you're talking about would determine how much more. Plus yeah you have to think about footware, posture, and how much closer one person is to the camera. But Imelda's shoes are definitely an inch and a half in size... making her 5'1.5" right? Which means she had an inch shoe advantage on Rupert.
I do think Emma was wearing good 3" heels that day at the photocall. She looked pretty tall compared to everyone else though there are plenty of photos where Rupert was just slightly taller, even when standing behind her.
JK, I'm sorry but your opinion on Tom's height now is just crap. When I went to Tom's page you would INSIST that Tom was definitely 5'9". He was no taller, no shorter. And now that the pics with Tom and Rupert are out and it shows that they're not much in height difference - Tom being maybe over just a half inch, you are insistant that Tom is wrong and he is only 5'8.5". I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone can take you seriously now because it just looks like you are more about making Rupert shorter, so you'll make Tom shorter to prove it.
Just another thing to throw out... Chris Rankin, according to this site, is 5'8.5". Now if you look here: Click Here you can see that Chris comes up past that Visa Signature sign... Now take Rupert in front of that same background: Click Here - pretty much the same height. Now, to be fair, I think it depends on the angle and I couldn't find a pic that really went with the one with Chris. Some of them Rupert looked way taller and some of them he looked way shorter. But Chris did have the advantage in shoes (I checked, he was wearing dress shoes - perhaps even cowboy boots), so it looks like Rupert can indeed be above 5'8" and even 5'9" or so.
Editor Rob
No, closer to the camera you're taller. Though maybe different angles will play it differently?
But any ways, according to Rob you're 4.5 inches from top of the head to middle of the eyes so depending on what part of the nose you're talking about would determine how much more. Plus yeah you have to think about footware, posture, and how much closer one person is to the camera. But Imelda's shoes are definitely an inch and a half in size... making her 5'1.5" right? Which means she had an inch shoe advantage on Rupert.
I do think Emma was wearing good 3" heels that day at the photocall. She looked pretty tall compared to everyone else though there are plenty of photos where Rupert was just slightly taller, even when standing behind her.
JK, I'm sorry but your opinion on Tom's height now is just crap. When I went to Tom's page you would INSIST that Tom was definitely 5'9". He was no taller, no shorter. And now that the pics with Tom and Rupert are out and it shows that they're not much in height difference - Tom being maybe over just a half inch, you are insistant that Tom is wrong and he is only 5'8.5". I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone can take you seriously now because it just looks like you are more about making Rupert shorter, so you'll make Tom shorter to prove it.
Just another thing to throw out... Chris Rankin, according to this site, is 5'8.5". Now if you look here: Click Here you can see that Chris comes up past that Visa Signature sign... Now take Rupert in front of that same background: Click Here - pretty much the same height. Now, to be fair, I think it depends on the angle and I couldn't find a pic that really went with the one with Chris. Some of them Rupert looked way taller and some of them he looked way shorter. But Chris did have the advantage in shoes (I checked, he was wearing dress shoes - perhaps even cowboy boots), so it looks like Rupert can indeed be above 5'8" and even 5'9" or so.
Editor Rob closer to camera can make you appear taller if the lense isn't above the 'closer' person's head, otherwise if the lense is high it might make you appear shorter, see the most bottom image here.
Maya said on 24/Aug/07
Anna that's not true. Whoever is behind will look smaller because of the perspective.
Anna that's not true. Whoever is behind will look smaller because of the perspective.
Anna said on 24/Aug/07
I said Emma looks smaller in the front because the shot is taken from above thus the people standing closer to the camera will look shorter compared to those farther away. I asked Rob this question once and this is essentially what he told me, but I may have something wrong, I dunno.
I said Emma looks smaller in the front because the shot is taken from above thus the people standing closer to the camera will look shorter compared to those farther away. I asked Rob this question once and this is essentially what he told me, but I may have something wrong, I dunno.
6'3'' JK said on 24/Aug/07
I still don't think Tom is quite 5'9'', i need to see this guy standing next to people who are 5'10''+ to see if he is 5'9'', Tom i really think is 5'8.5'' and Rupert is like 5'7'' - 5'7.5''
I still don't think Tom is quite 5'9'', i need to see this guy standing next to people who are 5'10''+ to see if he is 5'9'', Tom i really think is 5'8.5'' and Rupert is like 5'7'' - 5'7.5''
Anonymous no-name said on 24/Aug/07
umad80, ok so maybe I had it wrong on how much taller Rupert is than Imelda, but I thought from the eyes to a little above the centre of his nose would be about 5-5.5" as I didn't reckon his nose would be 4" long if the centre of his nose would be another 2" down from the eys. And I took him as 7" taller in the end btw considering his slouching. Imelda doesn't have a couple of inches of footwear advantage. Click Here Click Here
Yeah I can see now they're more like 1.5" than 1", but if these give her 2"+ then Emma's at the London premiere and photocall were more like 3+", and some people are even saying those only gave her 1.5-2". Anyway, let's say her shoes do give her 2", then he would be about 5'8.5", fine by me. When someone always slouches, it's hard to tell.
Anyway, I'm confused. According to Maya Rupert looks smaller because he's in the back and according to Anna Emma looks smaller in the same pic because she's in front? So which is it?
umad80, ok so maybe I had it wrong on how much taller Rupert is than Imelda, but I thought from the eyes to a little above the centre of his nose would be about 5-5.5" as I didn't reckon his nose would be 4" long if the centre of his nose would be another 2" down from the eys. And I took him as 7" taller in the end btw considering his slouching. Imelda doesn't have a couple of inches of footwear advantage. Click Here Click Here
Yeah I can see now they're more like 1.5" than 1", but if these give her 2"+ then Emma's at the London premiere and photocall were more like 3+", and some people are even saying those only gave her 1.5-2". Anyway, let's say her shoes do give her 2", then he would be about 5'8.5", fine by me. When someone always slouches, it's hard to tell.
Anyway, I'm confused. According to Maya Rupert looks smaller because he's in the back and according to Anna Emma looks smaller in the same pic because she's in front? So which is it?
Anna said on 24/Aug/07
And JK, like I've been saying, you are always cynical - you think every person lies about their height or, even more sceptically, you think that Rob has people listed at too high of a height and, as anyone can conclude, that is scepticism at its finest. haha, what's your deal? That's all I ask.
And JK, like I've been saying, you are always cynical - you think every person lies about their height or, even more sceptically, you think that Rob has people listed at too high of a height and, as anyone can conclude, that is scepticism at its finest. haha, what's your deal? That's all I ask.
Anna said on 23/Aug/07
Oh I think the contrary. I think Tom Felton could be more than 5'9" and when you think about it, Rupert had a footwear disadvantage to Tom and yet didn't look much shorter.
Oh I think the contrary. I think Tom Felton could be more than 5'9" and when you think about it, Rupert had a footwear disadvantage to Tom and yet didn't look much shorter.
umad80 said on 23/Aug/07
I like how JK is now saying that Tom isn't even close to 5'9" when he (?) used to fight with everyone insisting that Tom was taller than 5'9". Now that Rupert has proven to be close to Tom's height (Tom with the shoe advantage in those pics... yes Anna, why is that being ignored?) suddenly Tom is only 5'8.5" and not even close to a solid 5'9". JK, talk like that makes your opinions invalid on every level.
Rupert is at least 5'9". I've seen him in person to judge for myself, and there are too many photos that continuously prove otherwise. The only time it's dodgy is when he's with Dan at a premiere or with the twins and at times it depends on the photo. When in Rome, the top of Rupert's head was almost eye level with them with similiar posture. And Dan does wear dodgy footware. You can clearly see that he does not have normal sized dress shoes. They wouldn't be that obvious if they were. You can tell they're at least two inches, if not more! Here's a good example of how much bigger these shoes are then regular dress shoes: Click Here
Oh, btw, whoever said that Rupert is only 5 inches taller (which is not true if 4.5 inches is middle of the eyey, then that would be at least another two inches I'd think.) than Imelda with her supposed 1 inch heels, then Emma is nowhere near even 5'5" with this pic: Click Here Emma looks maybe a good two inches taller than the 5'0" Imelda. So I think it's more than Imelda has a couple of inches in heels. Not sure of footware, but I think Emma was wearing flats that day. So if that is the case, Imelda would have to have 3" heels... Or Emma is standing in a sinkhole. So most likely Emma is about 5'5"-5'5.5" like I've stated and Imelda is wearing 2 inch+ heels making her 5'2" - 5'3". Which if she is, Rupert has at least 6" on her.
You guys go on about the twins proving Rupert is nowhere near 5'9" or taller, but how is it that when standing in front of Rupert with shoe advantage, Rupert is still at the tip of the nose like he was with the latest pictures? Click Here Or this and Rupert is leaning drastically: Click Here How about this a little later at the Children's BAFTAs Click Here I know Rupert is in front so he'd have the advantage, but that's quite an advantage with not being *that* far out in front, isn't it? And then the NME awards that you're trying to use as proof: Click Here you can tell the twin on the left is taller than the other by a lot, so we can discount him. Rupert is probably standing closer to the front then the twin on the right, but he's definitely not that far in front and they both have similiar posture and similiar footware! You can go to all the Rupert sites and find pictures so you can see that I'm not picking out the best ones. So I think that proves that the grass was not an advantage for either Rupert or Oliver. And that Rupert is definitely around nose area to them... and Rupert is definitely not under 5'8".
I like how JK is now saying that Tom isn't even close to 5'9" when he (?) used to fight with everyone insisting that Tom was taller than 5'9". Now that Rupert has proven to be close to Tom's height (Tom with the shoe advantage in those pics... yes Anna, why is that being ignored?) suddenly Tom is only 5'8.5" and not even close to a solid 5'9". JK, talk like that makes your opinions invalid on every level.
Rupert is at least 5'9". I've seen him in person to judge for myself, and there are too many photos that continuously prove otherwise. The only time it's dodgy is when he's with Dan at a premiere or with the twins and at times it depends on the photo. When in Rome, the top of Rupert's head was almost eye level with them with similiar posture. And Dan does wear dodgy footware. You can clearly see that he does not have normal sized dress shoes. They wouldn't be that obvious if they were. You can tell they're at least two inches, if not more! Here's a good example of how much bigger these shoes are then regular dress shoes: Click Here
Oh, btw, whoever said that Rupert is only 5 inches taller (which is not true if 4.5 inches is middle of the eyey, then that would be at least another two inches I'd think.) than Imelda with her supposed 1 inch heels, then Emma is nowhere near even 5'5" with this pic: Click Here Emma looks maybe a good two inches taller than the 5'0" Imelda. So I think it's more than Imelda has a couple of inches in heels. Not sure of footware, but I think Emma was wearing flats that day. So if that is the case, Imelda would have to have 3" heels... Or Emma is standing in a sinkhole. So most likely Emma is about 5'5"-5'5.5" like I've stated and Imelda is wearing 2 inch+ heels making her 5'2" - 5'3". Which if she is, Rupert has at least 6" on her.
You guys go on about the twins proving Rupert is nowhere near 5'9" or taller, but how is it that when standing in front of Rupert with shoe advantage, Rupert is still at the tip of the nose like he was with the latest pictures? Click Here Or this and Rupert is leaning drastically: Click Here How about this a little later at the Children's BAFTAs Click Here I know Rupert is in front so he'd have the advantage, but that's quite an advantage with not being *that* far out in front, isn't it? And then the NME awards that you're trying to use as proof: Click Here you can tell the twin on the left is taller than the other by a lot, so we can discount him. Rupert is probably standing closer to the front then the twin on the right, but he's definitely not that far in front and they both have similiar posture and similiar footware! You can go to all the Rupert sites and find pictures so you can see that I'm not picking out the best ones. So I think that proves that the grass was not an advantage for either Rupert or Oliver. And that Rupert is definitely around nose area to them... and Rupert is definitely not under 5'8".
6'3'' JK said on 23/Aug/07
I don't think Rupert will ever be upgraded, but there is a chance he can be downgraded to 5'7.25'' (or maybe 5'7'' which i doubt) I am starting to think Tom Felton could be more 5'8.5'' I am not convinced yet that he is a solid 5'9''
I don't think Rupert will ever be upgraded, but there is a chance he can be downgraded to 5'7.25'' (or maybe 5'7'' which i doubt) I am starting to think Tom Felton could be more 5'8.5'' I am not convinced yet that he is a solid 5'9''
Anna said on 23/Aug/07
And I think the LA photos are quite bad to judge Dan and Emma because, firstly like Maya said Dan is obviously wearing some dodgy footwear (how can you be denying this JK?) and secondly Dan is standing with perfect posture whereas Emma is doing her bending knee act again. Right? And plus all of the angles are really weird because they are not standing on the same planes - Emma is standing slightly in front and, seeing as the shot was taken from above, that would make her look shorter. And JK, just to give you some input without sounding terribly rude....I really don't think Rob would ever downgrade Rupert any lower than he is listed because first of all like you've said he's listed at 5'10" or even 5'11" on some sites around the web and many people who have met him say he is at least 5'8" and like umad80 said, some even peg him at 5'9" or more, which makes the 5'7" you are proposing quite unrealistic. And umad80, I don't know if you are still visiting this site, but have you noticed that JK and Rob are not saying anything about the photos with Tom Felton? Do those not prove that he has to be 5'8" at the very least?
And I think the LA photos are quite bad to judge Dan and Emma because, firstly like Maya said Dan is obviously wearing some dodgy footwear (how can you be denying this JK?) and secondly Dan is standing with perfect posture whereas Emma is doing her bending knee act again. Right? And plus all of the angles are really weird because they are not standing on the same planes - Emma is standing slightly in front and, seeing as the shot was taken from above, that would make her look shorter. And JK, just to give you some input without sounding terribly rude....I really don't think Rob would ever downgrade Rupert any lower than he is listed because first of all like you've said he's listed at 5'10" or even 5'11" on some sites around the web and many people who have met him say he is at least 5'8" and like umad80 said, some even peg him at 5'9" or more, which makes the 5'7" you are proposing quite unrealistic. And umad80, I don't know if you are still visiting this site, but have you noticed that JK and Rob are not saying anything about the photos with Tom Felton? Do those not prove that he has to be 5'8" at the very least?
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
There is no way he is wearing shoe lifts i don't believe that, he is standing with good posture
There is no way he is wearing shoe lifts i don't believe that, he is standing with good posture
Anna said on 22/Aug/07
I once again say that nearly all of those "posed" barefoot photos are not good for evaluating Dan's and Emma's heights because Dan is standing utterly straight whereas Emma is literally bending her knee - it's quite obvious and in the non-posed/relaxed ones, she is obviously at least an inch taller. Plus she looks 5'6"/5'6.5" in all of the concrete photos and she looks that height or even 5'7" whilst she was with Maria M. Rupert looks 5'8" or 5'8.5" at the most compared to t the 5'5" Dan and the 5'6"/5'7" Emma.
I once again say that nearly all of those "posed" barefoot photos are not good for evaluating Dan's and Emma's heights because Dan is standing utterly straight whereas Emma is literally bending her knee - it's quite obvious and in the non-posed/relaxed ones, she is obviously at least an inch taller. Plus she looks 5'6"/5'6.5" in all of the concrete photos and she looks that height or even 5'7" whilst she was with Maria M. Rupert looks 5'8" or 5'8.5" at the most compared to t the 5'5" Dan and the 5'6"/5'7" Emma.
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
JK it's got nothing to do with camera angle here, as Dan looks consistently 2 in. taller than Emma in all LA pics, even in those where she's much closer to the camera: Click Here Click Here for example. My point is that Dan is around 5'7" in these shoes, and Rupert still has to slouch and bend towards him. Rupert's posture here resembles question mark, and yet he manages to look at least three in. taller than Emma and more than an inch taller than shoelifted Dan. Do the maths yourself.
JK it's got nothing to do with camera angle here, as Dan looks consistently 2 in. taller than Emma in all LA pics, even in those where she's much closer to the camera: Click Here Click Here for example. My point is that Dan is around 5'7" in these shoes, and Rupert still has to slouch and bend towards him. Rupert's posture here resembles question mark, and yet he manages to look at least three in. taller than Emma and more than an inch taller than shoelifted Dan. Do the maths yourself.
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
He is looking 2 inches taller because of the weird camera angle, there is no way that Dan is taller than Emma, they are both 5'5'' and Rupert is like 2 to 2.5 inches taller
He is looking 2 inches taller because of the weird camera angle, there is no way that Dan is taller than Emma, they are both 5'5'' and Rupert is like 2 to 2.5 inches taller
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
JK obviously I can't prove that Dan wears lifts, but how come he looks 2 in. taller than Emma in LA?! Click Here and all the other pics from the same event.
Now look at the pic of the three of them in socks, no. 6657055 here Click Here If there wasn't for Dan's big hair, he and Emma would be exactly the same height. It's weird how he "grew up" for the LA premiere. In fact it's not weird, it's called lifts. If you were 5'5" you'd be wearing them too.
Again Editor Rob, do you see a full three in. difference between Rupert and the other two in the picture in socks, or not?
JK obviously I can't prove that Dan wears lifts, but how come he looks 2 in. taller than Emma in LA?! Click Here and all the other pics from the same event.
Now look at the pic of the three of them in socks, no. 6657055 here Click Here If there wasn't for Dan's big hair, he and Emma would be exactly the same height. It's weird how he "grew up" for the LA premiere. In fact it's not weird, it's called lifts. If you were 5'5" you'd be wearing them too.
Again Editor Rob, do you see a full three in. difference between Rupert and the other two in the picture in socks, or not?
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
It looks more like a solid 2 inch difference Maya and not 3, plus i don't believe that Daniel is wearing lifts, you can't just say that out of the blue unless you can prove it, I think Emma is 5'5'', Dan is 5'5'' and Rupert is 5'7'' - 5'7.25''
It looks more like a solid 2 inch difference Maya and not 3, plus i don't believe that Daniel is wearing lifts, you can't just say that out of the blue unless you can prove it, I think Emma is 5'5'', Dan is 5'5'' and Rupert is 5'7'' - 5'7.25''
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
The url I provided obviously ain't very precise but I had a picture no. 6657055 in mind. Check that one out please.
The url I provided obviously ain't very precise but I had a picture no. 6657055 in mind. Check that one out please.
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
This is the straightest shot I've found of them in socks: click on the picture previewed on the far right to enlarge it Click Here
Dan actually looks taller than Emma because his hair is puffed up, but it is safe to say that they are exactly the same height. If Rupert didn't have that ridiculous hairdo, we'd be able to see that they came up to his eyebrows level. Rob is that a 3 in. difference of have I figured everything wrong?!
This is the straightest shot I've found of them in socks: click on the picture previewed on the far right to enlarge it Click Here
Dan actually looks taller than Emma because his hair is puffed up, but it is safe to say that they are exactly the same height. If Rupert didn't have that ridiculous hairdo, we'd be able to see that they came up to his eyebrows level. Rob is that a 3 in. difference of have I figured everything wrong?!
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
JK if Dan in dress shoes looks about the same height as Emma in 6cm heels which give her around 2 inches (according to tutorial), that means that he's wearing lifts. LA pics also prove this, because Emma in pumps looks 2 in. shorter than Dan in "standard dress shoes". How come?! Anyway in London pics both Emma and Dan stand at around 5'7" with their heels/lifts on, and Rupert in converse is still taller than them, which puts him in the 5'8" range. I'm not saying he's 5'10" or something, obviously he isn't, but closer to 5'8" yes.
JK if Dan in dress shoes looks about the same height as Emma in 6cm heels which give her around 2 inches (according to tutorial), that means that he's wearing lifts. LA pics also prove this, because Emma in pumps looks 2 in. shorter than Dan in "standard dress shoes". How come?! Anyway in London pics both Emma and Dan stand at around 5'7" with their heels/lifts on, and Rupert in converse is still taller than them, which puts him in the 5'8" range. I'm not saying he's 5'10" or something, obviously he isn't, but closer to 5'8" yes.
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
"If both Emma and Dan barefoot come up to Rupert's eyebrows, that's approximately 3-4 in. difference" there is no way there will be 3 - 4 inch difference, Radcliffe is just wearing standard dress shoes which give about 3cm so He will only be 2 inches shorter than Rupert and so will Emma
"If both Emma and Dan barefoot come up to Rupert's eyebrows, that's approximately 3-4 in. difference" there is no way there will be 3 - 4 inch difference, Radcliffe is just wearing standard dress shoes which give about 3cm so He will only be 2 inches shorter than Rupert and so will Emma
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
What do you mean definetley not on Emma!????? Look Click Here she is 5'5'' Rupert is looking just about 5'6'' because he is slouching just a little bit and Dan is also looking 5'5''
What do you mean definetley not on Emma!????? Look Click Here she is 5'5'' Rupert is looking just about 5'6'' because he is slouching just a little bit and Dan is also looking 5'5''
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
Sorry JK, something's got scr***d up with the website Click Here Hope we'll be able to see that gallery soon. Here are the same pictures with different links Click Here Click Here
Sorry JK, something's got scr***d up with the website Click Here Hope we'll be able to see that gallery soon. Here are the same pictures with different links Click Here Click Here
Anna said on 21/Aug/07
No, JK, I don't agree with you because if Rupert's 5'7.5" to 5'8" in footwear that would put him at 5'6.5" to 5'7" barefoot, and he has at least an inch on Emma. I'd say he should be listed at 5'8" even seeing as he seems a strong 5'8" and, yes, I would agree he has a nearly 3 inch advantage on Dan, but definitely not on Emma - as I said, it's a two inch difference at the most, although sometimes, when both stand up straight, it looks barely more than one. And as for the posture thing, although I do believe Rupert's posture has gotten better, I have noticed a curious thing - when he takes photos with fans and people other than Dan and Emma he slouches or bends down to be closer to the people whreas with photos taken with Dan and Emma and, namely Emma, he stands up nearly perfectly straight. This was especially seen in the Paris photo call in my opinion (whilst Emma wore 1/4"-1/2" flats and looked 1.5 or fewer inches shorter than Rupert). Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me?
No, JK, I don't agree with you because if Rupert's 5'7.5" to 5'8" in footwear that would put him at 5'6.5" to 5'7" barefoot, and he has at least an inch on Emma. I'd say he should be listed at 5'8" even seeing as he seems a strong 5'8" and, yes, I would agree he has a nearly 3 inch advantage on Dan, but definitely not on Emma - as I said, it's a two inch difference at the most, although sometimes, when both stand up straight, it looks barely more than one. And as for the posture thing, although I do believe Rupert's posture has gotten better, I have noticed a curious thing - when he takes photos with fans and people other than Dan and Emma he slouches or bends down to be closer to the people whreas with photos taken with Dan and Emma and, namely Emma, he stands up nearly perfectly straight. This was especially seen in the Paris photo call in my opinion (whilst Emma wore 1/4"-1/2" flats and looked 1.5 or fewer inches shorter than Rupert). Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me?
Maya said on 21/Aug/07
JK at London premiere both Emma in heels and Dan in seriously big dress shoes are shorter than Rupert in his dirty old converse: Click Here
Click Here
If you are unsure how to estimate height difference take a look at Rob's "tutorial". If both Emma and Dan barefoot come up to Rupert's eyebrows, that's approximately 3-4 in. difference.
JK at London premiere both Emma in heels and Dan in seriously big dress shoes are shorter than Rupert in his dirty old converse: Click Here
Click Here
If you are unsure how to estimate height difference take a look at Rob's "tutorial". If both Emma and Dan barefoot come up to Rupert's eyebrows, that's approximately 3-4 in. difference.
6'3'' JK said on 21/Aug/07
I think there is a 2 inch difference maybe more 2.5 inch
I think there is a 2 inch difference maybe more 2.5 inch
Maya said on 21/Aug/07
anonymous you also have to consider that in the LA pic Rupert is standing the farthest behind. The angle does him least favour compared to everyone else.
You know, Rob, since you have so generously awarded both Dan and Emma with the 5'5" estimation, you could easily put Rupert at 5'8" flat. There has to be at least 3 in. diference between him and the other two - barefoot that is, which is what matters here.
anonymous you also have to consider that in the LA pic Rupert is standing the farthest behind. The angle does him least favour compared to everyone else.
You know, Rob, since you have so generously awarded both Dan and Emma with the 5'5" estimation, you could easily put Rupert at 5'8" flat. There has to be at least 3 in. diference between him and the other two - barefoot that is, which is what matters here.
anonymous no-name said on 21/Aug/07
Click Here Immelda Stauton is 5' and has kitten heels on (1"? 1.5"? def. not more). I know it's hard to find the top of her head in all that hair, but let's assume her eyes are the exact centre of her face. He doesn't seem to have more than 5" on her, as she comes up to the centre of his nose. Now, he is slouching and her eyes might be a little higher up than the average person's (you never know, right) But even then, 7" on her 5' with 1.25" kitten heels frame would make him 5'8.25" in shoes and standing straight. Considering footwear that would make him 5'8".
He might be able to reach 5'8.5" if he'd stand up completely straight, who knows, but I really wonder if we'll ever see him do that!
Click Here Immelda Stauton is 5' and has kitten heels on (1"? 1.5"? def. not more). I know it's hard to find the top of her head in all that hair, but let's assume her eyes are the exact centre of her face. He doesn't seem to have more than 5" on her, as she comes up to the centre of his nose. Now, he is slouching and her eyes might be a little higher up than the average person's (you never know, right) But even then, 7" on her 5' with 1.25" kitten heels frame would make him 5'8.25" in shoes and standing straight. Considering footwear that would make him 5'8".
He might be able to reach 5'8.5" if he'd stand up completely straight, who knows, but I really wonder if we'll ever see him do that!
6'3'' JK said on 21/Aug/07
No anna, Emma is also done growing aswell i don't see her even gaining another centimeter, she is 5'5'' and thats her final height, Dan and Rupert are also finished Growing, Rupert i think finished 2 years ago at 17
No anna, Emma is also done growing aswell i don't see her even gaining another centimeter, she is 5'5'' and thats her final height, Dan and Rupert are also finished Growing, Rupert i think finished 2 years ago at 17
6'3'' JK said on 20/Aug/07
I think Rupert is 5'7.5'' or 5'8'' in footwear, anyone else agree?
I think Rupert is 5'7.5'' or 5'8'' in footwear, anyone else agree?
anna said on 20/Aug/07
I think Dan is definitely done growing because he looks extremely mature and Rupert is most likely done growing because he is nearly 19. Emma could still grow a small amount with her being younger and, for that matter, looking a lot younger, but I'm not sure. She could easily get away with saying she is 5'7" though. And I really do believe Rupert's posture has gotten much better. He's realised that Emma and even Dan are not much shorter than him so he's learnt to stand up straighter.
I think Dan is definitely done growing because he looks extremely mature and Rupert is most likely done growing because he is nearly 19. Emma could still grow a small amount with her being younger and, for that matter, looking a lot younger, but I'm not sure. She could easily get away with saying she is 5'7" though. And I really do believe Rupert's posture has gotten much better. He's realised that Emma and even Dan are not much shorter than him so he's learnt to stand up straighter.
Chip said on 20/Aug/07
umad80, I still don't see why Rupert has to lean so much. I think he is no more than 5'8", which isn't much taller than someone like Emma. btw, I can't blame the Phelps twins for leaning. I'm not tall, but I already find it uncomfortable to stand up straight sometimes. James and Oliver are quite long and thin at 6'3", so they probably feel the same.
umad80, I still don't see why Rupert has to lean so much. I think he is no more than 5'8", which isn't much taller than someone like Emma. btw, I can't blame the Phelps twins for leaning. I'm not tall, but I already find it uncomfortable to stand up straight sometimes. James and Oliver are quite long and thin at 6'3", so they probably feel the same.
6'3'' JK said on 20/Aug/07
I agree on the grass thing... it could be advantageous to either person, i think the whole trio are done growing now, they have reached their final heights
I agree on the grass thing... it could be advantageous to either person, i think the whole trio are done growing now, they have reached their final heights
umad80 said on 20/Aug/07
C'mon Rob... Rupert's posture isn't much better! He's leaning forward and to the side. You can tell. LOL And grass matters now? This makes no sense. It's almost as if you're trying to keep Rupert down in height as much as possible! LOL Still though, I think we can all agree that Rupert is definitely tip of the nose/slightly higher in height given similiar posture and if they were standing next to each other. And since you have 5'8" coming to middle of the chin area on a 6'3.5" person, doesn't that mean Rupert is taller than 5'7.75"?
Chip, Rupert is famous for that. He will lean in for pictures. And since this is a kid, he leaned in a LOT so the kid could get a good picture. He does have better posture now, but if you really look at a lot of pictures, you can tell that he tends to lean in so people can get good pictures if they are shorter than him.
JK, that's the point I have always tried to get you to understand. Rupert tends to lean into people and not stand very straight (as opposed to how well Dan stands). His posture might've gotten better, but he still does this. You can clearly see it and that is why you can look at some pictures and he'll look short but in other pictures he looks a lot taller.
Btw Anna, even though it didn't look like they were any different in height at the ceremony with their shoes off, I can say that Emma is probably a half inch taller than Dan. It goes back to why I think she thinks she's 5'6". She can and has looked at least a half inch taller than him at times. (Of course, remember in GoF where she looked really tall compared to him? LOL I think he was like 5'3" or 5'4" while filming GoF and she had already gotten to 5'5" by that time.)
Editor Rob
C'mon Rob... Rupert's posture isn't much better! He's leaning forward and to the side. You can tell. LOL And grass matters now? This makes no sense. It's almost as if you're trying to keep Rupert down in height as much as possible! LOL Still though, I think we can all agree that Rupert is definitely tip of the nose/slightly higher in height given similiar posture and if they were standing next to each other. And since you have 5'8" coming to middle of the chin area on a 6'3.5" person, doesn't that mean Rupert is taller than 5'7.75"?
Chip, Rupert is famous for that. He will lean in for pictures. And since this is a kid, he leaned in a LOT so the kid could get a good picture. He does have better posture now, but if you really look at a lot of pictures, you can tell that he tends to lean in so people can get good pictures if they are shorter than him.
JK, that's the point I have always tried to get you to understand. Rupert tends to lean into people and not stand very straight (as opposed to how well Dan stands). His posture might've gotten better, but he still does this. You can clearly see it and that is why you can look at some pictures and he'll look short but in other pictures he looks a lot taller.
Btw Anna, even though it didn't look like they were any different in height at the ceremony with their shoes off, I can say that Emma is probably a half inch taller than Dan. It goes back to why I think she thinks she's 5'6". She can and has looked at least a half inch taller than him at times. (Of course, remember in GoF where she looked really tall compared to him? LOL I think he was like 5'3" or 5'4" while filming GoF and she had already gotten to 5'5" by that time.)
Editor Rob phelps has poorer posture than grint, but the grass could be advantageous to either person...
anna said on 20/Aug/07
That's complete rubbish Maya, she comes up well past his eyebrows even when she's slouching, he's standing up straight, and she has the angle disadvantage. I just don't understand how people can deny that. And those are 1/2" "heels" at the very most, the same as Rupert's Converse. haha, whatevs though, and on this new website I'll most definitely be listing Dan as his legitimate 5'10". And I have to disagree about never persuading Rob, I think he would upgrade her at least to 5'5.5". He even admitted that she looked taller than Dan in some photos and, coming from him, that's quite a lot.
That's complete rubbish Maya, she comes up well past his eyebrows even when she's slouching, he's standing up straight, and she has the angle disadvantage. I just don't understand how people can deny that. And those are 1/2" "heels" at the very most, the same as Rupert's Converse. haha, whatevs though, and on this new website I'll most definitely be listing Dan as his legitimate 5'10". And I have to disagree about never persuading Rob, I think he would upgrade her at least to 5'5.5". He even admitted that she looked taller than Dan in some photos and, coming from him, that's quite a lot.
Chip said on 19/Aug/07
umad80, yes, that was the picture I was talking about. Emma is standing a bit in front of Dan, but I still think there's a possibility of her being taller than him there. She and Dan look younger on the pic, and Dan looks much skinnier. I have no idea why Rupert is leaning so much, lol, but he certainly has better posture nowadays.
ALso, good to know you agree with me about Shia, Anna. In the past, I really have watched quite a bit of Disney Channel, but when I look back, Even Stevens was really the only good show. Shia is a very talented guy.
umad80, yes, that was the picture I was talking about. Emma is standing a bit in front of Dan, but I still think there's a possibility of her being taller than him there. She and Dan look younger on the pic, and Dan looks much skinnier. I have no idea why Rupert is leaning so much, lol, but he certainly has better posture nowadays.
ALso, good to know you agree with me about Shia, Anna. In the past, I really have watched quite a bit of Disney Channel, but when I look back, Even Stevens was really the only good show. Shia is a very talented guy.
6'3'' JK said on 19/Aug/07
Well Maya 5'7'' is close to 5'8'' its only 3cm off, but i do have to say the guy can be 5'7.5'', although he looks 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' in pictures sometimes
Well Maya 5'7'' is close to 5'8'' its only 3cm off, but i do have to say the guy can be 5'7.5'', although he looks 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' in pictures sometimes
umad80 said on 19/Aug/07
Actually Maya, I think that's a good point... about Rupert looking skinny at the BAFTAs. It makes you think, doesn't it? During and after GoF, the boy was really buff. I mean, if you watch conversations with the cast on the DVD, Rupert is huge compared to Dan. But then later on he looked like he had lost weight. It had me thinking that he was probably growing. Doesn't that happen when you're growing? Because he's gaining back some of that buff he had before.
Btw, this is the pic I was talking about: Click Here - as you can see, James appears closer to the camera, so it's hard to say what they would look like standing side by side, but he's definitely just above the tip of the nose here. What do you think Rob? Would Rupert come up taller or is that about where he'd stay? I don't know about James' shoes either...
Editor Rob
Actually Maya, I think that's a good point... about Rupert looking skinny at the BAFTAs. It makes you think, doesn't it? During and after GoF, the boy was really buff. I mean, if you watch conversations with the cast on the DVD, Rupert is huge compared to Dan. But then later on he looked like he had lost weight. It had me thinking that he was probably growing. Doesn't that happen when you're growing? Because he's gaining back some of that buff he had before.
Btw, this is the pic I was talking about: Click Here - as you can see, James appears closer to the camera, so it's hard to say what they would look like standing side by side, but he's definitely just above the tip of the nose here. What do you think Rob? Would Rupert come up taller or is that about where he'd stay? I don't know about James' shoes either...
Editor Rob he's at the tip of the nose there but james got worse posture, he might have head 3 inches closer and it's grass, so...
Maya said on 19/Aug/07
JK I'm glad you've changed your mind, I'm not sure about Rupert's height either, but I do believe he's closer to 5'8". Not that it makes any difference from your 6'3" perspective!
Anna, Emma should hire you as her spokesperson or lawyer or something, your devotion to her is really touching. But I'm afraid that Paris photos prove that Emma only comes up to Rupert's eyebrows, which is around 3-4 in. difference. She can't possibly be even 5'6", otherwise he'd be 5'10"ish, which he isn't.
Face it, Editor Rob is never going to upgrade Emma. Maybe you should start your own website, and then you could list your fave celebs any height you like.
I do agree with you however that Rupert's put on quite a few pounds lately. In the last year's pics from Baftas etc. he looked terribly skinny, but now he's grown if not taller than definitely bigger.
JK I'm glad you've changed your mind, I'm not sure about Rupert's height either, but I do believe he's closer to 5'8". Not that it makes any difference from your 6'3" perspective!
Anna, Emma should hire you as her spokesperson or lawyer or something, your devotion to her is really touching. But I'm afraid that Paris photos prove that Emma only comes up to Rupert's eyebrows, which is around 3-4 in. difference. She can't possibly be even 5'6", otherwise he'd be 5'10"ish, which he isn't.
Face it, Editor Rob is never going to upgrade Emma. Maybe you should start your own website, and then you could list your fave celebs any height you like.
I do agree with you however that Rupert's put on quite a few pounds lately. In the last year's pics from Baftas etc. he looked terribly skinny, but now he's grown if not taller than definitely bigger.
umad80 said on 19/Aug/07
Emma really only has maybe a half inch on Dan at the ceremony. And Emma's heels at the Paris photocall are definitely more than a half inch.
You know, I don't know how it works with how far in front someone stands... but James Phelps and Rupert were at V Festival today and James was standing in front of Rupert and Rupert came up just above the tip of his nose. It's easy to argue that standing together with similiar posture that he could be just under his eyes. (And one twin is taller than the other, right? Not sure if this was the taller of the two... or how much taller the other is.)
Maya, I have to agree. There are different pictures that put him at different heights. I've said numerous times that the best way to judge Rupert's height is to see him in person. He can look fairly short due to his build, but he really isn't. And there has to be something said about the photos with Tom Felton. Again, he's not the same height, but it's not a solid two inch difference either. It's closer to a solid half inch or a bit more, but Tom was wearing regular shoes (I thought he was wearing dress shoes, but upon further inspection I realized he was wearing weird looking tennis shoes so the guess is that they're an inch giving him a half inch advantage) and got the advantage that way. But the video I posted, if you go far enough into it (like a minute and a half) you'll see them shaking hands and you can't see a major height difference at all.
Emma really only has maybe a half inch on Dan at the ceremony. And Emma's heels at the Paris photocall are definitely more than a half inch.
You know, I don't know how it works with how far in front someone stands... but James Phelps and Rupert were at V Festival today and James was standing in front of Rupert and Rupert came up just above the tip of his nose. It's easy to argue that standing together with similiar posture that he could be just under his eyes. (And one twin is taller than the other, right? Not sure if this was the taller of the two... or how much taller the other is.)
Maya, I have to agree. There are different pictures that put him at different heights. I've said numerous times that the best way to judge Rupert's height is to see him in person. He can look fairly short due to his build, but he really isn't. And there has to be something said about the photos with Tom Felton. Again, he's not the same height, but it's not a solid two inch difference either. It's closer to a solid half inch or a bit more, but Tom was wearing regular shoes (I thought he was wearing dress shoes, but upon further inspection I realized he was wearing weird looking tennis shoes so the guess is that they're an inch giving him a half inch advantage) and got the advantage that way. But the video I posted, if you go far enough into it (like a minute and a half) you'll see them shaking hands and you can't see a major height difference at all.
anna said on 19/Aug/07
Oh, and I forgot to add that I came across someone who had a rather interesting take on the trio's heights. S/he thought Rupert was 5'10", Emma was 5'8", and Dan was 5'5". Interestng, is it not? haha, they were like, Emma would never go out with someone who is 3 inches below her because someone was talking about how Dan and Emma would be cute together. I was genuinely surprised. and I agree Chip, Even Stevens was the only quality show and Shia has been one of the few who has not started a, as you put it quite nicely, "wannabe" singing career. haha.
Oh, and I forgot to add that I came across someone who had a rather interesting take on the trio's heights. S/he thought Rupert was 5'10", Emma was 5'8", and Dan was 5'5". Interestng, is it not? haha, they were like, Emma would never go out with someone who is 3 inches below her because someone was talking about how Dan and Emma would be cute together. I was genuinely surprised. and I agree Chip, Even Stevens was the only quality show and Shia has been one of the few who has not started a, as you put it quite nicely, "wannabe" singing career. haha.
anna said on 19/Aug/07
haha, I don't know if I am mildly retarted, but after zooming in on your photo umad80, it convinces me more than ever that Emma's shoes give her no more than 1/2", maybe even 1/4"! Those are quite small flats, wow. I'm sorry, but they don't look like wedges. Or I should say wedges that give her much height, that wedge is like one-fourth of an inch. They definitely look smaller than Rupert's sole. And I too have been confused by Dan's statements about his height. However, I am guessing he is a strong 5'5" or 5'5.5" at the very most and Emma is around 5'6.5", ergo, she is 1.5" shorter than the 5'8" Rupert. And I agree about Rupert's build Maya, it is a quite strange build. And, I'm not trying to be rude, but does it seem like he's put on a little weight since OotP? He looked, not fat, but just a little bigger in the Printing ceremony photos. And I once again say that I think while Rupert's posture has improved tremendously, Emma's has gotten worse in the other direction. And with the on-set photo, I think Emma grew slightly since that, however, she is even taller than Dan then. She has a good inch to 1.5" on him now though as demonstrated by the Printing ceremony photos.
haha, I don't know if I am mildly retarted, but after zooming in on your photo umad80, it convinces me more than ever that Emma's shoes give her no more than 1/2", maybe even 1/4"! Those are quite small flats, wow. I'm sorry, but they don't look like wedges. Or I should say wedges that give her much height, that wedge is like one-fourth of an inch. They definitely look smaller than Rupert's sole. And I too have been confused by Dan's statements about his height. However, I am guessing he is a strong 5'5" or 5'5.5" at the very most and Emma is around 5'6.5", ergo, she is 1.5" shorter than the 5'8" Rupert. And I agree about Rupert's build Maya, it is a quite strange build. And, I'm not trying to be rude, but does it seem like he's put on a little weight since OotP? He looked, not fat, but just a little bigger in the Printing ceremony photos. And I once again say that I think while Rupert's posture has improved tremendously, Emma's has gotten worse in the other direction. And with the on-set photo, I think Emma grew slightly since that, however, she is even taller than Dan then. She has a good inch to 1.5" on him now though as demonstrated by the Printing ceremony photos.
6'3'' JK said on 19/Aug/07
okay after looking at those pictures I'd say there is a possibilty of him being 5'7.5'', but i still think he is more 5'7'' close enough to 5'8''
okay after looking at those pictures I'd say there is a possibilty of him being 5'7.5'', but i still think he is more 5'7'' close enough to 5'8''
6'3'' JK said on 19/Aug/07
Chip im not attacking you either, so thats good were back on the height topic, Ive always seen pictures where Rupert is looking 5'7'' when he is standing straight, what pictures has he ever looked 5'8'' in?
Chip im not attacking you either, so thats good were back on the height topic, Ive always seen pictures where Rupert is looking 5'7'' when he is standing straight, what pictures has he ever looked 5'8'' in?
umad80 said on 19/Aug/07
Chip, are you talking about this picture? Click Here It's hard to say because Emma is slightly in front of Dan. I don't know how that works as far as how much taller she might be though. And Rupert is leaning down so much I'm surprised he didn't hurt his back. LOL But it does prove my point about how Rupert is in pictures... he tends to lean and such to get closer to those in photos with him.
Anna, you must not remember the conversation everyone had about those heels when we first saw them. Everyone agreed that they were heels but you couldn't tell on first look. But if you really look at them you can tell that they're wedged and probably give her more than an inch in height. Click Here - That picture isn't to prove any height thing, but to show you the the footware. I think we can agree that they definitely give her an inch if not more. I'm not sure how much wedges usually give, but they're definitely more than a half an inch. The look a solid inch but could possibly give more than that. (And before anyone argues over the picture, it's not very good. Emma is in front though has her leg bent, but Rupert is behind and has his head titled... again, proving my point about how he leans in pictures.)
Chip, are you talking about this picture? Click Here It's hard to say because Emma is slightly in front of Dan. I don't know how that works as far as how much taller she might be though. And Rupert is leaning down so much I'm surprised he didn't hurt his back. LOL But it does prove my point about how Rupert is in pictures... he tends to lean and such to get closer to those in photos with him.
Anna, you must not remember the conversation everyone had about those heels when we first saw them. Everyone agreed that they were heels but you couldn't tell on first look. But if you really look at them you can tell that they're wedged and probably give her more than an inch in height. Click Here - That picture isn't to prove any height thing, but to show you the the footware. I think we can agree that they definitely give her an inch if not more. I'm not sure how much wedges usually give, but they're definitely more than a half an inch. The look a solid inch but could possibly give more than that. (And before anyone argues over the picture, it's not very good. Emma is in front though has her leg bent, but Rupert is behind and has his head titled... again, proving my point about how he leans in pictures.)
Chip said on 18/Aug/07
btw, since JK would like for us (mainly me) to get back to the height topic, I would say that I'm sure Rupert is 5'8". I mean, he doesn't look tall, but he doesn't look very short, either. 5'8" is in that category. Anna, I have have to say that I agree with you about Emma being 5'6.5". I would say that Dan was 5'5.5" or even 5'6", but he is confusing me because he recently stated that he is 5'5", and before that he called himself 5'6". I didn't think it quite as much before, but now I do think it's very likely that Emma is a bit taller than Dan. I don't know how to post links to photos, but there's a picture during early OOTP filming with Dan, Rupert, and Emma, and they're standing with a little boy who is in Hogwarts robes. I think that they're all standing on the same level as each other, and if they are, Emma seems to be slightly taller than Dan. Anna, have you seen the picture that I'm talking about? If so, what do you think about it?
btw, since JK would like for us (mainly me) to get back to the height topic, I would say that I'm sure Rupert is 5'8". I mean, he doesn't look tall, but he doesn't look very short, either. 5'8" is in that category. Anna, I have have to say that I agree with you about Emma being 5'6.5". I would say that Dan was 5'5.5" or even 5'6", but he is confusing me because he recently stated that he is 5'5", and before that he called himself 5'6". I didn't think it quite as much before, but now I do think it's very likely that Emma is a bit taller than Dan. I don't know how to post links to photos, but there's a picture during early OOTP filming with Dan, Rupert, and Emma, and they're standing with a little boy who is in Hogwarts robes. I think that they're all standing on the same level as each other, and if they are, Emma seems to be slightly taller than Dan. Anna, have you seen the picture that I'm talking about? If so, what do you think about it?
Chip said on 18/Aug/07
Lol, Anna. I can't sit through 5 minutes of Hannah Montana. It's not that I have anything against the people in the show, but the show is just terrible. One of the few Disney Channel shows (although it doesn't come on any
more) that I call worth watching (and very good, in fact) is Even Stevens. It's silly, but it was a great show, and it had Shia LaBeouf in it. Shia is getting lots of great acting jobs, and he's actually talented, too. He's one of the few Disney stars that hasn't done some wannabe-singer music video.
Anyway, since this isn't the place to ramble about Disney Channel shows, lol, I'll get to the point. JK, I'm not attacking you (and I already said I would accept your apology), but I don't get what was so "LMAO"-funny about my previous comment. I mean, you have acted like you don't know what an apology is, and you seem to mention Rob in nearly all of your comments. Look, whatever, I don't care what you prefer to watch on TV, how old you are, or what your sexual preference is. I've accepted your apology, and it's fine. Just please acknowledge that I have accepted it this time.
Lol, Anna. I can't sit through 5 minutes of Hannah Montana. It's not that I have anything against the people in the show, but the show is just terrible. One of the few Disney Channel shows (although it doesn't come on any
more) that I call worth watching (and very good, in fact) is Even Stevens. It's silly, but it was a great show, and it had Shia LaBeouf in it. Shia is getting lots of great acting jobs, and he's actually talented, too. He's one of the few Disney stars that hasn't done some wannabe-singer music video.
Anyway, since this isn't the place to ramble about Disney Channel shows, lol, I'll get to the point. JK, I'm not attacking you (and I already said I would accept your apology), but I don't get what was so "LMAO"-funny about my previous comment. I mean, you have acted like you don't know what an apology is, and you seem to mention Rob in nearly all of your comments. Look, whatever, I don't care what you prefer to watch on TV, how old you are, or what your sexual preference is. I've accepted your apology, and it's fine. Just please acknowledge that I have accepted it this time.
anna said on 18/Aug/07
The fake 5'8" listing of Emma Watson? When was she ever listed as such? I've seen her listed as 5'7" consistently now, but not 5'8" and I've only seen one 5'8" listing for Dan, most have him at 5'5" to 5'7" actually. But, yes, you are right, Rupert is listed as 5'10" or 5'11" quite consistently. Nevertheless, I still think Rupert is a strong 5'8", Dan a strong 5'5", and Emma 5'6.5" to 5'7". It's quite obvious that Rupert has at least 3 inches on Dan now, but honestly, he sometimes looks barely 1 inch taller than Emma. And umad80, I really hate arguing with you, but how do you know those are faux heels? They look to give her 1/2" at the most, thus giving her equal footwear to Rupert in his Converse. And about slouching and leaning...I definitely agree that Rupert has done those things in the past, but to be honest, I would say Emma has become more of a sloucher than Rupert. At recent events Emma (even in flats) has been slouching terribly whereas Rupert has been standing quite well. Emma never used to do this, which is what confuses me - what do you think of it?
The fake 5'8" listing of Emma Watson? When was she ever listed as such? I've seen her listed as 5'7" consistently now, but not 5'8" and I've only seen one 5'8" listing for Dan, most have him at 5'5" to 5'7" actually. But, yes, you are right, Rupert is listed as 5'10" or 5'11" quite consistently. Nevertheless, I still think Rupert is a strong 5'8", Dan a strong 5'5", and Emma 5'6.5" to 5'7". It's quite obvious that Rupert has at least 3 inches on Dan now, but honestly, he sometimes looks barely 1 inch taller than Emma. And umad80, I really hate arguing with you, but how do you know those are faux heels? They look to give her 1/2" at the most, thus giving her equal footwear to Rupert in his Converse. And about slouching and leaning...I definitely agree that Rupert has done those things in the past, but to be honest, I would say Emma has become more of a sloucher than Rupert. At recent events Emma (even in flats) has been slouching terribly whereas Rupert has been standing quite well. Emma never used to do this, which is what confuses me - what do you think of it?
6'3'' JK said on 18/Aug/07
Anyway, I did actually believe that 5'10'' listing for Rupert when Goblet of fire came out, i actually thought he grew to that and i also believed that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma were also around 5'8'' themselves, then i saw some pictures of such Beside people like the Twins and jamie Waylett and then knew that those listings were absolutley fake
Anyway, I did actually believe that 5'10'' listing for Rupert when Goblet of fire came out, i actually thought he grew to that and i also believed that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma were also around 5'8'' themselves, then i saw some pictures of such Beside people like the Twins and jamie Waylett and then knew that those listings were absolutley fake
Anna said on 18/Aug/07
If you make rude comments like that, people are going to talk about you. I was talking to Chip about how immature you seem. I'm sorry if I annoy you, but I just thought it was extremely funny that you were requesting heights for ten-year-olds. If they are even that old. But, sorry, I'll stop. And I wouldn't consider myself famous if someone is saying that I watch shows for pre-teens and that I have the vocabulary of a 5-year-old. I'm sorry, but you are just sounding really stupid, but carry on, it is quite a laugh. Or, it is making me LOL, as you would put it. And I apologised, but then you just kept making snide remarks about Chip and such, which made me want to question your intelligence.
If you make rude comments like that, people are going to talk about you. I was talking to Chip about how immature you seem. I'm sorry if I annoy you, but I just thought it was extremely funny that you were requesting heights for ten-year-olds. If they are even that old. But, sorry, I'll stop. And I wouldn't consider myself famous if someone is saying that I watch shows for pre-teens and that I have the vocabulary of a 5-year-old. I'm sorry, but you are just sounding really stupid, but carry on, it is quite a laugh. Or, it is making me LOL, as you would put it. And I apologised, but then you just kept making snide remarks about Chip and such, which made me want to question your intelligence.
6'3'' JK said on 18/Aug/07
Anna i thought you also apologized to me then what was that all about in your last post, Why are you talking about me all of a sudden, am i now famous? Look I respect Umad80 for going back to the height topic but whats up with this constant talk about me in each and every post? LOL Ive been really trying hard to ignore you but you are now really getting on my nerves...
Anna i thought you also apologized to me then what was that all about in your last post, Why are you talking about me all of a sudden, am i now famous? Look I respect Umad80 for going back to the height topic but whats up with this constant talk about me in each and every post? LOL Ive been really trying hard to ignore you but you are now really getting on my nerves...
umad80 said on 18/Aug/07
I think photos can be obviously weird. Because there are photos at the paris photocall where you can see a major difference. You know? That's happened at a lot of events. Emma definitely doesn't stand straight, but when I think of a leaner or sloucher I'm just so use to Rupert that Emma doesn't even seem close.
Oh, here is an interesting video: Click Here - Rupert and Tom shaking hands. You can't even see a height difference. Taking into account camera angel and all, there might be a slight one, but you have to factor in shoes.
I think photos can be obviously weird. Because there are photos at the paris photocall where you can see a major difference. You know? That's happened at a lot of events. Emma definitely doesn't stand straight, but when I think of a leaner or sloucher I'm just so use to Rupert that Emma doesn't even seem close.
Oh, here is an interesting video: Click Here - Rupert and Tom shaking hands. You can't even see a height difference. Taking into account camera angel and all, there might be a slight one, but you have to factor in shoes.
umad80 said on 18/Aug/07
For one, Emma is wearing faux heels. For two, Rupert is leaning in. For three, that one picture Rupert is behind Emma. Lastly, I thought two inches wouldn't be just above the eyebrows? In that second picture, even with Emma's heels and Rupert leaning, you can see that she's just above his eyebrows. That is more than two inches!
For one, Emma is wearing faux heels. For two, Rupert is leaning in. For three, that one picture Rupert is behind Emma. Lastly, I thought two inches wouldn't be just above the eyebrows? In that second picture, even with Emma's heels and Rupert leaning, you can see that she's just above his eyebrows. That is more than two inches!
Anna said on 17/Aug/07
Well, I honestly think those photo call photos prove that Emma is obviously less than two inches shorter than Rupert because, quite surprsingly, in those photos Rupert is standing up straight and Emma is slouching a bit awkwardly. Did you lot notice that she doesn't stand up properly in any of the photos? It's really weird, but it's obvious that she isn't much shorter than him, at least the gap is not nearly as big as it once was. I've come to conclude that he's a strong 5'8" and Emma's a strong 5'6.5". Dan still confuses me a bit, although I think somewhere between 5'5" and 5'5.5" is reasonable. And I guess that could be true umad80, but I just don't know where she would hear that he is 5'5.5"? Although I know what you mean, even if it's a really small amount, it's easy to tell if you're taller htan a person. Although I don't know much about that. haha and Chip, I don't really understand what JK was talking about in his last post, but I have more proof supporting your thought that JK is only on the younger side. I was looking at Zac Efron's page and he was requesting heights like Miley something (don't know her last name?) and Mitchel something, people who act on a show called Hannah Montana, a show made for, let us just say, the younger crowd. haha, it's showed on the Disney Channel, honestly, what male would watch that show? I understand girls who babysit (that's the only time I've seen it, it's a terrible show, argh....stupid kids why do you have to watch that rubbish?), but a guy? That's just awkward?
Well, I honestly think those photo call photos prove that Emma is obviously less than two inches shorter than Rupert because, quite surprsingly, in those photos Rupert is standing up straight and Emma is slouching a bit awkwardly. Did you lot notice that she doesn't stand up properly in any of the photos? It's really weird, but it's obvious that she isn't much shorter than him, at least the gap is not nearly as big as it once was. I've come to conclude that he's a strong 5'8" and Emma's a strong 5'6.5". Dan still confuses me a bit, although I think somewhere between 5'5" and 5'5.5" is reasonable. And I guess that could be true umad80, but I just don't know where she would hear that he is 5'5.5"? Although I know what you mean, even if it's a really small amount, it's easy to tell if you're taller htan a person. Although I don't know much about that. haha and Chip, I don't really understand what JK was talking about in his last post, but I have more proof supporting your thought that JK is only on the younger side. I was looking at Zac Efron's page and he was requesting heights like Miley something (don't know her last name?) and Mitchel something, people who act on a show called Hannah Montana, a show made for, let us just say, the younger crowd. haha, it's showed on the Disney Channel, honestly, what male would watch that show? I understand girls who babysit (that's the only time I've seen it, it's a terrible show, argh....stupid kids why do you have to watch that rubbish?), but a guy? That's just awkward?
6'3'' JK said on 17/Aug/07
Look i gave you an apology, now you want me to mean it too LMAO, honestly Chip get over it man lets forget about that issue and concentrate on the heights man, If only Rob or Glenn got a picture with the trio it would be really interesting
Look i gave you an apology, now you want me to mean it too LMAO, honestly Chip get over it man lets forget about that issue and concentrate on the heights man, If only Rob or Glenn got a picture with the trio it would be really interesting
Maya said on 17/Aug/07
Weird angles again, JK, weird angles. Scroll down to Editor Rob's response to you on 7 July, he's posted pictures from the same event but with better angles.
Weird angles again, JK, weird angles. Scroll down to Editor Rob's response to you on 7 July, he's posted pictures from the same event but with better angles.
umad80 said on 17/Aug/07
Oh, Anna... I didn't mean it like that. Heh. I meant that maybe Emma did see she was taller than Dan and had heard him state numerous times he was 5'5.5" and then thought maybe since she was taller she must be 5'6". Thus not being obsessive, but guestimating. Since if she were obsessive, she'd have it down to a science, you know? I just meant that she probably could tell she was taller than Dan... My mom is 5'5.5" (well, I don't think any more, I think she shrunk, but that's another story) and I can tell that she's just a little taller. I'm not obsessive, but you just sort of notice when talking to people who might be taller than you no matter however slight it is. :)
I really do think though that judging from people's own experience says a lot more than pictures. No matter how many JK posts or this one and that one posts... there are a lot of people who have met him who are saying taller than 5'8". I know there was one girl who said she was 5'8" and Rupert was taller than her. And another girl who said she was 5'7" and Rupert was between 5'8" and 5'9". And girls shorter than that who put Rupert in the 5'9" range. And one's taller than him that said he was in the 5'9" range.
I think I post a TON of pictures where Rupert leans to the side. He leans into people. I noticed this a lot. His posture might be better, but he tends to lean into people when taking pictures. I think this is why Rupert's height goes up and down. I think that's definitely something we should all take into consideration. Not to mention Dan's 2 inch heels. (I know they're two inches, because I was looking at a pair of boots I have, and they're the same thickness. LOL)
Like I said too, the pics with Tom Felton DOES make you pause and wonder how accurate this 5'7.75" business really is.
Oh, Anna... I didn't mean it like that. Heh. I meant that maybe Emma did see she was taller than Dan and had heard him state numerous times he was 5'5.5" and then thought maybe since she was taller she must be 5'6". Thus not being obsessive, but guestimating. Since if she were obsessive, she'd have it down to a science, you know? I just meant that she probably could tell she was taller than Dan... My mom is 5'5.5" (well, I don't think any more, I think she shrunk, but that's another story) and I can tell that she's just a little taller. I'm not obsessive, but you just sort of notice when talking to people who might be taller than you no matter however slight it is. :)
I really do think though that judging from people's own experience says a lot more than pictures. No matter how many JK posts or this one and that one posts... there are a lot of people who have met him who are saying taller than 5'8". I know there was one girl who said she was 5'8" and Rupert was taller than her. And another girl who said she was 5'7" and Rupert was between 5'8" and 5'9". And girls shorter than that who put Rupert in the 5'9" range. And one's taller than him that said he was in the 5'9" range.
I think I post a TON of pictures where Rupert leans to the side. He leans into people. I noticed this a lot. His posture might be better, but he tends to lean into people when taking pictures. I think this is why Rupert's height goes up and down. I think that's definitely something we should all take into consideration. Not to mention Dan's 2 inch heels. (I know they're two inches, because I was looking at a pair of boots I have, and they're the same thickness. LOL)
Like I said too, the pics with Tom Felton DOES make you pause and wonder how accurate this 5'7.75" business really is.
6'3'' JK said on 17/Aug/07
Dude i did apologize to you didn't i? i mean you may like men or you may not (but i really doubt it since you brought up the topic) and don't go around calling other people your age too, i mean we can continue to argue and argue for a long time, thats why im apologizing and lets go back on the height topic after all it is celebheights
Dude i did apologize to you didn't i? i mean you may like men or you may not (but i really doubt it since you brought up the topic) and don't go around calling other people your age too, i mean we can continue to argue and argue for a long time, thats why im apologizing and lets go back on the height topic after all it is celebheights
Chip said on 16/Aug/07
6'3"JK, I know I might have sounded a little rude, but that comment you wrote to me was plain unnecessary. It also demonstrates how much you suck up to Rob and worship him. You say "I'm so sorry, Rob," and then you say, "Chip, I don't like men like you do"? I mean, you could've just answered my question. The main reason I asked if you had a crush on Rob and William is because, for one thing, you seem to think Rob is so great (I'm not insulting you, Rob), and you were so determined to make William sound so tall and "manly," and make Rupert seem really short. If you don't hate Rupert, then you need to stop acting like it.
btw, I bet you're like 12 years old, aren't you? Like Anna said, judging by your grammar and choice of words. Typing things like "f*ck" snd stuff like that are things than preteens do on the internet to make themselves sound tough. Anyone who tries to sound tough on the internet is lame. GO read your Naruto comic books or something.
6'3"JK, I know I might have sounded a little rude, but that comment you wrote to me was plain unnecessary. It also demonstrates how much you suck up to Rob and worship him. You say "I'm so sorry, Rob," and then you say, "Chip, I don't like men like you do"? I mean, you could've just answered my question. The main reason I asked if you had a crush on Rob and William is because, for one thing, you seem to think Rob is so great (I'm not insulting you, Rob), and you were so determined to make William sound so tall and "manly," and make Rupert seem really short. If you don't hate Rupert, then you need to stop acting like it.
btw, I bet you're like 12 years old, aren't you? Like Anna said, judging by your grammar and choice of words. Typing things like "f*ck" snd stuff like that are things than preteens do on the internet to make themselves sound tough. Anyone who tries to sound tough on the internet is lame. GO read your Naruto comic books or something.
Anna said on 15/Aug/07
Oh my God JK, "Chip I swear I do not hate Rupert and plus I don't like men like you do...." Isn't Chip a male and therefore that is offensive to him? I thought you were apologising for your other comments and then you say that? ahhaa. And I apologise, I meant to say "without anything to do." Can't use double negative....how embarrassing.
Oh my God JK, "Chip I swear I do not hate Rupert and plus I don't like men like you do...." Isn't Chip a male and therefore that is offensive to him? I thought you were apologising for your other comments and then you say that? ahhaa. And I apologise, I meant to say "without anything to do." Can't use double negative....how embarrassing.
6'3'' JK said on 15/Aug/07
Rob i apologize for my other comments, Chip i swear i do not hate Rupert and plus i don't like men like you do
Rob i apologize for my other comments, Chip i swear i do not hate Rupert and plus i don't like men like you do
umad80 said on 14/Aug/07
Rob, I thought it was against the rules to call people names? JK has done this twice and it's still being posted. Can't you ban them until they learn a little respect for other's opinions?
I think the fact that people have shown that there are pics showing something different in the height difference between him and Will says something. Camera angles are important to look at. You can't take one picture and say one thing and not look at the others.
And that STILL doesn't explain why he and Tom Felton are practically the same height in quite a few pictures and why Rupert is more than three inches taller than Dan when standing bare foot. lol
Editor Rob
Rob, I thought it was against the rules to call people names? JK has done this twice and it's still being posted. Can't you ban them until they learn a little respect for other's opinions?
I think the fact that people have shown that there are pics showing something different in the height difference between him and Will says something. Camera angles are important to look at. You can't take one picture and say one thing and not look at the others.
And that STILL doesn't explain why he and Tom Felton are practically the same height in quite a few pictures and why Rupert is more than three inches taller than Dan when standing bare foot. lol
Editor Rob JK, ease up on this thread please, sometimes arguing over heights can get a bit too heated.
Chip said on 14/Aug/07
6'3"JK, WHY do you hate Rupert so much? It's not his fault that he's 5'8", which you're obviously trying to prove wrong. You probably don't go around the net with billions of names, but I know that you have more than one. btw, do you have a crush on Rob and William Moseley? (just asking)
6'3"JK, WHY do you hate Rupert so much? It's not his fault that he's 5'8", which you're obviously trying to prove wrong. You probably don't go around the net with billions of names, but I know that you have more than one. btw, do you have a crush on Rob and William Moseley? (just asking)
Anna said on 14/Aug/07
hahahhahaa, oh God, umad, that was quite a good post. Quite entertaining. Actually, this whole little debate that you two are having is quite a laugh. haha, I never realised how into this JK got. But, I would say 5'8" at the very least for Rupert and I too have heard fans who've seen him say he is around 5'9", which makes me think his listing is a bit off. Even Dan has said Rupert is "just huge now." haha, What does that mean Dan? But I think Emma slouches a lot and I'm not the only one, I would say Rupert and Emma both have poor posture, however, Rupert had much better posture during that paris photo call. I mean, how can you say that she was 3 inches shorter than him in that? She had all the disadvantages and even footwear (those are not 3 inch heels? I'm honestly insane if they are....) and still looked at the most 1" to 2" shorter than him. I swear if she stood up it would be possible for her to be 5'6" and Rupert 5'8". And at the printing ceremony, Emma's shoes were extremely flat, they gave her less height than Rupert's Converse (and what is the design on those? they had better not have American flags on them, I would be so irritated with him....do you know umad? you saw them up close? haha.) but yeah, they gave her like a centimetre at most and Dan was wearing tennis shoes and she still looked taller than Dan and like 1.5" shorter than Rupert when she stood up straight. That's why I still believe the 5'6"-5'7" for her, the 5'5"ish for Dan, and the 5'8"+ for Rupert. And, I must agree with you, JK is definitley not the sharpest tool in the shed. If I am remembering correctly, he thought his estimation of 5'7" for Rupert was "more closer" to Rob's estimation of 5'7.75". Our estimations of 5'8" were "like 3 or 4 inches" off. hahahahahaha. Keep it up JK, you lighten up my day. I don't think you will convince Rob though. Unless I am mistaken, am I? You'd not put Rupert at anything less than he is listed, would you?
hahahhahaa, oh God, umad, that was quite a good post. Quite entertaining. Actually, this whole little debate that you two are having is quite a laugh. haha, I never realised how into this JK got. But, I would say 5'8" at the very least for Rupert and I too have heard fans who've seen him say he is around 5'9", which makes me think his listing is a bit off. Even Dan has said Rupert is "just huge now." haha, What does that mean Dan? But I think Emma slouches a lot and I'm not the only one, I would say Rupert and Emma both have poor posture, however, Rupert had much better posture during that paris photo call. I mean, how can you say that she was 3 inches shorter than him in that? She had all the disadvantages and even footwear (those are not 3 inch heels? I'm honestly insane if they are....) and still looked at the most 1" to 2" shorter than him. I swear if she stood up it would be possible for her to be 5'6" and Rupert 5'8". And at the printing ceremony, Emma's shoes were extremely flat, they gave her less height than Rupert's Converse (and what is the design on those? they had better not have American flags on them, I would be so irritated with him....do you know umad? you saw them up close? haha.) but yeah, they gave her like a centimetre at most and Dan was wearing tennis shoes and she still looked taller than Dan and like 1.5" shorter than Rupert when she stood up straight. That's why I still believe the 5'6"-5'7" for her, the 5'5"ish for Dan, and the 5'8"+ for Rupert. And, I must agree with you, JK is definitley not the sharpest tool in the shed. If I am remembering correctly, he thought his estimation of 5'7" for Rupert was "more closer" to Rob's estimation of 5'7.75". Our estimations of 5'8" were "like 3 or 4 inches" off. hahahahahaha. Keep it up JK, you lighten up my day. I don't think you will convince Rob though. Unless I am mistaken, am I? You'd not put Rupert at anything less than he is listed, would you?
umad80 said on 14/Aug/07
ROFL!!! Rupert is not wearing dress shoes! Those are black chucks!!
Anna, I think because Emma tends to wear heels, so people do pay attention to that. Not with guys, but with girls, they estimate the heels. Me personally it looked to me that Dan and Emma were pretty much the same height when their shoes were off. Emma might've had the slight advantage at times. But Rupert and Emma didn't stand together with shoes off, it was basically him and Dan. But with shoes on, Emma usually had a little heel... so it was hard to say what height she was at. Oh, and Emma has fine posture. The only thing she does is bend her legs a bit, but she's wearing major heels in all these photos. Close to three inches! I think she's a legit 5'8" in heels. To tell you the truth, as I went through some pictures from the ceremony, I think Emma is 5'5.5" and Dan is still stuck at 5'5". I think because Dan was saying 5'5.5" for the longest time, and Emma ends up being a half inch taller, she thought she was 5'6".
Maya, I think JK is someone who really hates Rupert and goes around with 15 names on the internet. I wouldn't be surprised at all. "He" is determined to make Rupert as short as possible. There were several pictures in which Rupert was only about two inches shorter, but William had the advantage with dress shoes. (JK is none too bright... he thought at Tribeca Laura Linney wasn't wearing heels! And estimated her at 5'6" to 5'6.5" when everyone knows she's 5'7" and "his" God Rob even puts down 5'7" for her. LOL And now trying to put Rupert in dress shoes when he was wearing black chucks! hahaha Someone else did that, and it's this person who hates Rupert and tries her best to prove he's only 5'7" coincidentlly around the same height that JK is doing.)
Okay JK, I know you're none too bright apparently, so I'll walk you through this. Click Here and then make the picture bigger. When it's completely loaded, scroll down. You'll see that Rupert is wearing black converse. It's very easy to tell. (Sorry Rob, but since you allowed "him" to use that kind of inappropiate language AND call us names, I think it's only fitting that I can talk to "him" like a child.)
ROFL!!! Rupert is not wearing dress shoes! Those are black chucks!!
Anna, I think because Emma tends to wear heels, so people do pay attention to that. Not with guys, but with girls, they estimate the heels. Me personally it looked to me that Dan and Emma were pretty much the same height when their shoes were off. Emma might've had the slight advantage at times. But Rupert and Emma didn't stand together with shoes off, it was basically him and Dan. But with shoes on, Emma usually had a little heel... so it was hard to say what height she was at. Oh, and Emma has fine posture. The only thing she does is bend her legs a bit, but she's wearing major heels in all these photos. Close to three inches! I think she's a legit 5'8" in heels. To tell you the truth, as I went through some pictures from the ceremony, I think Emma is 5'5.5" and Dan is still stuck at 5'5". I think because Dan was saying 5'5.5" for the longest time, and Emma ends up being a half inch taller, she thought she was 5'6".
Maya, I think JK is someone who really hates Rupert and goes around with 15 names on the internet. I wouldn't be surprised at all. "He" is determined to make Rupert as short as possible. There were several pictures in which Rupert was only about two inches shorter, but William had the advantage with dress shoes. (JK is none too bright... he thought at Tribeca Laura Linney wasn't wearing heels! And estimated her at 5'6" to 5'6.5" when everyone knows she's 5'7" and "his" God Rob even puts down 5'7" for her. LOL And now trying to put Rupert in dress shoes when he was wearing black chucks! hahaha Someone else did that, and it's this person who hates Rupert and tries her best to prove he's only 5'7" coincidentlly around the same height that JK is doing.)
Okay JK, I know you're none too bright apparently, so I'll walk you through this. Click Here and then make the picture bigger. When it's completely loaded, scroll down. You'll see that Rupert is wearing black converse. It's very easy to tell. (Sorry Rob, but since you allowed "him" to use that kind of inappropiate language AND call us names, I think it's only fitting that I can talk to "him" like a child.)
Maya said on 14/Aug/07
JK don't be rude. As I said pics can be deceiving, in this picture from the very same event the difference between Moseley and Rupert seems to be only about 2 inches Click Here and Rupert is not even wearing dress shoes, but black sneakers. Give it up.
Besides I believe that Editor Rob has already been through all the galleries available, and he's really trying to make fair estimations on everyone.
JK don't be rude. As I said pics can be deceiving, in this picture from the very same event the difference between Moseley and Rupert seems to be only about 2 inches Click Here and Rupert is not even wearing dress shoes, but black sneakers. Give it up.
Besides I believe that Editor Rob has already been through all the galleries available, and he's really trying to make fair estimations on everyone.
Anna said on 14/Aug/07
I guess you could convince me umad, but honestly, how can you say that Rupert is in the 5'8" to 5'10" range, but reckon that Emma is only 5'5" as well? I just don't see how that is logical, she is barely shorter than him in many circumstances. Look at the photos. Do you see what I'm saying?
I guess you could convince me umad, but honestly, how can you say that Rupert is in the 5'8" to 5'10" range, but reckon that Emma is only 5'5" as well? I just don't see how that is logical, she is barely shorter than him in many circumstances. Look at the photos. Do you see what I'm saying?
6'3'' JK said on 14/Aug/07
What the F*ck? why are all of you ignoring this picture Click Here you idiots? William Moseley has 5 inches on Rupert and William is listed 5'10'' on this site Click Here I hope that Puts Umad80's miserable height estimations to rest, and yes Rupert is wearing dress shoes LOL and i say he is lucky to be even callede 5'7''
What the F*ck? why are all of you ignoring this picture Click Here you idiots? William Moseley has 5 inches on Rupert and William is listed 5'10'' on this site Click Here I hope that Puts Umad80's miserable height estimations to rest, and yes Rupert is wearing dress shoes LOL and i say he is lucky to be even callede 5'7''
umad80 said on 13/Aug/07
Exactly Maya. I said as soon as I saw Rupert in person (several times I might add!) that estimating by pictures is NOT the way to go. I can respect Rob and his beliefs, but I really can't take someone who takes certain pictures to prove a point when others are showing other pictures that prove another point. Plus it's not just me who has been saying this. Like I said, 90% of the people who met him in July while he was promoting the movie have said that they put him around 5'9" or more (maybe a little less). That tells me that Rupert is definitely in the 5'8" to 5'10" range. It just depends on the day. I swear in the morning at the press conference he did look 5'8", but later in the day he looked taller. Hah! But he definitely still does not stand up perfectly straight, but he's definitely nothing less than 5'8" but he definitely is more than 5'8".
Exactly Maya. I said as soon as I saw Rupert in person (several times I might add!) that estimating by pictures is NOT the way to go. I can respect Rob and his beliefs, but I really can't take someone who takes certain pictures to prove a point when others are showing other pictures that prove another point. Plus it's not just me who has been saying this. Like I said, 90% of the people who met him in July while he was promoting the movie have said that they put him around 5'9" or more (maybe a little less). That tells me that Rupert is definitely in the 5'8" to 5'10" range. It just depends on the day. I swear in the morning at the press conference he did look 5'8", but later in the day he looked taller. Hah! But he definitely still does not stand up perfectly straight, but he's definitely nothing less than 5'8" but he definitely is more than 5'8".
Anna said on 13/Aug/07
Also, those shoes give her no more than 1/2", the same as Rupert's Converse.
Also, those shoes give her no more than 1/2", the same as Rupert's Converse.
Anna said on 13/Aug/07
Holy shiat, I've been a gone for a few days and about 20 comments have been added to this page. But, I looked at a few of those photos, and I have to say they are not very good. Just look at the ground, the shot is taken from above so obviously the person in back will look taller. You should know that umad? That's what Rob has told me before anyway....and it's quite obvious because when they stand on the same plane Emma is about an inch+ taller than Rupert and considerably taller than Dan, nearly 4 inches because he doesn't even come up to her eyebrows when she stands up straight, it's quite a laugh actually. And, I can tell you, those are not large heels at all. I would say they are 2 inches at the most, probably a bit less than that. Look at Katie's, those are large heels. And I know about heels, haha. And, umad, how can you even use that last photo you posted? That's quite terrible to be honest. Emma is bending her leg, the angle is weird, and where they are standing is weird as well. Are they not? ahha. And I think you just want Emma to be shorter than Rupert in those photos when she actually looks quite a bit taller than him when she stands up straight. And its' quite obvious that she bends her legs in order to be shorter or around Rupert's height. Girls do that all the time. And I'm beginning to think Rupert doesn't even have two inches on Emma, he may seem to at times, but when she has good posture she is barely an inch shorter than him. Click Here Like I said, barely an inch, and if she stood up striaght, who knows what would happen. Plus, she has the placement and posture disadvantage. What is up with that head movement? erm, yeah, it's to look shorter than Rupert when she is really barely shorter than him. haha, funny.
Holy shiat, I've been a gone for a few days and about 20 comments have been added to this page. But, I looked at a few of those photos, and I have to say they are not very good. Just look at the ground, the shot is taken from above so obviously the person in back will look taller. You should know that umad? That's what Rob has told me before anyway....and it's quite obvious because when they stand on the same plane Emma is about an inch+ taller than Rupert and considerably taller than Dan, nearly 4 inches because he doesn't even come up to her eyebrows when she stands up straight, it's quite a laugh actually. And, I can tell you, those are not large heels at all. I would say they are 2 inches at the most, probably a bit less than that. Look at Katie's, those are large heels. And I know about heels, haha. And, umad, how can you even use that last photo you posted? That's quite terrible to be honest. Emma is bending her leg, the angle is weird, and where they are standing is weird as well. Are they not? ahha. And I think you just want Emma to be shorter than Rupert in those photos when she actually looks quite a bit taller than him when she stands up straight. And its' quite obvious that she bends her legs in order to be shorter or around Rupert's height. Girls do that all the time. And I'm beginning to think Rupert doesn't even have two inches on Emma, he may seem to at times, but when she has good posture she is barely an inch shorter than him. Click Here Like I said, barely an inch, and if she stood up striaght, who knows what would happen. Plus, she has the placement and posture disadvantage. What is up with that head movement? erm, yeah, it's to look shorter than Rupert when she is really barely shorter than him. haha, funny.
6'3'' JK said on 13/Aug/07
In this picture Click Here Dan is wearing normal dress shoes that give about 3cm and he is only 2 inches shorter than Rupert, and don't also ignore this picture Click Here with William Moseley because William is 5'10'' on this site and he has 5 inches on Rupert which just proves Rupert is not over 5'7'' maximum (haha, i really got you on that one)
In this picture Click Here Dan is wearing normal dress shoes that give about 3cm and he is only 2 inches shorter than Rupert, and don't also ignore this picture Click Here with William Moseley because William is 5'10'' on this site and he has 5 inches on Rupert which just proves Rupert is not over 5'7'' maximum (haha, i really got you on that one)
umad80 said on 13/Aug/07
Dan definitely wears large heels. You can tell. I was going through my brothers things... and I found an old shoe and I measured the heel. It was only an inch. Dan had over an inch on those, maybe even more because it was a helluva lot thicker than the one inch heel my brother had. You can tell. Dan put on two inch heels (or so) and the only way he could look 5'5" to you (does everyone look shorter to you?) in heels, then you'd have to assume 5'3" for Dan, and that is definitely not true. He's a solid 5'5". I've seen him up close, he's definitely not shorter than 5'5".
That picture as your "proof" JK isn't all that good. Rupert has a half inch and is standing behind Emma. Those were pretty large heels too. I think they were more than 2 inches. That looked like they could be closer to 3 inches. They were really large heels. But if you want to play with pictures... here is my favorite because Rupert tends to lean down when he's arm and arm with people (I don't know why, I guess he doesn't want them to feel inferior or something lol), but in this one Rupert is standing far behind, Emma is closer to the camera, but Rupert seems to obviously be taller: Click Here
Dan definitely wears large heels. You can tell. I was going through my brothers things... and I found an old shoe and I measured the heel. It was only an inch. Dan had over an inch on those, maybe even more because it was a helluva lot thicker than the one inch heel my brother had. You can tell. Dan put on two inch heels (or so) and the only way he could look 5'5" to you (does everyone look shorter to you?) in heels, then you'd have to assume 5'3" for Dan, and that is definitely not true. He's a solid 5'5". I've seen him up close, he's definitely not shorter than 5'5".
That picture as your "proof" JK isn't all that good. Rupert has a half inch and is standing behind Emma. Those were pretty large heels too. I think they were more than 2 inches. That looked like they could be closer to 3 inches. They were really large heels. But if you want to play with pictures... here is my favorite because Rupert tends to lean down when he's arm and arm with people (I don't know why, I guess he doesn't want them to feel inferior or something lol), but in this one Rupert is standing far behind, Emma is closer to the camera, but Rupert seems to obviously be taller: Click Here
6'3'' JK said on 13/Aug/07
Rob i think i cracked this one, You have William Moseley here at 5'10'' here right? here he is with Grint and has about 5 inches tops on him Click Here Rupert seriously needs to be downgraded or you listed Moseley very wrong indeed
Rob i think i cracked this one, You have William Moseley here at 5'10'' here right? here he is with Grint and has about 5 inches tops on him Click Here Rupert seriously needs to be downgraded or you listed Moseley very wrong indeed
6'3'' JK said on 13/Aug/07
Dan looks kind of 5'5'' to me still even with the shoes on and they look like they give about 2 - 3 cm, plus we arn't talking about heights with footwear on incase you didn't notice, Rupert can be as high as 5'7.5'' in the morning but he really looks 169cm - 170cm, look at him next to emma and Dan Click Here Emma is 5'7'' in heels because she has 2 inches on Dan, and Rupert is the exact same height as her, Now who is ridiculous?
Dan looks kind of 5'5'' to me still even with the shoes on and they look like they give about 2 - 3 cm, plus we arn't talking about heights with footwear on incase you didn't notice, Rupert can be as high as 5'7.5'' in the morning but he really looks 169cm - 170cm, look at him next to emma and Dan Click Here Emma is 5'7'' in heels because she has 2 inches on Dan, and Rupert is the exact same height as her, Now who is ridiculous?
Maya said on 13/Aug/07
JK in the pictures from LA premiere Dan looks a couple of inches taller than Emma (which in reality he's not), which leads us to believe that he was wearing heels or lifts. He is good at standing up as straight as he can and hiding his footwear. If you were 5'5" you'd do the same.
JK in the pictures from LA premiere Dan looks a couple of inches taller than Emma (which in reality he's not), which leads us to believe that he was wearing heels or lifts. He is good at standing up as straight as he can and hiding his footwear. If you were 5'5" you'd do the same.
umad80 said on 13/Aug/07
The picture I put was actually to look at, you know, when you click on it to make it bigger... and then you look at the heels. I could be wrong, but they just don't look to be an inch.
Of course you do realize that if Rupert is 2 inches taller than Dan by your calculations, and Dan is wearing dress shoes, he'd be 5'6.25" thus making Rupert 5'8". You don't seem to get that... so... you know, you can keep on the 5'7" and just look rediculous. (Which seems everyone is pretty much thinking with some of the responses lately. lol)
That still doesn't explain why he's almost the same height as Tom Felton though.
The picture I put was actually to look at, you know, when you click on it to make it bigger... and then you look at the heels. I could be wrong, but they just don't look to be an inch.
Of course you do realize that if Rupert is 2 inches taller than Dan by your calculations, and Dan is wearing dress shoes, he'd be 5'6.25" thus making Rupert 5'8". You don't seem to get that... so... you know, you can keep on the 5'7" and just look rediculous. (Which seems everyone is pretty much thinking with some of the responses lately. lol)
That still doesn't explain why he's almost the same height as Tom Felton though.
6'3'' JK said on 12/Aug/07
how do you know he was wearing 2 inch heels lol? i think he was wearing like 1 inch heels unless you show me proof, anyways Rupert did have 2 inches on him at the most
how do you know he was wearing 2 inch heels lol? i think he was wearing like 1 inch heels unless you show me proof, anyways Rupert did have 2 inches on him at the most
umad80 said on 12/Aug/07
Dan would have an .75 advantage in footware if he has regular dress shoes. Since you think Rob is God, that was something he said himself. He also said (in reference to Dan so it should count for Rupert) that he's wearing "height destroying converse".
You cannot deny that with their shoes off, Rupert was MUCH taller than Dan then two inches.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
And then again, you have him with Tom who has dress shoes on and he was at least a solid half inch shorter. Maybe a little over that, but definitely at least a half inch. Then there was a bunch of pictures of the trio at the UK premiere, Rupert not even really standing that straight, he was more than just "two inches taller" he was over three inches, and again, Dan was probably standing over 5'6" with dress shoes.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here (I'm posting this picture, because when you click to make it bigger, you can see that Dan has rather large heels. They look to be a good two inches!)
Rob also said, since you think he's God here, that he believes 172cm than 170cm. To refresh your memory: [Editor Rob: for the moment I'm more of the 172cm range vs 170cm. 5ft 9 range I never buy though.] (I disagree though. 5'9" is actually what 90% of people are saying after meeting him. Especially people 5'8" because they've said he's taller than them.)
Dan would have an .75 advantage in footware if he has regular dress shoes. Since you think Rob is God, that was something he said himself. He also said (in reference to Dan so it should count for Rupert) that he's wearing "height destroying converse".
You cannot deny that with their shoes off, Rupert was MUCH taller than Dan then two inches.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
And then again, you have him with Tom who has dress shoes on and he was at least a solid half inch shorter. Maybe a little over that, but definitely at least a half inch. Then there was a bunch of pictures of the trio at the UK premiere, Rupert not even really standing that straight, he was more than just "two inches taller" he was over three inches, and again, Dan was probably standing over 5'6" with dress shoes.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here (I'm posting this picture, because when you click to make it bigger, you can see that Dan has rather large heels. They look to be a good two inches!)
Rob also said, since you think he's God here, that he believes 172cm than 170cm. To refresh your memory: [Editor Rob: for the moment I'm more of the 172cm range vs 170cm. 5ft 9 range I never buy though.] (I disagree though. 5'9" is actually what 90% of people are saying after meeting him. Especially people 5'8" because they've said he's taller than them.)
3 said on 12/Aug/07
It's funny. Grint is not 'tall' at 5'8. But, after seeing the movies, you would think Grint is rather tall, as he towers over Radcliffe at 5'5. Anyone else think this is sort of funny or odd?
It's funny. Grint is not 'tall' at 5'8. But, after seeing the movies, you would think Grint is rather tall, as he towers over Radcliffe at 5'5. Anyone else think this is sort of funny or odd?
Maya said on 12/Aug/07
JK in those pictures Dan is wearing dress shoes with almost 2 inch heels. These pictures prove umad's point rather than yours.
JK in those pictures Dan is wearing dress shoes with almost 2 inch heels. These pictures prove umad's point rather than yours.
6'3'' JK said on 11/Aug/07
why are u being delusional, Even Rob said that the 5'9'' range can never be bought for this guy, its only 170cm vs 172cm so get your facts straight! look he has a solid 2 inches on Daniel but nothing over it Click Here
why are u being delusional, Even Rob said that the 5'9'' range can never be bought for this guy, its only 170cm vs 172cm so get your facts straight! look he has a solid 2 inches on Daniel but nothing over it Click Here
umad80 said on 11/Aug/07
Oh God. You know as well as I do that Rupert is leaning considerably in that picture. There are three other pictures where Rupert is just as tall as Tom. Stop it with finding the pictures that prove your point and ignoring the rest. I even put (sorry that was me) all pictures and three out of four show him at practically the same height. But you chose the one where Rupert is leaning into Tom! And you can tell! Here are the three others where Rupert is standing more straight and practically the same height:
1. Click Here
2. Click Here
3. Click Here
And then of course there is your picture. The only one you grabbed. (Never mind that Tom would be 5'10.25" with dress shoes on!) Now if all of them but one showed a major difference and Rupert was standing straighter, I'd say, yes, you have a point. But Rupert is leaning considerably in that pic while the other three he isn't and is just as tall as Tom. And I think everyone here can see that. Why are you SO insistant that Rupert can only be 5'7"? Why do you want him to be that height? It's scary how much you want him to be 5'7" or shorter.
So Rob, since 6'3" wants you to downgrade Rupert to 5'7" maximum, I want you to upgrade Rupert to 5'9" maximum because, well, apparently in 6'3"s mind we can demand you do that. Hah!
Oh God. You know as well as I do that Rupert is leaning considerably in that picture. There are three other pictures where Rupert is just as tall as Tom. Stop it with finding the pictures that prove your point and ignoring the rest. I even put (sorry that was me) all pictures and three out of four show him at practically the same height. But you chose the one where Rupert is leaning into Tom! And you can tell! Here are the three others where Rupert is standing more straight and practically the same height:
1. Click Here
2. Click Here
3. Click Here
And then of course there is your picture. The only one you grabbed. (Never mind that Tom would be 5'10.25" with dress shoes on!) Now if all of them but one showed a major difference and Rupert was standing straighter, I'd say, yes, you have a point. But Rupert is leaning considerably in that pic while the other three he isn't and is just as tall as Tom. And I think everyone here can see that. Why are you SO insistant that Rupert can only be 5'7"? Why do you want him to be that height? It's scary how much you want him to be 5'7" or shorter.
So Rob, since 6'3" wants you to downgrade Rupert to 5'7" maximum, I want you to upgrade Rupert to 5'9" maximum because, well, apparently in 6'3"s mind we can demand you do that. Hah!
6'3'' JK said on 11/Aug/07
Look here Click Here Tom has 2 solid inches on Rupert, so Rob if you have Tom here at 5'9'' then Rupert has to be downgraded to 5'7'' maximum
Look here Click Here Tom has 2 solid inches on Rupert, so Rob if you have Tom here at 5'9'' then Rupert has to be downgraded to 5'7'' maximum
Anonymous said on 10/Aug/07
Oh God. He's not seriously saying Laura wasn't wearing heels! C'mon Anna, as one female to another, can you honestly say any girl would wear shoes like that and they be completely flat? Most flat shoes will be more comfortable to wear. No toes squished into a tip! You wear shoes like that, you're doing it for a little height advantage. Laura Linney was definitely wearing normal sized heels! Click Here - And her pant leg would not look like that over a regular, flat shoe. It would hang down around the heel! Instead it is out because of an obvious pointed heel! Which probably made Laura around 5'9". (Going with a regular dress shoe giving two inches to the already 5'7" Laura.)
And look at him in all these pictures with Tom. Click Here Tom is a strong 5'9", something 6'3" has said and insited upon. He's got the shoe advantage wearing dress shoes, and Rupert looks to only be a half inch shorter! That puts Rupert firmly in a 5'9" range.
And c'mon Rob, don't you admit that seeing Rupert in person is definitely a better gauge then guessing like 6'3" is doing? I could understand if it was just me and maybe a few other fans guessing his height. But I, along with a LOT of people over at I M D B and different sites with fan encounters have all put him in the 5'9" range. It's not like a few people are out of their mind in guessing height. It's pretty much everyone who has met him.
And it's obvious to me, and pretty much everyone, that Rupert has a solid three inches on Dan and Emma at the ceremony in bare feet. But to me he seemed a helluva lot closer to 5'9" then a weak 5'8". (There are several instances where Dan only comes up to Rupert's eyebrows!) And given that he does lean into people, puts his head down, etc., you can give him a half inch for good measure. (No pun intended there!)
Here's another thing... if Emma is 5'6" (and I'm not completely convinced of that, but for argument sake, she'd know better than I would...) and she wears a 2+ inch heel making her about 5'8.5" and Rupert is still a solid half inch taller, then Rupert is 5'9" easily. Click Here (This looks exactly like the type heel that Rob has up that gives about 2.3" over normal height.)
Rob, you seem to be questioning your own thoughts on putting Rupert at only 5'7.75" - so what makes you wonder at this point? Personally there are too many pictures that show Rupert is a lot taller than 5'7". I try my best to not give photos that look good to me. But as I said, too many people - including myself - have seen him in person to say he's anything less than 5'8". Maybe 5'10" is a bit much, but a lot of people have put him at around 5'9" or so.
Oh God. He's not seriously saying Laura wasn't wearing heels! C'mon Anna, as one female to another, can you honestly say any girl would wear shoes like that and they be completely flat? Most flat shoes will be more comfortable to wear. No toes squished into a tip! You wear shoes like that, you're doing it for a little height advantage. Laura Linney was definitely wearing normal sized heels! Click Here - And her pant leg would not look like that over a regular, flat shoe. It would hang down around the heel! Instead it is out because of an obvious pointed heel! Which probably made Laura around 5'9". (Going with a regular dress shoe giving two inches to the already 5'7" Laura.)
And look at him in all these pictures with Tom. Click Here Tom is a strong 5'9", something 6'3" has said and insited upon. He's got the shoe advantage wearing dress shoes, and Rupert looks to only be a half inch shorter! That puts Rupert firmly in a 5'9" range.
And c'mon Rob, don't you admit that seeing Rupert in person is definitely a better gauge then guessing like 6'3" is doing? I could understand if it was just me and maybe a few other fans guessing his height. But I, along with a LOT of people over at I M D B and different sites with fan encounters have all put him in the 5'9" range. It's not like a few people are out of their mind in guessing height. It's pretty much everyone who has met him.
And it's obvious to me, and pretty much everyone, that Rupert has a solid three inches on Dan and Emma at the ceremony in bare feet. But to me he seemed a helluva lot closer to 5'9" then a weak 5'8". (There are several instances where Dan only comes up to Rupert's eyebrows!) And given that he does lean into people, puts his head down, etc., you can give him a half inch for good measure. (No pun intended there!)
Here's another thing... if Emma is 5'6" (and I'm not completely convinced of that, but for argument sake, she'd know better than I would...) and she wears a 2+ inch heel making her about 5'8.5" and Rupert is still a solid half inch taller, then Rupert is 5'9" easily. Click Here (This looks exactly like the type heel that Rob has up that gives about 2.3" over normal height.)
Rob, you seem to be questioning your own thoughts on putting Rupert at only 5'7.75" - so what makes you wonder at this point? Personally there are too many pictures that show Rupert is a lot taller than 5'7". I try my best to not give photos that look good to me. But as I said, too many people - including myself - have seen him in person to say he's anything less than 5'8". Maybe 5'10" is a bit much, but a lot of people have put him at around 5'9" or so.
6'3'' JK said on 10/Aug/07
You still get the point that Rupert is not over 5'7''
You still get the point that Rupert is not over 5'7''
Anna said on 10/Aug/07
I still say it's hard to tell if she is wearing heels. Can you show us a photo where you can actually see the sole of her shoe? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just honestly having trouble seeing the back part of her shoe...
I still say it's hard to tell if she is wearing heels. Can you show us a photo where you can actually see the sole of her shoe? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just honestly having trouble seeing the back part of her shoe...
6'3'' JK said on 9/Aug/07
She is 5'6'' - 5'6.5'' and it is f'in obvious she is not wearing heels , this shows that Rupert is NOT over 5'7'' Max
She is 5'6'' - 5'6.5'' and it is f'in obvious she is not wearing heels , this shows that Rupert is NOT over 5'7'' Max
Anna said on 9/Aug/07
Those aren't heels JK? Isn't it a bit hard to tell because her pants obscure the heel from view? At least that's what it seems to me....Anyway, how tall is she?
Those aren't heels JK? Isn't it a bit hard to tell because her pants obscure the heel from view? At least that's what it seems to me....Anyway, how tall is she?
6'3'' JK said on 7/Aug/07
Look Click Here
next to Laura Linney who is NOT wearing heels as you can see he appears 5'6'' Rob, you have to Downgrade him a bit to 5'7'' or maybe 5'7.5'', 5'7.75'' is completly wrong as you can see
Look Click Here
next to Laura Linney who is NOT wearing heels as you can see he appears 5'6'' Rob, you have to Downgrade him a bit to 5'7'' or maybe 5'7.5'', 5'7.75'' is completly wrong as you can see
6'3'' JK said on 6/Aug/07
Rob can you honestly answer my question please? Does Rupert really look like a 5'8'' guy to you like yourself or does he look more nearer to 5'7'' to you?
Editor Rob
Rob can you honestly answer my question please? Does Rupert really look like a 5'8'' guy to you like yourself or does he look more nearer to 5'7'' to you?
Editor Rob for the moment I'm more of the 172cm range vs 170cm. 5ft 9 range I never buy though.
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
All right. He really seems to be more like a strong 5'8" maybe even 5'9" though. ah well.
All right. He really seems to be more like a strong 5'8" maybe even 5'9" though. ah well.
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
Are you ever going to give him that extra centimetre Rob?
Editor Rob
Are you ever going to give him that extra centimetre Rob?
Editor Rob I don't know, not at the moment anyway.
6'3'' JK said on 5/Aug/07
Well to me he looks 5'7''
Well to me he looks 5'7''
Arjun said on 5/Aug/07
5'8" for Rupert looks OK to me.
5'8" for Rupert looks OK to me.
Anna said on 4/Aug/07
Oh yes JK, you of course are the "MOST CLOSEST and most accurate with his height listing". Yes, because it's common knowledge that 5'8" minus 5'7.75", which yields .25", is a lesser amount than that which 5'7.75" minus 5'7" yields, which is, like you mentioned so articuately, .75". haha, you are certainly the most closest. lmao. And in these rules of math you are following, is .25" equal to 6-7 inches as well? Have you ever learnt math? Or for that matter ("most closest") grammar? haha, I'm sorry, but I must laugh. How old are you, 5? hahahaha. Anyway, I still find it very hard to believe he is only 2 inches taller than Dan, 3 at the very least. And Maya, that photo is difficult because, if you look closely, the shot is angled in Rupert's advantage, which would make him appear taller than he really is. So, that's why I think he appears slightly taller in that photo. However, notwithstanding, Emma is standing closer to the camera (she loses "height" b/c of this b/c shot from above) than Dan and still manages to look taller than him. You wonder why I think she is an inch or more taller than him. That and the fact that she doesn't get towered over by Rupert when she stands next to him, she is neraly as tall as him when she stands up. wa wa wi wa. And JK, I wasn't trying to offend, I just had no idea how you drew those conclusions. Right?
Oh yes JK, you of course are the "MOST CLOSEST and most accurate with his height listing". Yes, because it's common knowledge that 5'8" minus 5'7.75", which yields .25", is a lesser amount than that which 5'7.75" minus 5'7" yields, which is, like you mentioned so articuately, .75". haha, you are certainly the most closest. lmao. And in these rules of math you are following, is .25" equal to 6-7 inches as well? Have you ever learnt math? Or for that matter ("most closest") grammar? haha, I'm sorry, but I must laugh. How old are you, 5? hahahaha. Anyway, I still find it very hard to believe he is only 2 inches taller than Dan, 3 at the very least. And Maya, that photo is difficult because, if you look closely, the shot is angled in Rupert's advantage, which would make him appear taller than he really is. So, that's why I think he appears slightly taller in that photo. However, notwithstanding, Emma is standing closer to the camera (she loses "height" b/c of this b/c shot from above) than Dan and still manages to look taller than him. You wonder why I think she is an inch or more taller than him. That and the fact that she doesn't get towered over by Rupert when she stands next to him, she is neraly as tall as him when she stands up. wa wa wi wa. And JK, I wasn't trying to offend, I just had no idea how you drew those conclusions. Right?
Maya said on 4/Aug/07
JK I think I've already posted this pic on Emma's page, but here it is again: full body shot, all three of them in socks - Click Here
Honestly, there has to be at least 3 inches difference between Rupert and the other two. BAREFOOT that is. But the shoes they wear can obviously delude us all.
JK I think I've already posted this pic on Emma's page, but here it is again: full body shot, all three of them in socks - Click Here
Honestly, there has to be at least 3 inches difference between Rupert and the other two. BAREFOOT that is. But the shoes they wear can obviously delude us all.
6'3'' JK said on 4/Aug/07
wtf? just because to you site visitors he dosen't look 5'7'' that does not mean he dosen't look it to me, again i am the most closest and most accurate with his height listing than all of you with your ridiculous 5'8'' - 5'9'' claims lol, i say he is 5'7'' and my prediction is just 0.75in of being matched with Robs estimation, unlike yours which are always 6 - 7 inches off lol i mean you lot might as well believe he is 6'0''
wtf? just because to you site visitors he dosen't look 5'7'' that does not mean he dosen't look it to me, again i am the most closest and most accurate with his height listing than all of you with your ridiculous 5'8'' - 5'9'' claims lol, i say he is 5'7'' and my prediction is just 0.75in of being matched with Robs estimation, unlike yours which are always 6 - 7 inches off lol i mean you lot might as well believe he is 6'0''
Anna said on 3/Aug/07
I still find 5'7" for Rupert quite hard to believe JK. I mean, he looks easily 3 inches taller than the 5'5"-5'5.5" Dan (I am guessing 5'5" is an evening height, he could very well be 5'5.5" in the morning, like Rob even says on his caption) and, although Rupert barely looks an inch taller than Emma at times, I am willing to disregard that as a flaw or slight downgrade in her measurement. But I think Rupert should be upgraded to at least 5'8", he really does look 5'8"-5'8.5" going by 5'6"-5'6.25" being Emma's evening height (meaning 5'6.5"-5'6.75" would be her morning height) and Dan being 5'5.5" in the morning and 5'5" in the evening. By the way, which one is considered the height celebheights is looking for: evening or morning? And just a thought, I am guessing in the interview where Dan said he is "still 5'5", which is so depressing", he may have just said 5'5" because he would have sounded slightly crazy if he would have said "still 5'5.5", which is so depressing" Do you know what I mean? I think normal people, even height conscious ones such as Daniel Radcliffe, usually round their heights in order to avoid embarrassment. Could this be possible? Furthermore, it's smart to take the stated heights into account, but look at how tall the celebritie looks compared to others as well. ?? And, JK, I just ask again, why do you want Rupert to be only 5'7"? It seems like you, like I sometimes used to do and am trying to stop, are only posting certain photos that are not necessarily the best to compare heights. They are just the exceptions that somewhat support your point. But to be honest, he doesn't even look 5'7" in those Empire Awards photos. More like 5'8" compared to David Heyman. Right?
I still find 5'7" for Rupert quite hard to believe JK. I mean, he looks easily 3 inches taller than the 5'5"-5'5.5" Dan (I am guessing 5'5" is an evening height, he could very well be 5'5.5" in the morning, like Rob even says on his caption) and, although Rupert barely looks an inch taller than Emma at times, I am willing to disregard that as a flaw or slight downgrade in her measurement. But I think Rupert should be upgraded to at least 5'8", he really does look 5'8"-5'8.5" going by 5'6"-5'6.25" being Emma's evening height (meaning 5'6.5"-5'6.75" would be her morning height) and Dan being 5'5.5" in the morning and 5'5" in the evening. By the way, which one is considered the height celebheights is looking for: evening or morning? And just a thought, I am guessing in the interview where Dan said he is "still 5'5", which is so depressing", he may have just said 5'5" because he would have sounded slightly crazy if he would have said "still 5'5.5", which is so depressing" Do you know what I mean? I think normal people, even height conscious ones such as Daniel Radcliffe, usually round their heights in order to avoid embarrassment. Could this be possible? Furthermore, it's smart to take the stated heights into account, but look at how tall the celebritie looks compared to others as well. ?? And, JK, I just ask again, why do you want Rupert to be only 5'7"? It seems like you, like I sometimes used to do and am trying to stop, are only posting certain photos that are not necessarily the best to compare heights. They are just the exceptions that somewhat support your point. But to be honest, he doesn't even look 5'7" in those Empire Awards photos. More like 5'8" compared to David Heyman. Right?
6'3'' JK said on 3/Aug/07
Rupert honestly does not look over 5'7'', He is a solid 2 inches taller than Dan though who is 5'5''
Rupert honestly does not look over 5'7'', He is a solid 2 inches taller than Dan though who is 5'5''
Anna said on 3/Aug/07
Yes, I thought it was quite odd that you would have visited a site entitled that. I am slightly reassured that you got it from Google as opposed to visiting that site daily. I still think the URL name is quite a laugh though. Anyway, the picture can't really prove anything about his height though, can it? I really don't think individual shots can be very conclusive because body structure depends so much. Anyway, I must admit, I've never really looked at Rupert because he's been sort of overshadowed by Dan, but he is not terrible looking. Not bad looking at all.
Yes, I thought it was quite odd that you would have visited a site entitled that. I am slightly reassured that you got it from Google as opposed to visiting that site daily. I still think the URL name is quite a laugh though. Anyway, the picture can't really prove anything about his height though, can it? I really don't think individual shots can be very conclusive because body structure depends so much. Anyway, I must admit, I've never really looked at Rupert because he's been sort of overshadowed by Dan, but he is not terrible looking. Not bad looking at all.
6'3'' JK said on 2/Aug/07
honestly Anna (nice Joke) I got that picture from Google images, just go to google images type in Rupert grint and its the third picture on the second row, and yes obviously im a male
honestly Anna (nice Joke) I got that picture from Google images, just go to google images type in Rupert grint and its the third picture on the second row, and yes obviously im a male
Anna said on 1/Aug/07
"AGIRLSWORLD....com" What sites have you been visiting JK? I am assuming you are a male if you are 6'3" (at least I'd hope so), but why would you look at a site with that title? haha.
"AGIRLSWORLD....com" What sites have you been visiting JK? I am assuming you are a male if you are 6'3" (at least I'd hope so), but why would you look at a site with that title? haha.
6'3'' JK said on 27/Jul/07
They are not weird they are Solid proof that Rupert is not over 5'7'' which you are making as an excuse to ignore, Look at this picture Click Here does he actually look over a 5'7'' guy to you??? He barely looks 5'7'' in this picture maybe more 169cm
They are not weird they are Solid proof that Rupert is not over 5'7'' which you are making as an excuse to ignore, Look at this picture Click Here does he actually look over a 5'7'' guy to you??? He barely looks 5'7'' in this picture maybe more 169cm
umad80 said on 26/Jul/07
And YOU are only giving one instance that defies all other events with the trio. Those Empire Awards pics are WEIRD. You can't have several other events where Rupert has several inches on his co-stars and then look at one event and insist that they work. Rupert is well over 5'7". I've seen him in person several times and he is not just 5'7". There are other people who have seen him and insist that 5'9" isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. You are the only one insisting on 5'6.5" to 5'7" when clearly with their shoes off, Rupert does not have an inch and a half to two inches on Dan. He has at least 4! And I remember proving way back that those Empire Awards pics are weird... for instance, the trio with David Heyman: Click Here but then on stage, Rupert and David Heyman: Click Here - they both have their heads down, but you can see a grand difference in height from the other pic. Then at the ceremony: Click Here and Click Here . Then of course at the US premiere: Click Here . Heck man, even during PoA Rupert was never that short with David Heyman... Click Here
So yeah, I have my reasons for not trusting those Empire Award pics as far as I can throw them. And like I've said, I've seen Rupert several times in person now. The first was at the GoF premiere and he was taller than me. I'm normally 5'5" but with shoes on I was 5'6" with the half inch slight advantage with shoe wear. Rupert was not just a half inch taller than me at that point. He was at least two inches taller than me. He was definitely 5'8" during GoF or what Rob has him listed at now. And when I saw him for OotP - three times - he was not anything under 5'8". He was 5'8.5" being the least and 5'9.5" being the most. This is the general concensus amongst fans too, not just me.
Well Rob? You may not think they're weird, but don't you think that other events show that the Empire Award pics probably aren't the best ones to look at considering that other recent events show a much larger gap between Rupert and his co-stars?
And YOU are only giving one instance that defies all other events with the trio. Those Empire Awards pics are WEIRD. You can't have several other events where Rupert has several inches on his co-stars and then look at one event and insist that they work. Rupert is well over 5'7". I've seen him in person several times and he is not just 5'7". There are other people who have seen him and insist that 5'9" isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. You are the only one insisting on 5'6.5" to 5'7" when clearly with their shoes off, Rupert does not have an inch and a half to two inches on Dan. He has at least 4! And I remember proving way back that those Empire Awards pics are weird... for instance, the trio with David Heyman: Click Here but then on stage, Rupert and David Heyman: Click Here - they both have their heads down, but you can see a grand difference in height from the other pic. Then at the ceremony: Click Here and Click Here . Then of course at the US premiere: Click Here . Heck man, even during PoA Rupert was never that short with David Heyman... Click Here
So yeah, I have my reasons for not trusting those Empire Award pics as far as I can throw them. And like I've said, I've seen Rupert several times in person now. The first was at the GoF premiere and he was taller than me. I'm normally 5'5" but with shoes on I was 5'6" with the half inch slight advantage with shoe wear. Rupert was not just a half inch taller than me at that point. He was at least two inches taller than me. He was definitely 5'8" during GoF or what Rob has him listed at now. And when I saw him for OotP - three times - he was not anything under 5'8". He was 5'8.5" being the least and 5'9.5" being the most. This is the general concensus amongst fans too, not just me.
Well Rob? You may not think they're weird, but don't you think that other events show that the Empire Award pics probably aren't the best ones to look at considering that other recent events show a much larger gap between Rupert and his co-stars?
6'3'' JK said on 26/Jul/07
They were not odd and neither were they biased which were all favouring Rupert, Those were from late 2006 when Rupert was 18, They weere not weired either as they were showing Solid Proof that Rupert is not over 5'7'' and you just ignored them completley!
They were not odd and neither were they biased which were all favouring Rupert, Those were from late 2006 when Rupert was 18, They weere not weired either as they were showing Solid Proof that Rupert is not over 5'7'' and you just ignored them completley!
umad80 said on 26/Jul/07
I hate those Empire Award pics. They're freaking WEIRD. I never go by them, because they were the oddest pics on the planet. Because Rupert has several inches on Dan all other times. There are pics of them, bare feet, and Dan is looking right at Rupert and the top of his head is only at his eyebrows and they have similiar posture. So something weird went on with those Empire Awards.
UK Premiere: Click Here - Dan has the advantage too with the shoes.
Ceremony 'backstage' - Click Here
Ceremony shoes off - Click Here
There is definitely more than two inches there. As I said, the empire awards are just WEIRD because in all other photos there shows a lot more than an inch and a half to two inches difference.
Btw, I posted a pic of Rupert and Tom that maybe wasn't so good. This one is better because they have better posture, etc. Click Here
Oh, if Rupert is only 5'6.5" like someone claims, then Greg Gunberg must not be the height claimed on here either. Click Here (They're both leaning their heads in, so I don't think that'll matter much.)
Now, obviously, I can be wrong about the between 5'9" and 5'10" and I'm willing to accept that, but c'mon... there is no way this boy is anything less than 5'8.5" And definitely NOT just a weak 5'7".
I hate those Empire Award pics. They're freaking WEIRD. I never go by them, because they were the oddest pics on the planet. Because Rupert has several inches on Dan all other times. There are pics of them, bare feet, and Dan is looking right at Rupert and the top of his head is only at his eyebrows and they have similiar posture. So something weird went on with those Empire Awards.
UK Premiere: Click Here - Dan has the advantage too with the shoes.
Ceremony 'backstage' - Click Here
Ceremony shoes off - Click Here
There is definitely more than two inches there. As I said, the empire awards are just WEIRD because in all other photos there shows a lot more than an inch and a half to two inches difference.
Btw, I posted a pic of Rupert and Tom that maybe wasn't so good. This one is better because they have better posture, etc. Click Here
Oh, if Rupert is only 5'6.5" like someone claims, then Greg Gunberg must not be the height claimed on here either. Click Here (They're both leaning their heads in, so I don't think that'll matter much.)
Now, obviously, I can be wrong about the between 5'9" and 5'10" and I'm willing to accept that, but c'mon... there is no way this boy is anything less than 5'8.5" And definitely NOT just a weak 5'7".
6'3'' JK said on 25/Jul/07
Yeah Ive read the main parts of the 7th book but i haven't finished it all yet, The Final Movie I think will be great, Rob are you going to attend any Premieres in the future?
Editor Rob
Yeah Ive read the main parts of the 7th book but i haven't finished it all yet, The Final Movie I think will be great, Rob are you going to attend any Premieres in the future?
Editor Rob I don't like them, screeching girls and clamouring, pickpockets. Some get great pics/autos that way for sure though!
Anna said on 24/Jul/07
haha, alright. I was just starting to wonder. Have you read the 7th book yet JK? I do hope you read the books if you are this invested in discovering the true heights of these three....anyway, look at this photo Click Here I know I've said that preferably the photos should be full body shots, but we know that the trio are in the cement and we can tell that this shot is straight on by looking at the poster in the background; the said poster is completely straight. Honestly, judging by this photo Emma only looks an inch shorter than Rupert, so, if she were really her claimed 5'6", your 5'7" projection for Rupert could still be fitting and Dan looks his 5'5", although a bit shorter, once again why I wonder if Emma has underestimated herself a bit. So, I'd guess around 5'5" for Dan, 5'6"-5'6.5" for Emma, and 5'7.5"-5'8.5" for Rupert. Rupert and Dan really need to get taller or get some lifts of some sort because, firstly, Harry is supposed to grow a lot between 5 and 6 and, secondly, Ron has always supposed to be tall. Cheese and rice. haha, sorry, tangent. But once again notice, I have given up on the 5'7" for Emma thus proving that it is no magical mark of anything, I just truly believe, similarily, but also oppositely to JK, that she is taller than she is given credit for. You do know that if Emma and/or Rupert are upgraded world peace will be achieved?
haha, alright. I was just starting to wonder. Have you read the 7th book yet JK? I do hope you read the books if you are this invested in discovering the true heights of these three....anyway, look at this photo Click Here I know I've said that preferably the photos should be full body shots, but we know that the trio are in the cement and we can tell that this shot is straight on by looking at the poster in the background; the said poster is completely straight. Honestly, judging by this photo Emma only looks an inch shorter than Rupert, so, if she were really her claimed 5'6", your 5'7" projection for Rupert could still be fitting and Dan looks his 5'5", although a bit shorter, once again why I wonder if Emma has underestimated herself a bit. So, I'd guess around 5'5" for Dan, 5'6"-5'6.5" for Emma, and 5'7.5"-5'8.5" for Rupert. Rupert and Dan really need to get taller or get some lifts of some sort because, firstly, Harry is supposed to grow a lot between 5 and 6 and, secondly, Ron has always supposed to be tall. Cheese and rice. haha, sorry, tangent. But once again notice, I have given up on the 5'7" for Emma thus proving that it is no magical mark of anything, I just truly believe, similarily, but also oppositely to JK, that she is taller than she is given credit for. You do know that if Emma and/or Rupert are upgraded world peace will be achieved?
6'3'' JK said on 22/Jul/07
I have no Hatred against Rupert Grint Lol, I know he is a nice guy and i am a fan of the trio and the films, The only thing is he does not look above 5'7''
I have no Hatred against Rupert Grint Lol, I know he is a nice guy and i am a fan of the trio and the films, The only thing is he does not look above 5'7''
Anna said on 21/Jul/07
Yes JK, I am certainly glad that we can agree on one thing. However, I think the Empire Awards photos are a bit hard to judge with because Rupert seems to be slouching and always standing in back, which makes it hard to tell how much height he really has on Dan. I reckon some of the new photos are better to judge with, yeah? I'd say Rob has Rupert's height about right. I'm just curious why you want so much for him to be downgraded JK? Is there some underlying hatred that you have for Rupert Grint? He seems like a nice and balanced guy, the only things that annoy me are his shyness and his inability to make better clothing choices (i.e. he wears the same clothes to every premiere/event. even if Dan is short, he still presents himself much better and like I said he's taller than me, so it's no matter) but yeah. I once again have to say that the only one of the trio's heights that should be changed is Emma's and that is to 5'6". But I was just thinking on it, what if Dan really is only 5'4"? That would absolutely mess everything up. That would be awful. I think he's 5'5". Let's hope he is.
Yes JK, I am certainly glad that we can agree on one thing. However, I think the Empire Awards photos are a bit hard to judge with because Rupert seems to be slouching and always standing in back, which makes it hard to tell how much height he really has on Dan. I reckon some of the new photos are better to judge with, yeah? I'd say Rob has Rupert's height about right. I'm just curious why you want so much for him to be downgraded JK? Is there some underlying hatred that you have for Rupert Grint? He seems like a nice and balanced guy, the only things that annoy me are his shyness and his inability to make better clothing choices (i.e. he wears the same clothes to every premiere/event. even if Dan is short, he still presents himself much better and like I said he's taller than me, so it's no matter) but yeah. I once again have to say that the only one of the trio's heights that should be changed is Emma's and that is to 5'6". But I was just thinking on it, what if Dan really is only 5'4"? That would absolutely mess everything up. That would be awful. I think he's 5'5". Let's hope he is.
Arjun said on 21/Jul/07
BTW, in that Empire Awards photo, that is Jason Isaacs' shoulder beside Dan's. You can see a little bit of his ear too, Dan is definitely 6 inches shorter than him here. Since Isaacs is 5'11", this puts Dan at 5'5" tops here. Rupert is standing slightly behind the rest of them , but he still looks 5'6" tops compared to Isaacs here, or 5'6.5" since he's wearing converse. However, I am pretty sure of one thing - there is no way he has this little height over Dan in reality. Those Hand-and-Foot ceremony pics definitely show over 2 inches difference, both in socks. Now, to add more grist to the mill, Isaacs recently claimed only 5'10" for himself - lol, if that's true, that would make Dan 5'4" tops here unless Isaacs has some major lifts!
BTW, in that Empire Awards photo, that is Jason Isaacs' shoulder beside Dan's. You can see a little bit of his ear too, Dan is definitely 6 inches shorter than him here. Since Isaacs is 5'11", this puts Dan at 5'5" tops here. Rupert is standing slightly behind the rest of them , but he still looks 5'6" tops compared to Isaacs here, or 5'6.5" since he's wearing converse. However, I am pretty sure of one thing - there is no way he has this little height over Dan in reality. Those Hand-and-Foot ceremony pics definitely show over 2 inches difference, both in socks. Now, to add more grist to the mill, Isaacs recently claimed only 5'10" for himself - lol, if that's true, that would make Dan 5'4" tops here unless Isaacs has some major lifts!
Arjun said on 21/Jul/07
umad80, JK has a point there. There is only 2 inches differences in the photo he posted. You did see him in person - but 5'9" is overestimating him. Ideally, you should have brought someone about 5'8" - 5'9" along with you, and compared that person to Rupert.
JK, I agree he's not 5'9", but there are many shots of him looking taller than 5'7" compared to Dan.
umad80, JK has a point there. There is only 2 inches differences in the photo he posted. You did see him in person - but 5'9" is overestimating him. Ideally, you should have brought someone about 5'8" - 5'9" along with you, and compared that person to Rupert.
JK, I agree he's not 5'9", but there are many shots of him looking taller than 5'7" compared to Dan.
Arjun said on 21/Jul/07
There is not a chance he is over 5'9", umad80, the probability of that is even lower than that of him being 5'7".
There is not a chance he is over 5'9", umad80, the probability of that is even lower than that of him being 5'7".
6'3'' JK said on 20/Jul/07
Im glad you agree with me on that Anna, Now look at this picture you can see their postures and everyone is standing STRAIGHT, and Rupert is looking no more than 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' Click Here and don't tell me Rupert has gained height since then because he hasn't gained a single cm since then, This Guy was Done Growing in late 2005 and this pic is from very very late 2006 when he was 18 years old. Rob we need a downgrade to atleast a flat 5'7'' you've got the listing a bit wrong, or have him back to 5'7.5'' (which i still think is not quite right) He does not look like a near Legitimate 5'8'' guy!
Im glad you agree with me on that Anna, Now look at this picture you can see their postures and everyone is standing STRAIGHT, and Rupert is looking no more than 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' Click Here and don't tell me Rupert has gained height since then because he hasn't gained a single cm since then, This Guy was Done Growing in late 2005 and this pic is from very very late 2006 when he was 18 years old. Rob we need a downgrade to atleast a flat 5'7'' you've got the listing a bit wrong, or have him back to 5'7.5'' (which i still think is not quite right) He does not look like a near Legitimate 5'8'' guy!
Anna said on 20/Jul/07
JK, where are you from? I'm just curious.
JK, where are you from? I'm just curious.
Anna said on 20/Jul/07
I agree that umad80 needs to stop with the biased photos in which the angle/everything favours Rupert, but the one you posted isn't much better JK. We can't even see their feet, postures, et cetera and therefore we cannot judge heights from it. The angle is not very good either, it's taken from the side and it looks to be taken from slightly above, making those farther away seem taller. And I'm just going to say that I think photos should only be posted if they are full body shots or if we can see if people are slouching, leaning, et cetera because it's just stupid when horrible photos are posted that differ from nearly every other photo from the event just to make one person look taller than the others. Is this a good idea?
I agree that umad80 needs to stop with the biased photos in which the angle/everything favours Rupert, but the one you posted isn't much better JK. We can't even see their feet, postures, et cetera and therefore we cannot judge heights from it. The angle is not very good either, it's taken from the side and it looks to be taken from slightly above, making those farther away seem taller. And I'm just going to say that I think photos should only be posted if they are full body shots or if we can see if people are slouching, leaning, et cetera because it's just stupid when horrible photos are posted that differ from nearly every other photo from the event just to make one person look taller than the others. Is this a good idea?
umad80 said on 19/Jul/07
Nuh uh. Dan's hair is more wild, spiked up so to speak. Rupert's hair parts in the middle. That is what I mean. You have to find the part of Dan's hair to see where the top of his head is. There is a good four inches between them, and I'm sure of that. He wasn't even much shorter than Tom Felton in dress shoes, and he was leaning. He was a good 3 inches or so than Dan who was in dress shoes. Yes, I'm quite confident no matter what anyone says on this site... Rupert is at least 5'9", but I believe when he actually stands straight he can be taller.
Nuh uh. Dan's hair is more wild, spiked up so to speak. Rupert's hair parts in the middle. That is what I mean. You have to find the part of Dan's hair to see where the top of his head is. There is a good four inches between them, and I'm sure of that. He wasn't even much shorter than Tom Felton in dress shoes, and he was leaning. He was a good 3 inches or so than Dan who was in dress shoes. Yes, I'm quite confident no matter what anyone says on this site... Rupert is at least 5'9", but I believe when he actually stands straight he can be taller.
6'3'' JK said on 19/Jul/07
Look man, Stop coming up with those biased angled camera shots which all favour Rupert Grint!, Here is a proper one which dosn't favour anybody and Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe are standing side by side both standing straight and there is no more than a 2 inch Difference Click Here
Rob we need a downgrade to 5'7''
Look man, Stop coming up with those biased angled camera shots which all favour Rupert Grint!, Here is a proper one which dosn't favour anybody and Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe are standing side by side both standing straight and there is no more than a 2 inch Difference Click Here
Rob we need a downgrade to 5'7''
Anna said on 19/Jul/07
5'8.5" at the most, but like Arjun said, Rob is nearly spot on. He has 3 inches on the 5'5" Dan, but only 2 or less inches on the 5'6"ish Emma.
5'8.5" at the most, but like Arjun said, Rob is nearly spot on. He has 3 inches on the 5'5" Dan, but only 2 or less inches on the 5'6"ish Emma.
Arjun said on 19/Jul/07
And one more thing - Dan's hair does not add much more height than Rupert's does.
And one more thing - Dan's hair does not add much more height than Rupert's does.
Arjun said on 19/Jul/07
Umad80, in the second and third cap, Rupert does look very close to 4 inches taller than Dan ...... yet, I still think 5'9" is a little too high. There are other caps from the same ceremony (like the first) where he looks barely 3 inches taller. Also, Rupert does not look 5'9" compared to other Harry Potter actors ..... he struggles with 5'8" when compared with Jamie or the twins. Which is why I'm still saying that Editor Rob's listing of 5'7.75" - 5'8" is spot on. You did see him in person, which is certainly a strong argument - but remember that he would have inches on you anyway, so is it not possible that you overestimated him by an inch? That's very easy to do with people around 3 - 4 inches taller than you. He's taller than 5'7", but I still don't agree with the 5'9" as there is a good deal more evidence showing him to be under 5'9" than around it.
Umad80, in the second and third cap, Rupert does look very close to 4 inches taller than Dan ...... yet, I still think 5'9" is a little too high. There are other caps from the same ceremony (like the first) where he looks barely 3 inches taller. Also, Rupert does not look 5'9" compared to other Harry Potter actors ..... he struggles with 5'8" when compared with Jamie or the twins. Which is why I'm still saying that Editor Rob's listing of 5'7.75" - 5'8" is spot on. You did see him in person, which is certainly a strong argument - but remember that he would have inches on you anyway, so is it not possible that you overestimated him by an inch? That's very easy to do with people around 3 - 4 inches taller than you. He's taller than 5'7", but I still don't agree with the 5'9" as there is a good deal more evidence showing him to be under 5'9" than around it.
Sue said on 19/Jul/07
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
6'3'' JK said on 19/Jul/07
I only see a 2 inch (5cm) Difference at most, Therefore making Rupert Grint 5'7'' with shoes on!
I only see a 2 inch (5cm) Difference at most, Therefore making Rupert Grint 5'7'' with shoes on!
Arjun said on 19/Jul/07
Only 3 inches in your video, umad80. I just don't see 4 there, not unless the top of Dan's head is 2+ inches below the top of his hair (which I doubt).
The top of Dan's head, without hair, still comes above Rupert's eyebrows.
If he has 4 inches on Dan, then the twins have 8+ inches on Rupert, which we know is not the case. As I told you, they had 7 inches easy on him in nearly all photos, even with them leaning at least as much as him. I saw the film a few days ago, and in the few scenes (of the DA) where he was near them, they looked to have 7 inches on him. And in the shot you posted showing Rupert's converse shoes, he looks only an inch taller than Dan, who is in dress shoes, but they would have to give him nearly 3 1/2 inches over his barefoot height for him to be 4 inches shorter than Rupert in reality. 5'8" is quite likely for Rupert ..... but it's hard to buy anything over that. You did see the promo shot of the entire DA, did'nt you? Rupert looks nowhere near 4 inches taller than Dan there, even accounting for Dan being slightly closer to the camera. The twins of course, have a full head on Dan (~10 inches) as I saw in the movie as well.
If Dan is 5'5" (which I believe he is) Rupert is around 5'8", not more.
Only 3 inches in your video, umad80. I just don't see 4 there, not unless the top of Dan's head is 2+ inches below the top of his hair (which I doubt).
The top of Dan's head, without hair, still comes above Rupert's eyebrows.
If he has 4 inches on Dan, then the twins have 8+ inches on Rupert, which we know is not the case. As I told you, they had 7 inches easy on him in nearly all photos, even with them leaning at least as much as him. I saw the film a few days ago, and in the few scenes (of the DA) where he was near them, they looked to have 7 inches on him. And in the shot you posted showing Rupert's converse shoes, he looks only an inch taller than Dan, who is in dress shoes, but they would have to give him nearly 3 1/2 inches over his barefoot height for him to be 4 inches shorter than Rupert in reality. 5'8" is quite likely for Rupert ..... but it's hard to buy anything over that. You did see the promo shot of the entire DA, did'nt you? Rupert looks nowhere near 4 inches taller than Dan there, even accounting for Dan being slightly closer to the camera. The twins of course, have a full head on Dan (~10 inches) as I saw in the movie as well.
If Dan is 5'5" (which I believe he is) Rupert is around 5'8", not more.
umad80 said on 18/Jul/07
Okay, I finally got around to capping the video and I noticed some parts where Rupert and Dan are talking and you can see quite a difference in height. Click Here | Click Here | Click Here | Click Here
You're all welcome to look at all the caps so no one accuses me of finding ones that favor Rupert. lol As I did try to find ones where the posture is similiar and neither is looking down at any given time. I just think that maybe 5'10" might be wrong, but so is 5'7" and 5'8". And when you see them arm and arm, Rupert bends down. Dan struggles to get his arm around Rupert's shoulders, and you can see Rupert bend down a bit. That may be why the height is still harder to tell.
Okay, I finally got around to capping the video and I noticed some parts where Rupert and Dan are talking and you can see quite a difference in height. Click Here | Click Here | Click Here | Click Here
You're all welcome to look at all the caps so no one accuses me of finding ones that favor Rupert. lol As I did try to find ones where the posture is similiar and neither is looking down at any given time. I just think that maybe 5'10" might be wrong, but so is 5'7" and 5'8". And when you see them arm and arm, Rupert bends down. Dan struggles to get his arm around Rupert's shoulders, and you can see Rupert bend down a bit. That may be why the height is still harder to tell.
Arjun said on 18/Jul/07
Umad80, I see noticeably less than 4 inches between them in your little video. They are in socks there, of course???
Umad80, I see noticeably less than 4 inches between them in your little video. They are in socks there, of course???
Arjun said on 18/Jul/07
That shot 51 is revealing though, it's a full body shot and he does look more than 2 inches taller than Dan in socks.
That shot 51 is revealing though, it's a full body shot and he does look more than 2 inches taller than Dan in socks.
umad80 said on 17/Jul/07
Okay, here is part of the video I shot that shows Rupert having around 4 inches on Dan. I realize that they're not always standing perfect, but you can get an idea that Dan - when you don't count his hair - really only comes up to Rupert's eyebrows, and perhaps just below that. Click Here
Rupert ain't that tall, but he certainly isn't a weak 5'7". I don't think 5'9" is that hard to swallow either.
Okay, here is part of the video I shot that shows Rupert having around 4 inches on Dan. I realize that they're not always standing perfect, but you can get an idea that Dan - when you don't count his hair - really only comes up to Rupert's eyebrows, and perhaps just below that. Click Here
Rupert ain't that tall, but he certainly isn't a weak 5'7". I don't think 5'9" is that hard to swallow either.
Anna said on 17/Jul/07
I mean I'm all for being open-minded umad80, but I really cannot see Rupert as much more than 5'8", let alone him having 4 inches on Dan. I think the most you could get Rob up to his 5'8" and seeing as that is Rupert has said (I think), that would make sense. But I have looked at the printing ceremony photos as well and if you look at the differences on the full length shots compared to that shot that you keep posting, they look quite different. And seeing as we know their posture and positions much better in the full length shots, I think that is what we should judge by.
I mean I'm all for being open-minded umad80, but I really cannot see Rupert as much more than 5'8", let alone him having 4 inches on Dan. I think the most you could get Rob up to his 5'8" and seeing as that is Rupert has said (I think), that would make sense. But I have looked at the printing ceremony photos as well and if you look at the differences on the full length shots compared to that shot that you keep posting, they look quite different. And seeing as we know their posture and positions much better in the full length shots, I think that is what we should judge by.
6'3'' JK said on 17/Jul/07
Rupert is the shortest 5'7'' looking guy ive evr seen, he sometimes does not even look 5'7''
Rupert is the shortest 5'7'' looking guy ive evr seen, he sometimes does not even look 5'7''
umad80 said on 17/Jul/07
Oh, forgot to mention that Rupert was on Craig Ferguson recently, and though it was difficult to really see because they never stood perfectly straight or next to each other very long, it looks like Rupert is just above Craig's eyebrows. The around 6'2" Craig, wearing dress shoes, would be around 6'3". But as I said, it wasn't the easiest thing to look at... And I noticed that no one cares about the fan photo. I guess in everyone's eyes he must be lying. I'll have to get him to come over here...
Oh, forgot to mention that Rupert was on Craig Ferguson recently, and though it was difficult to really see because they never stood perfectly straight or next to each other very long, it looks like Rupert is just above Craig's eyebrows. The around 6'2" Craig, wearing dress shoes, would be around 6'3". But as I said, it wasn't the easiest thing to look at... And I noticed that no one cares about the fan photo. I guess in everyone's eyes he must be lying. I'll have to get him to come over here...
umad80 said on 17/Jul/07
His agency is new. All other sites had 5'10", but his agency just recently put it up. And no Anna, they are not all pictures of Emma having an inch on Dan nor barely two inches shorter than Rupert. I've seen enough of them. Rupert is at least 4 inches taller than his co-stars when they have no shoes on. They come up around his eyebrows! (Click on the other pictures and you'll see the same thing. That is not the only picture, just the best one posture wise.)
Personally I wish Rob wouldn't put up that interview of his height. Not even a month later he told a news station (I can't remember where) he was just 5'7" to which they replied, "You look taller than that." So Rupert obviously guestimated his own height so much that he was willing to put himself even shorter.
His agency is new. All other sites had 5'10", but his agency just recently put it up. And no Anna, they are not all pictures of Emma having an inch on Dan nor barely two inches shorter than Rupert. I've seen enough of them. Rupert is at least 4 inches taller than his co-stars when they have no shoes on. They come up around his eyebrows! (Click on the other pictures and you'll see the same thing. That is not the only picture, just the best one posture wise.)
Personally I wish Rob wouldn't put up that interview of his height. Not even a month later he told a news station (I can't remember where) he was just 5'7" to which they replied, "You look taller than that." So Rupert obviously guestimated his own height so much that he was willing to put himself even shorter.
Liam said on 17/Jul/07
I'd go with around 5'8 maybe even another half an inch but anymore is pushing it, the infamous movie website also has the 5'10 but everyone knows they treat it like pin the tail on the donkey. Best pics I have seen to judge by are the hand and foot print ceremony.
I'd go with around 5'8 maybe even another half an inch but anymore is pushing it, the infamous movie website also has the 5'10 but everyone knows they treat it like pin the tail on the donkey. Best pics I have seen to judge by are the hand and foot print ceremony.
Anna said on 16/Jul/07
I just have a random question....how did sites even get the 5'10" or even 5'11" for him to begin with? When you google 'rupert grint height' these heights come up....I'm just curious how they came to be....
Editor Rob
I just have a random question....how did sites even get the 5'10" or even 5'11" for him to begin with? When you google 'rupert grint height' these heights come up....I'm just curious how they came to be....
Editor Rob his agency had the 5ft 10.
SuzieQ said on 16/Jul/07
What I don't get is if Ron is supposed to be taller than the two of them in the books, why don't they at least try to let that show? If they don't want Dan to look small and give him a bit of a lift in his shoe that's fine, but then do the same with Rupert so the height difference remains the same.
What I don't get is if Ron is supposed to be taller than the two of them in the books, why don't they at least try to let that show? If they don't want Dan to look small and give him a bit of a lift in his shoe that's fine, but then do the same with Rupert so the height difference remains the same.
Anna said on 16/Jul/07
Well, I'm just saying umad80 and forgive me if I come across rude, but that is the only photo of them barefoot that the difference is that much, all of the other photos in which they are all barefoot and we can actually see their entire bodies, Emma looks about 1 inch or more taller than Dan and barely 2 inches shorter than Rupert. And I know that you were there in person, but we've seen the videos/footage and you can see that Emma literally bends down for Dan in those pictures with all arm in arm, thus making them bad to compare heights compared to the other photos that we have of the trio barefoot. And Dan's shoes may have had some height on them, but I am nearly 100% positive that Emma's were flat because a few nights before some candid photos were taken of Emma arriving at the LA airport and the shoes she wore look almost exactly the same as those she wore to the printing ceremony and, as can be seen, they had literally no height on them, which again makes the prospect of 5'5" for Dan and 5'6" for Emma even more plausible. Click Here And look at this photo for Dan and Emma Click Here Rupert is obviously ruled out because of his leaning back and posture, but it's good for Dan and Emma because they are both standing up and the angle is direct, as can be seen when you compare the two posters in the background. And umad80, it would be great to see those photos, but from the barefoot photos I've seen, Rupert looks 5'8", Dan looks 5'5", and Emma looks a very strong 5'6", possibly 5'6.5" (but I won't push it). I mean, Emma is literally much taller than Dan when they both take of their shoes.
Well, I'm just saying umad80 and forgive me if I come across rude, but that is the only photo of them barefoot that the difference is that much, all of the other photos in which they are all barefoot and we can actually see their entire bodies, Emma looks about 1 inch or more taller than Dan and barely 2 inches shorter than Rupert. And I know that you were there in person, but we've seen the videos/footage and you can see that Emma literally bends down for Dan in those pictures with all arm in arm, thus making them bad to compare heights compared to the other photos that we have of the trio barefoot. And Dan's shoes may have had some height on them, but I am nearly 100% positive that Emma's were flat because a few nights before some candid photos were taken of Emma arriving at the LA airport and the shoes she wore look almost exactly the same as those she wore to the printing ceremony and, as can be seen, they had literally no height on them, which again makes the prospect of 5'5" for Dan and 5'6" for Emma even more plausible. Click Here And look at this photo for Dan and Emma Click Here Rupert is obviously ruled out because of his leaning back and posture, but it's good for Dan and Emma because they are both standing up and the angle is direct, as can be seen when you compare the two posters in the background. And umad80, it would be great to see those photos, but from the barefoot photos I've seen, Rupert looks 5'8", Dan looks 5'5", and Emma looks a very strong 5'6", possibly 5'6.5" (but I won't push it). I mean, Emma is literally much taller than Dan when they both take of their shoes.
6'3'' JK said on 16/Jul/07
I can see Rupert having 2 inches on Dan and Emma as they are both 5'5'', but anything over that is an absolute joke
I can see Rupert having 2 inches on Dan and Emma as they are both 5'5'', but anything over that is an absolute joke
Chip said on 16/Jul/07
Anna, there is no way I would be convinced that Emma is 5'7" either, now that I think about it.
Anna, there is no way I would be convinced that Emma is 5'7" either, now that I think about it.
umad80 said on 16/Jul/07
Anna, that is NOT a bad photo. LOL I was there. For Rupert to be that much taller than his co-stars, they'd have to bending tremendously. They were in their bare feet at that point. You could clearly see that Rupert had several inches on his co-stars the minute they took off their shoes. Whatever Emma was wearing, it had a heel. I think like the one from the French photocall. And I don't know what is with Dan, but he lost like two inches the minute he took his shoes off. And I wasn't the only one who noticed that. I need to take some screencaps of my video that I got, but I'll be showing all the photos of when the trio are out of their shoes. When they're all arm and arm, they aren't wearing shoes.
Let's face it. Emma and Dan are the exact same height (5'5") and Rupert has at least 4 inches on them both. This photo proves it. It's not a bad angle (I'll find a dozen of them to prove that every single one shows the exact same thing.), and I was there so I would know before you what was happening.
Anna, that is NOT a bad photo. LOL I was there. For Rupert to be that much taller than his co-stars, they'd have to bending tremendously. They were in their bare feet at that point. You could clearly see that Rupert had several inches on his co-stars the minute they took off their shoes. Whatever Emma was wearing, it had a heel. I think like the one from the French photocall. And I don't know what is with Dan, but he lost like two inches the minute he took his shoes off. And I wasn't the only one who noticed that. I need to take some screencaps of my video that I got, but I'll be showing all the photos of when the trio are out of their shoes. When they're all arm and arm, they aren't wearing shoes.
Let's face it. Emma and Dan are the exact same height (5'5") and Rupert has at least 4 inches on them both. This photo proves it. It's not a bad angle (I'll find a dozen of them to prove that every single one shows the exact same thing.), and I was there so I would know before you what was happening.
Anna said on 15/Jul/07
Are you honestly regarding that photo as reliable umad80? In my opinion, that is a horrible angle and we cannot even see their feet and if we go off of the other photos Emma is majorly bending down during that bit to make Dan's arm fit around her more comfortably. Also, there are plenty of other, better, photos where Emma looks an inch taller than Dan and barely 2 inches shorter than Rupert, so I am going to stick with 5'6" for Emma and 5'8" for Rupert, he just looks too short compared to Emma and Dan in the majority of the reliable photos to say anything differently. I would go up to 5'9", but 5'8" seems much more likely unless you consider Emma 5'7" and there is no way you are going to convince Rob of that.
Are you honestly regarding that photo as reliable umad80? In my opinion, that is a horrible angle and we cannot even see their feet and if we go off of the other photos Emma is majorly bending down during that bit to make Dan's arm fit around her more comfortably. Also, there are plenty of other, better, photos where Emma looks an inch taller than Dan and barely 2 inches shorter than Rupert, so I am going to stick with 5'6" for Emma and 5'8" for Rupert, he just looks too short compared to Emma and Dan in the majority of the reliable photos to say anything differently. I would go up to 5'9", but 5'8" seems much more likely unless you consider Emma 5'7" and there is no way you are going to convince Rob of that.
umad80 said on 15/Jul/07
Anna, that is exactly where she comes up to! This is when they're in their socks: Click Here Dan has admitted to truly only being 5'5", and Emma is just a touch shorter than him. Whenever you see that "middle of the forehead" thing, you're looking at Emma in heels. You keep counting her height in heels.
And I guess Rupert was 4-5 inches shorter than Mark Williams in Goblet of Fire when it was filmed in 2004/2005. It is now 2007 people. Let's not even go there. lol Of course, I don't even know how tall he is. He didn't seem that much shorter than the twins. :
Anna, that is exactly where she comes up to! This is when they're in their socks: Click Here Dan has admitted to truly only being 5'5", and Emma is just a touch shorter than him. Whenever you see that "middle of the forehead" thing, you're looking at Emma in heels. You keep counting her height in heels.
And I guess Rupert was 4-5 inches shorter than Mark Williams in Goblet of Fire when it was filmed in 2004/2005. It is now 2007 people. Let's not even go there. lol Of course, I don't even know how tall he is. He didn't seem that much shorter than the twins. :
Anna said on 15/Jul/07
I thought Mark William was 6'1", where did you pull 5'11" from JK? But if his brother said Rupert's 5'11" and even if Rupert were 5'10", that would completely mess everything up because, to be honest, Emma doesn't look much shorter than Rupert. If Rupert were 5'10", then Emma would come up to barely his eyebrows and, as can be seen at the printing ceremony and the Paris photo call, Emma comes up to about midway on Rupert's forehead.
I thought Mark William was 6'1", where did you pull 5'11" from JK? But if his brother said Rupert's 5'11" and even if Rupert were 5'10", that would completely mess everything up because, to be honest, Emma doesn't look much shorter than Rupert. If Rupert were 5'10", then Emma would come up to barely his eyebrows and, as can be seen at the printing ceremony and the Paris photo call, Emma comes up to about midway on Rupert's forehead.
6'3'' JK said on 15/Jul/07
This whole thing is beginning to sound real stupid, I agree with antron He is 4 - 5 inches shorter from the guy who plays his father who is 5'11''
This whole thing is beginning to sound real stupid, I agree with antron He is 4 - 5 inches shorter from the guy who plays his father who is 5'11''
umad80 said on 15/Jul/07
Anna, it's because she is wearing heels. When they were all barefoot, Rupert had like 4 or so inches on both Emma and Dan. Rupert is a weak 5'10". I agree James is off (Was it really necessary to make that comment Rob? They're brothers, he'd know more than you.), but I don't think he's that far off.
Oh, antron, c'mon. The last time we saw Rupert and Mark Williams in a scene together, I mean standing side by side, was in GoF and we don't know even know how tall Rupert was then because that was probably sometime in 2004 or early 2005 when they filmed that scene. Which I think Rupert was around 5'8.5" by then because he wasn't much shorter than the 5'9" Tom Felton at the Pride Awards. And he wasn't that much shorter than Tom, in dress shoes, at the OotP premiere.
Anna, it's because she is wearing heels. When they were all barefoot, Rupert had like 4 or so inches on both Emma and Dan. Rupert is a weak 5'10". I agree James is off (Was it really necessary to make that comment Rob? They're brothers, he'd know more than you.), but I don't think he's that far off.
Oh, antron, c'mon. The last time we saw Rupert and Mark Williams in a scene together, I mean standing side by side, was in GoF and we don't know even know how tall Rupert was then because that was probably sometime in 2004 or early 2005 when they filmed that scene. Which I think Rupert was around 5'8.5" by then because he wasn't much shorter than the 5'9" Tom Felton at the Pride Awards. And he wasn't that much shorter than Tom, in dress shoes, at the OotP premiere.
antron said on 15/Jul/07
He is not nearly 6 ft. That would put him within 2 inches of his on-screen Dad Mark Williams (6'1") when RG is clearly at least 4/5 inches shorter.
He is not nearly 6 ft. That would put him within 2 inches of his on-screen Dad Mark Williams (6'1") when RG is clearly at least 4/5 inches shorter.
jo said on 14/Jul/07
James Grint, Rupert's brother. told us that Rupert is around 5'11. :)
Editor Rob
James Grint, Rupert's brother. told us that Rupert is around 5'11. :)
Editor Rob does he work as a used car salesmen?
umad80 said on 14/Jul/07
Okay, I have two fan photos. They say they are 6'3". They also said that Rupert's brother James said Rupert was 5'11", but I don't even think that. But it's obvious that standing next to a 6'3" guy, Rupert seems to be maybe a weak 5'10". But you have this one: Click Here and this one: Click Here
Okay, I have two fan photos. They say they are 6'3". They also said that Rupert's brother James said Rupert was 5'11", but I don't even think that. But it's obvious that standing next to a 6'3" guy, Rupert seems to be maybe a weak 5'10". But you have this one: Click Here and this one: Click Here
Sue said on 14/Jul/07
Rupert had a good 3-4 inches over Dan at the hand-foot-wand ceremony. Are you blind? If Rupert's 5'7", Dan's 5'3".
And a representative of a RG site talked to James Grint (his own brother) and asked him Rupert's height and he confirmed a 5'11".
Rupert had a good 3-4 inches over Dan at the hand-foot-wand ceremony. Are you blind? If Rupert's 5'7", Dan's 5'3".
And a representative of a RG site talked to James Grint (his own brother) and asked him Rupert's height and he confirmed a 5'11".
Anna said on 14/Jul/07
Yeah, I definitely know what you mean umad80, there is no sense arguing with JK, he is Mr. Close-Minded and it confuses me a bit why he would be so. Ah well though, some people will never change. But I am very willing to believe that Rupert is 5'8.5", but probably 5'8.5" at the most. However, there is no way he can be under 5'8". But if you are advocating this for Rupert, how can you say taht Emma is only 5'5"-5'5.5"? There are just too many photos of her and Rupert (from Paris and the Hollywood ceremony) that prove that she really is only 1-2 inches shorter than Rupert. And they also prove that she is about 1 to 2 inches taller than Daniel, putting her in that 5'6" range. I mean, even with Daniel's poofy hair and Emma's flat hair, she still looks taller than him. There are just too many photos where she looks 5'6" or more for me to believe that she is still 5'5". And they are Good, nearly Perfect photos that I am speaking of. You will not get much better photos ever. Yeah?
Yeah, I definitely know what you mean umad80, there is no sense arguing with JK, he is Mr. Close-Minded and it confuses me a bit why he would be so. Ah well though, some people will never change. But I am very willing to believe that Rupert is 5'8.5", but probably 5'8.5" at the most. However, there is no way he can be under 5'8". But if you are advocating this for Rupert, how can you say taht Emma is only 5'5"-5'5.5"? There are just too many photos of her and Rupert (from Paris and the Hollywood ceremony) that prove that she really is only 1-2 inches shorter than Rupert. And they also prove that she is about 1 to 2 inches taller than Daniel, putting her in that 5'6" range. I mean, even with Daniel's poofy hair and Emma's flat hair, she still looks taller than him. There are just too many photos where she looks 5'6" or more for me to believe that she is still 5'5". And they are Good, nearly Perfect photos that I am speaking of. You will not get much better photos ever. Yeah?
umad80 said on 14/Jul/07
There really is in no sense arguing with you. You've got your mind set on your thoughts of his height. Even this site says photos are just guestimates and the best way to tell is by seeing them in person. I think the least Rupert is is 5'8.5" and I think that is only because he doesn't stand up straight. His posture isn't as bad as it was, but still, when Rupert stands to his fullest height, he gains about an inch a half or so. And the GOOD photos of him and Tom clearly show that Tom is only a half inch taller and he had footware adavantage. But as I said, your mind is stuck on one thing, and there is no changing it, no matter what someone presents as an argument.
There really is in no sense arguing with you. You've got your mind set on your thoughts of his height. Even this site says photos are just guestimates and the best way to tell is by seeing them in person. I think the least Rupert is is 5'8.5" and I think that is only because he doesn't stand up straight. His posture isn't as bad as it was, but still, when Rupert stands to his fullest height, he gains about an inch a half or so. And the GOOD photos of him and Tom clearly show that Tom is only a half inch taller and he had footware adavantage. But as I said, your mind is stuck on one thing, and there is no changing it, no matter what someone presents as an argument.
6'3'' JK said on 14/Jul/07
I don't think he is over 5'7'', Robs nearly got his height listing right
I don't think he is over 5'7'', Robs nearly got his height listing right
umad80 said on 13/Jul/07
Well, you can insist on nothing over 5'7" as much as you want, but until you see him in person, you can't say it is a fact. Oh, and Dan does look short, but he isn't. He's definitely at least 5'5" because there are Dan fan sites, the owners, they've seen him in person and will confirm the 5'5" to 5'5.5" deal. And he definitely looks 5'5" to me if not over that. He doesn't seem shorter than me. But Rupert is over 5'7" and I believe he is over 5'8". How much over 5'8" may still be a mystery, but he's not below it. That I will stake my life on. lol But you can clearly see in that video that he has at least 3 inches on Dan if not more. And when I was face to face with him at GoF two years ago, he was quite a bit taller than me. I was wearing regular shoes vs. his chucks at the time. I'm 5'5" and I was most likely about 5'6" with shoes, and he was taller than me but at least an inch or so. So he's definitely taller than 5'7" and most likely taller than 5'8".
Watching the movie today, standing with the twins, you can see he comes up to around their eyebrows give or take (most likely a bit of take) and I know that's not the best gauge, but it shows that the "weak 5'7"" is clearly wrong.
Well, you can insist on nothing over 5'7" as much as you want, but until you see him in person, you can't say it is a fact. Oh, and Dan does look short, but he isn't. He's definitely at least 5'5" because there are Dan fan sites, the owners, they've seen him in person and will confirm the 5'5" to 5'5.5" deal. And he definitely looks 5'5" to me if not over that. He doesn't seem shorter than me. But Rupert is over 5'7" and I believe he is over 5'8". How much over 5'8" may still be a mystery, but he's not below it. That I will stake my life on. lol But you can clearly see in that video that he has at least 3 inches on Dan if not more. And when I was face to face with him at GoF two years ago, he was quite a bit taller than me. I was wearing regular shoes vs. his chucks at the time. I'm 5'5" and I was most likely about 5'6" with shoes, and he was taller than me but at least an inch or so. So he's definitely taller than 5'7" and most likely taller than 5'8".
Watching the movie today, standing with the twins, you can see he comes up to around their eyebrows give or take (most likely a bit of take) and I know that's not the best gauge, but it shows that the "weak 5'7"" is clearly wrong.
6'3'' JK said on 13/Jul/07
Well Umad80, Glenn said when he saw Dan he was 5'4'' so i wouldn't deny 5'3'' for Dan maybe, But Rupert Nothing is absolutley without a doubt isn't over 5'7''
Well Umad80, Glenn said when he saw Dan he was 5'4'' so i wouldn't deny 5'3'' for Dan maybe, But Rupert Nothing is absolutley without a doubt isn't over 5'7''
umad80 said on 12/Jul/07
Then Dan is only 5'3" or around there! I was standing no less than a few feet away from them. You can see in this video he's got quite a few inches on Dan. Click Here (I don't know if it's possible to right click, save as that way...) I purposely made sure I focused on Dan and Rupert in their stocking feet. You can see there is more than an inch in height difference! Like I said, for Rupert to be "only 5'7" if he's lucky" then Dan would have to be 5'3".
Then Dan is only 5'3" or around there! I was standing no less than a few feet away from them. You can see in this video he's got quite a few inches on Dan. Click Here (I don't know if it's possible to right click, save as that way...) I purposely made sure I focused on Dan and Rupert in their stocking feet. You can see there is more than an inch in height difference! Like I said, for Rupert to be "only 5'7" if he's lucky" then Dan would have to be 5'3".
Chip said on 12/Jul/07
I'd say Rupert is about 5'8.5", nothing more.
I'd say Rupert is about 5'8.5", nothing more.
6'3'' JK said on 11/Jul/07
Ill still say Rupert is 5'7'' if he is lucky
Ill still say Rupert is 5'7'' if he is lucky
umad80 said on 11/Jul/07
Trust me on this... photos are not the way to figure out the trio's heights. You have to see them in person or even watching videos might help. Rupert is definitely a leaner. He leans a lot into other people. That is why his height tends to fluxate so much.
Click Here - this is when they're in their stocking feet. They didn't put their shoes on until after these pics were taken. You can see that Dan and Emma only come up to Rupert's eyebrows. A little below infact. That's suppose be around 4.5 inches according to the site.
And I was just going through the stuff, what are you guys talking about with Rupert being shorter than Emma at the Paris premiere? The boy, as I mentioned, was leaning in. You can see this in several photos. LOL And when he's not leaning as much, he appears an inch and a half or so taller. Click Here
My guess is Emma is not a legit 5'6" but probably close. And Dan might just well be a legit 5'6"er now. And Rupert is definitely taller than both easily putting him in the range I have for awhile. Having seen them in person, which is the best way to measure Rupert imo, I don't think any of their heights are quite accurate right now. It makes me wonder if the twins are 6'3"... like if they had grown taller or something. I suppose anything is possible. But again, be weary of Rupert in pictures... they are not good to judge his height.
Trust me on this... photos are not the way to figure out the trio's heights. You have to see them in person or even watching videos might help. Rupert is definitely a leaner. He leans a lot into other people. That is why his height tends to fluxate so much.
Click Here - this is when they're in their stocking feet. They didn't put their shoes on until after these pics were taken. You can see that Dan and Emma only come up to Rupert's eyebrows. A little below infact. That's suppose be around 4.5 inches according to the site.
And I was just going through the stuff, what are you guys talking about with Rupert being shorter than Emma at the Paris premiere? The boy, as I mentioned, was leaning in. You can see this in several photos. LOL And when he's not leaning as much, he appears an inch and a half or so taller. Click Here
My guess is Emma is not a legit 5'6" but probably close. And Dan might just well be a legit 5'6"er now. And Rupert is definitely taller than both easily putting him in the range I have for awhile. Having seen them in person, which is the best way to measure Rupert imo, I don't think any of their heights are quite accurate right now. It makes me wonder if the twins are 6'3"... like if they had grown taller or something. I suppose anything is possible. But again, be weary of Rupert in pictures... they are not good to judge his height.
6'3'' JK said on 10/Jul/07
Of course i won't believe you that Rupert is 177cm lol, if Rupert is that height and if he wore shoes he would be 5'11'' (that sounded weird rupert at 5'11'' lol) anytype of footwear will obviously give 3cm, Rupert looked around 5'5.5'' to me without the shoes at the premiere
Of course i won't believe you that Rupert is 177cm lol, if Rupert is that height and if he wore shoes he would be 5'11'' (that sounded weird rupert at 5'11'' lol) anytype of footwear will obviously give 3cm, Rupert looked around 5'5.5'' to me without the shoes at the premiere
Sue said on 10/Jul/07
Big difference. Dan's struggling to hug Rupert. No shoes on. If Dan's 5'6", Rupert must be at least 5'9"
Click Here
Big difference. Dan's struggling to hug Rupert. No shoes on. If Dan's 5'6", Rupert must be at least 5'9"
Click Here
Anna said on 10/Jul/07
Wow, that's so cool that you travelled all the way to LA for the premiere and such, you are very lucky. But you know it's just weird in the photos because doesn't Emma look at least an inch taller than Dan and only about an inch shorter than Rupert when all are barefoot? Click Here
Editor Rob
Wow, that's so cool that you travelled all the way to LA for the premiere and such, you are very lucky. But you know it's just weird in the photos because doesn't Emma look at least an inch taller than Dan and only about an inch shorter than Rupert when all are barefoot? Click Here
Editor Rob I watched that footage and at the end it is clear they are close to within 1/2 inch. Even with all the stuff available you could easily handpick a bunch of pics to argue one way or the other.
umad80 said on 10/Jul/07
6'3" JK, I've seen the trio in person. Up close and personal at the hand, foot, wand ceremony. When they took off their shoes, Rupert was not an inch or two taller than Dan, he was several inches taller. It was the best guage because there was no dicey footware! You don't have to believe me. That's up to you. But I know what I was looking at.
Anna, it was fantastic. I'm actually from Maryland but traveled to LA for it. I also went to NY for the GoF premiere a few years back. To be honest, Emma and Dan seemed the exact some height when they took their shoes off. Maybe a few centimeters difference, but I don't know who had it. lol It's really a blur at this point. But if Dan is 5'6" like he claims, then Emma is 5'6" too.
6'3" JK, I've seen the trio in person. Up close and personal at the hand, foot, wand ceremony. When they took off their shoes, Rupert was not an inch or two taller than Dan, he was several inches taller. It was the best guage because there was no dicey footware! You don't have to believe me. That's up to you. But I know what I was looking at.
Anna, it was fantastic. I'm actually from Maryland but traveled to LA for it. I also went to NY for the GoF premiere a few years back. To be honest, Emma and Dan seemed the exact some height when they took their shoes off. Maybe a few centimeters difference, but I don't know who had it. lol It's really a blur at this point. But if Dan is 5'6" like he claims, then Emma is 5'6" too.
Anna said on 10/Jul/07
I have to say that after the hand print ceremony, Rupert looks 5'8.5" at the most and that's really pushing it. Honestly, I think 5'7.75"-5'8", like Rob has got him at, is around the right listing. It's hard to tell though, but in most photos, he looks barely 1/2"-1" taller than Emma, yet loads taller than Dan, so, like I said, it's hard to tell. Like I said, I would say 5'8.5" at the most, but more likely 5'7.5"-5'8". But that is so amazing that you went to the premiere, was it absolutely fantastic?? Do you live in the LA area, I've personally never been, but I've heard it's really nice there....And how was the movie?? haha and one last thing, who was taller at the hand print ceremony, Emma or Daniel because in a lot of photos, Emma looks taller....?
I have to say that after the hand print ceremony, Rupert looks 5'8.5" at the most and that's really pushing it. Honestly, I think 5'7.75"-5'8", like Rob has got him at, is around the right listing. It's hard to tell though, but in most photos, he looks barely 1/2"-1" taller than Emma, yet loads taller than Dan, so, like I said, it's hard to tell. Like I said, I would say 5'8.5" at the most, but more likely 5'7.5"-5'8". But that is so amazing that you went to the premiere, was it absolutely fantastic?? Do you live in the LA area, I've personally never been, but I've heard it's really nice there....And how was the movie?? haha and one last thing, who was taller at the hand print ceremony, Emma or Daniel because in a lot of photos, Emma looks taller....?
6'3'' JK said on 10/Jul/07
Umad80, There is NO WAY this guy is near 177cms as you say, if you say Rupert is that tall lol you better start calling Daniel Radcliffe 5'8'' - 5'8.5''
Umad80, There is NO WAY this guy is near 177cms as you say, if you say Rupert is that tall lol you better start calling Daniel Radcliffe 5'8'' - 5'8.5''
Anna said on 10/Jul/07
Wow, look at this photo of Emma and Rupert....granted we cannot see their feet, but it looks to be a normal photo, yeah? Click Here
Wow, look at this photo of Emma and Rupert....granted we cannot see their feet, but it looks to be a normal photo, yeah? Click Here
umad80 said on 10/Jul/07
Having seen Rupert in person three times this weekend, I can tell you that his height is very hard to judge. At a press conference I was able to attend, he only looked a few inches taller than Dan. But at the Chinese theatre, with them in their stocking feet, Rupert looked at least 4 inches taller than Dan. And I just went to a taping of Craig Ferguson a few hours ago and Rupert seemed shorter. It was hard to judge that brief few moments, so you might want to catch that on the 13th, but I dunno. It's odd. Oh, and at the premiere I saw him talking to Entertainment Tonight, I don't know who was doing the interview, but he only seemed a little bit shorter where Dan looked to be eye level. She was wearing heels too.
IMO either some are wearing dodgy footware (lifts, etc.) or Rupert is just so laid back that it can be hard to tell at times. That is why his height varies with people. But my honest opinion is that Rupert is between 5'9" and 5'10".
Having seen Rupert in person three times this weekend, I can tell you that his height is very hard to judge. At a press conference I was able to attend, he only looked a few inches taller than Dan. But at the Chinese theatre, with them in their stocking feet, Rupert looked at least 4 inches taller than Dan. And I just went to a taping of Craig Ferguson a few hours ago and Rupert seemed shorter. It was hard to judge that brief few moments, so you might want to catch that on the 13th, but I dunno. It's odd. Oh, and at the premiere I saw him talking to Entertainment Tonight, I don't know who was doing the interview, but he only seemed a little bit shorter where Dan looked to be eye level. She was wearing heels too.
IMO either some are wearing dodgy footware (lifts, etc.) or Rupert is just so laid back that it can be hard to tell at times. That is why his height varies with people. But my honest opinion is that Rupert is between 5'9" and 5'10".
Sue said on 9/Jul/07
Check the hand-foot-wand event at the Chinese Theater. They're wearing no shoes. Dan's a LOT shorter than Rupert, and Emma is just a tad shorter than Dan.
Check the hand-foot-wand event at the Chinese Theater. They're wearing no shoes. Dan's a LOT shorter than Rupert, and Emma is just a tad shorter than Dan.
Anna said on 9/Jul/07
Argh, it's so annoying, in all of the photos that I've seen from the LA premiere, Emma is slouching so much and the angles are so odd that it's extremely hard to judge heights. Plus, Dan was wearing some very dodgy footwear in my opinion, I'd like to hear what people think of his footwear....Anyway, maybe better ones will come, but the footprint ceremony is tomorow so I think we'll see that Emma and Rupert are quite a bit taller than Dan. Dan will also be on Jay Leno tomorrow night and I think the trio are set to be on MTV TRL or so I've been told...haha. And I didn't know there was a place to ask her questions on her official site, interesting....
Argh, it's so annoying, in all of the photos that I've seen from the LA premiere, Emma is slouching so much and the angles are so odd that it's extremely hard to judge heights. Plus, Dan was wearing some very dodgy footwear in my opinion, I'd like to hear what people think of his footwear....Anyway, maybe better ones will come, but the footprint ceremony is tomorow so I think we'll see that Emma and Rupert are quite a bit taller than Dan. Dan will also be on Jay Leno tomorrow night and I think the trio are set to be on MTV TRL or so I've been told...haha. And I didn't know there was a place to ask her questions on her official site, interesting....
Anonymous said on 8/Jul/07
rather than bicker over it, maybe you could ask her on her official website and see what she says. although, some girls i know are a bit sensitive about discussing their height so yeah
rather than bicker over it, maybe you could ask her on her official website and see what she says. although, some girls i know are a bit sensitive about discussing their height so yeah
6'3'' JK said on 8/Jul/07
I was deceived by the shoes, anyways she is 2 inches shorter than Rupert who is 5'7''
I was deceived by the shoes, anyways she is 2 inches shorter than Rupert who is 5'7''
hello said on 8/Jul/07
At the Paris photocall, Emma's shoes may look like flats but they had maybe an inch heel, Click Here
Lol, she has very deceiving shoes.
Editor Rob
At the Paris photocall, Emma's shoes may look like flats but they had maybe an inch heel, Click Here
Lol, she has very deceiving shoes.
Editor Rob here's a higher res, to me it looked like a faux design because, flat then at the back overcut, its hard to say exactly though - See Here. If it was 3/4 inch her 5ft 6 claim from all those pics wouldn't hold much water
Anna said on 7/Jul/07
Are you completely ignroing the photos from the photo call? Emma, like Rob said, was wearing ~1/4" flats and Rupert was wearing 1/2" Converse and she barely looked 1 to 2 inches shorter than Rupert. So, where are you coming up with this rubbish that Rupert's only 5'7" and Emma would be 3 to 4 inches shorter than him if she took off heels....why are you using the conditional? We have photos. This is what I was talking about, you automatically assume that celebrities are about 1 or 2 inches shorter than they say....why?
Editor Rob
Are you completely ignroing the photos from the photo call? Emma, like Rob said, was wearing ~1/4" flats and Rupert was wearing 1/2" Converse and she barely looked 1 to 2 inches shorter than Rupert. So, where are you coming up with this rubbish that Rupert's only 5'7" and Emma would be 3 to 4 inches shorter than him if she took off heels....why are you using the conditional? We have photos. This is what I was talking about, you automatically assume that celebrities are about 1 or 2 inches shorter than they say....why?
Editor Rob some of those pics you posted from railway paris had the angle taking at least 1 inch from their heights.
6'3'' JK said on 7/Jul/07
ahahahaaha, nice proof Rob, Rupert really looks around that 5'7'' mark to me now, take off the heels and Emma would look around 3 - 4 inches shorter!? she is most probably 5'4''
ahahahaaha, nice proof Rob, Rupert really looks around that 5'7'' mark to me now, take off the heels and Emma would look around 3 - 4 inches shorter!? she is most probably 5'4''
Anna said on 7/Jul/07
Here are some other photos from the Paris photo call. She seems to be about 1" to 2" shorter in my opinion, although sometimes it even looks like a smaller gap than that. Click Here Click Here Click Here
Here are some other photos from the Paris photo call. She seems to be about 1" to 2" shorter in my opinion, although sometimes it even looks like a smaller gap than that. Click Here Click Here Click Here
Anna said on 7/Jul/07
What of those Paris photos with Emma in 1/4" flats (?) and Rupert in 1/2" (?) Converse? I mean, she doesn't really look to be standing up as straight as him, does she? For example, look at this photo that I posted earlier Click Here Emma has everything against her and is not standing nearly as straight as Rupert, yet looks to be past his eyebrows, so presumably, she could be only 1"-2" shorter than him if she stood up straight. And in heels she looked about 1/2"-1" taller than him in 2" heels (?), which would again fit the conclusion that she's 1"-2" shorter than Rupert. I just don't see how you can argue that Rupert's anything less than a strong 5'8" to 5'9" either after seeing those photos of him and Tom Felton. Search 'Rupert Grint Tom Felton' on Getty and you will see that Rupert isn't much shorter than Tom even with a 1/2"-1" footwear disadvantage. It also makes the idea of Emma being anything less than 5'6" pretty unlikely as well.
What of those Paris photos with Emma in 1/4" flats (?) and Rupert in 1/2" (?) Converse? I mean, she doesn't really look to be standing up as straight as him, does she? For example, look at this photo that I posted earlier Click Here Emma has everything against her and is not standing nearly as straight as Rupert, yet looks to be past his eyebrows, so presumably, she could be only 1"-2" shorter than him if she stood up straight. And in heels she looked about 1/2"-1" taller than him in 2" heels (?), which would again fit the conclusion that she's 1"-2" shorter than Rupert. I just don't see how you can argue that Rupert's anything less than a strong 5'8" to 5'9" either after seeing those photos of him and Tom Felton. Search 'Rupert Grint Tom Felton' on Getty and you will see that Rupert isn't much shorter than Tom even with a 1/2"-1" footwear disadvantage. It also makes the idea of Emma being anything less than 5'6" pretty unlikely as well.
6'3'' JK said on 7/Jul/07
Rob can you take Rupert down a bit to just 5'7'', as you can see by those pics he was shorter than Emma who was wearing heels and he also dosen't look a legit near enough 5'8''
Editor Rob
Rob can you take Rupert down a bit to just 5'7'', as you can see by those pics he was shorter than Emma who was wearing heels and he also dosen't look a legit near enough 5'8''
Editor Robdid you see the paris pics where he has cons, she I think ballerina 1/4 inchers
Anna said on 7/Jul/07
He looked about 5'8"-5'8.5" in those photos with Tom, which leads me to believe that he is in that 5'8"-5'9" range easily. However, I'm just wondering, what did people think of those photos of Emma and Rupert in flats, didn't Emma look about 2 inches shorter than Rupert and they were in equal footwear? You must also keep in mind that Emma was slouching even more so than him. Anyways, this Sunday is the LA premiere, where I think the handprints ceremony will take place (?), so we may get some good, conclusive photos from that. I do think that 5'5" for Dan and Katie, 5'6"-5'7" for Emma, and 5'8"-5'9" for Rupert are pretty accurate listings though; it would explain why Emma looks taller than Rupert in heels such as in this photo Click Here .
He looked about 5'8"-5'8.5" in those photos with Tom, which leads me to believe that he is in that 5'8"-5'9" range easily. However, I'm just wondering, what did people think of those photos of Emma and Rupert in flats, didn't Emma look about 2 inches shorter than Rupert and they were in equal footwear? You must also keep in mind that Emma was slouching even more so than him. Anyways, this Sunday is the LA premiere, where I think the handprints ceremony will take place (?), so we may get some good, conclusive photos from that. I do think that 5'5" for Dan and Katie, 5'6"-5'7" for Emma, and 5'8"-5'9" for Rupert are pretty accurate listings though; it would explain why Emma looks taller than Rupert in heels such as in this photo Click Here .
Anna said on 6/Jul/07
Well, I wouldn't exactly say he appeared taller in all photos, especially when she was standing up straight. Did you see the photos of the Paris premiere, when her heels really weren't that large? She was taller than him by close to an inch when standing up straight.
Well, I wouldn't exactly say he appeared taller in all photos, especially when she was standing up straight. Did you see the photos of the Paris premiere, when her heels really weren't that large? She was taller than him by close to an inch when standing up straight.
umad80 said on 6/Jul/07
No way was Rupert shorter than Tom! Sure if you want with the ones where he was leaning down, but if you want with the one of similiar posture, Rupert was only a smidgen shorter and Tom was wearing dress shoes! If Emma is 5'6" like her official site says, then her heels are making her 5'8", meaning Rupert is taller than 5'8"! Because he was appearing taller in EVERYTHING with her with heels! Even if by a little bit, he was still taller!
No way was Rupert shorter than Tom! Sure if you want with the ones where he was leaning down, but if you want with the one of similiar posture, Rupert was only a smidgen shorter and Tom was wearing dress shoes! If Emma is 5'6" like her official site says, then her heels are making her 5'8", meaning Rupert is taller than 5'8"! Because he was appearing taller in EVERYTHING with her with heels! Even if by a little bit, he was still taller!
Scarlett said on 6/Jul/07
Emma is 5'6 MAX!! Thats what her website says, she's no taller. I'd put her as a little bit under, maybe 5'5.5 altho 5'6 is a possibilty. Ruper i think is about 5'8.5 ish. Dan is about 5'6.
Emma is 5'6 MAX!! Thats what her website says, she's no taller. I'd put her as a little bit under, maybe 5'5.5 altho 5'6 is a possibilty. Ruper i think is about 5'8.5 ish. Dan is about 5'6.
Anna said on 6/Jul/07
Yes, but she's never standing up straight and when she actually does, she looks more than an inch taller than Rupert and loads taller than Dan and Katie, who seem to be about 5'5". I know that I keep chaning my listings, but honestly, does it matter? It's a site for fun, not an examination that's going to determine the rest of your life. So, I would say Rupert's 5'8"-5'9" because Emma had about 1/2"-1" on him in very small heels at the French premiere, Emma is 5'6"-5'7" (5'6" is also what her official site has her listed as and I don't really see why they/she would upgrade her height), and Dan and Katie are ~5'5".
Yes, but she's never standing up straight and when she actually does, she looks more than an inch taller than Rupert and loads taller than Dan and Katie, who seem to be about 5'5". I know that I keep chaning my listings, but honestly, does it matter? It's a site for fun, not an examination that's going to determine the rest of your life. So, I would say Rupert's 5'8"-5'9" because Emma had about 1/2"-1" on him in very small heels at the French premiere, Emma is 5'6"-5'7" (5'6" is also what her official site has her listed as and I don't really see why they/she would upgrade her height), and Dan and Katie are ~5'5".
6'3'' JK said on 5/Jul/07
SHE IS WEARING HEELS !!!!!!! Id give her about 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' in heels, Rupert id say is still about 5'7'', Tom Who is is 5'9'' looked to 2 - 3 inches on him at the premiere, I think Rob is being Very generous by giving Rupert 5'7.75''
SHE IS WEARING HEELS !!!!!!! Id give her about 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' in heels, Rupert id say is still about 5'7'', Tom Who is is 5'9'' looked to 2 - 3 inches on him at the premiere, I think Rob is being Very generous by giving Rupert 5'7.75''
Anna said on 5/Jul/07
How tall is Tom then, 5'6.5" to 5'7"? I find that very hard to believe seeing as he is listed as 6'1" on some sites (wrongly I might add, but still) and 5'9" on this site, although he does look closer to 5'10" in most photos. I think the new photos of Rupert and Emma prove that Emma can be nothing less than 5'7" and Rupert nothing less than 5'9", although I am still questioning Dan. He looks to be in the 5'5"-5'6" range though, his posture and footwear really give him an advantage over others. And this was the only shot from the UK premiere where I found Emma to be standing straight Click Here She looks about an inch or so taller than Rupert (he is slouching, took that into consideration) and she looks a fair deal taller than Katie and Dan. It's not concrete, I just thought it was interesting.
How tall is Tom then, 5'6.5" to 5'7"? I find that very hard to believe seeing as he is listed as 6'1" on some sites (wrongly I might add, but still) and 5'9" on this site, although he does look closer to 5'10" in most photos. I think the new photos of Rupert and Emma prove that Emma can be nothing less than 5'7" and Rupert nothing less than 5'9", although I am still questioning Dan. He looks to be in the 5'5"-5'6" range though, his posture and footwear really give him an advantage over others. And this was the only shot from the UK premiere where I found Emma to be standing straight Click Here She looks about an inch or so taller than Rupert (he is slouching, took that into consideration) and she looks a fair deal taller than Katie and Dan. It's not concrete, I just thought it was interesting.
6'3'' JK said on 5/Jul/07
Judging by those pics, i don't think Rupert is 5'6.5'' anymore, He really looks like a near enough 5'7'' guy now
Judging by those pics, i don't think Rupert is 5'6.5'' anymore, He really looks like a near enough 5'7'' guy now
Anna said on 5/Jul/07
Thanks for the cooperation umad80, it is very much appreciated. And I just have to say, you have me totally convinced with Rueprt's height of ~5'9" with the Tom picture, but what really confuses me still is Emma's and Dan's heights. Yes, Emma did wear heels to the UK premiere, but was it just me or did she slouch even more than Rupert? I mean, honestly, she was constantly bending her legs and tilting her head to look shorter, it was actually a bit annoying. I think she was, obviously, doing it to make herself more Rupert's height and attempting to look as short as Dan (whose shoes seemed to give him a bit mroe than the average dress shoe (?)....look at pictures at the London photocall compared to the premiere), but even with the dress shoes he still looks loads shorter than Emma when she stands up straight (and interestingly, I've only seen one photo where she does this). Anyways, I think that the only things we can really draw from the UK premiere are that Rupert really is closer to 5'9" or maybe a bit more, Dan wears dodgy footwear, and Emma seems to have become more of a sloucher than Rupert. So, I think that if we wait for the Hollywood ceremony (where they all should be wearing tennis shoes, however, do you think they will take photos of this event?) we will get a more accurate comparison of Dan compared to Emma and Rupert. However, today, Rupert and Emma attended some French Harry Potter events and to a photocall, Emma actually wore flats and Rupert, of course, wore Converse. Here is the photo. Click Here Now I guess I have proven to be kind of rubbish at this, but the difference really does not look that big in my opinion and Rupert is actually standing up almost perfectly straight wheras Emma is obviously slouching. The footwear situation seems pretty even, so I would say that if Rupert is 5'9" (umad80 you were even saying up to 5'10", correct?), Emma would have to be at the very least 5'7" because that difference really doesn't look more than 2 inches (again, I'm not very sure, I'm kind of going off of what you said was a 1/2" difference between Rupert and Tom) plus she is slouching much more than Rupert. Later on in the day they attended the actual premiere and Emma wore medium sized heels and Rupert wore his Converse. Now, there are no absolutely great photos to judge heights, but this one Click Here seemed to be the best. The shot was taken from slightly above, as can be seen by the floor, so Rupert may be getting a little bit of height from that advantage. Also, he is standing up straighter than Emma (who seems to be in about 2"-2.5" heels, although they are most likely more around 2"), so he is also getting an advantage there. Neveretheless, Emma still looks to be up to Rupert's height and presumably, if she stood up straighter, at his level, etc., she would be about 1/2"-1" taller than him. So, let's first put everything against Emma: her heels were 2.5" and she is 5'7", so in the heels she would be 5'9.5". We've pretty much concluded that Rupert has got to be 5'8"-5'9"+, so it would make perfect sense if Emma were 5'7". Don't these pictures prove that she's really only about 2 inches shorter than the 5'9" or so Rupert (seeing as that is what Tom's listed at and Rupert really could be taller than Tom)? And just one last thing. If you would like, search 'order of the phoenix uk premiere' at youtube.com and you will find interviews with Emma, Rupert, Dan, and Jo Rowling done by the same lady. Seeing as the actual photos taken were kind of rubbish, it's sort of interesting to see them all compared to the same person and kind of standing up straight. And here is a shot of Emma's heels at the Paris premiere, which are surprsingly not that large. Click Here I would say 2 inches if not slightly under or over.... Sorry for the long-windedness, but if you don't want to read, just click on the links and you'll see why I think Emma is 5'7"/5'7.5" and Rupert is 5'9"/5'9.5".
Thanks for the cooperation umad80, it is very much appreciated. And I just have to say, you have me totally convinced with Rueprt's height of ~5'9" with the Tom picture, but what really confuses me still is Emma's and Dan's heights. Yes, Emma did wear heels to the UK premiere, but was it just me or did she slouch even more than Rupert? I mean, honestly, she was constantly bending her legs and tilting her head to look shorter, it was actually a bit annoying. I think she was, obviously, doing it to make herself more Rupert's height and attempting to look as short as Dan (whose shoes seemed to give him a bit mroe than the average dress shoe (?)....look at pictures at the London photocall compared to the premiere), but even with the dress shoes he still looks loads shorter than Emma when she stands up straight (and interestingly, I've only seen one photo where she does this). Anyways, I think that the only things we can really draw from the UK premiere are that Rupert really is closer to 5'9" or maybe a bit more, Dan wears dodgy footwear, and Emma seems to have become more of a sloucher than Rupert. So, I think that if we wait for the Hollywood ceremony (where they all should be wearing tennis shoes, however, do you think they will take photos of this event?) we will get a more accurate comparison of Dan compared to Emma and Rupert. However, today, Rupert and Emma attended some French Harry Potter events and to a photocall, Emma actually wore flats and Rupert, of course, wore Converse. Here is the photo. Click Here Now I guess I have proven to be kind of rubbish at this, but the difference really does not look that big in my opinion and Rupert is actually standing up almost perfectly straight wheras Emma is obviously slouching. The footwear situation seems pretty even, so I would say that if Rupert is 5'9" (umad80 you were even saying up to 5'10", correct?), Emma would have to be at the very least 5'7" because that difference really doesn't look more than 2 inches (again, I'm not very sure, I'm kind of going off of what you said was a 1/2" difference between Rupert and Tom) plus she is slouching much more than Rupert. Later on in the day they attended the actual premiere and Emma wore medium sized heels and Rupert wore his Converse. Now, there are no absolutely great photos to judge heights, but this one Click Here seemed to be the best. The shot was taken from slightly above, as can be seen by the floor, so Rupert may be getting a little bit of height from that advantage. Also, he is standing up straighter than Emma (who seems to be in about 2"-2.5" heels, although they are most likely more around 2"), so he is also getting an advantage there. Neveretheless, Emma still looks to be up to Rupert's height and presumably, if she stood up straighter, at his level, etc., she would be about 1/2"-1" taller than him. So, let's first put everything against Emma: her heels were 2.5" and she is 5'7", so in the heels she would be 5'9.5". We've pretty much concluded that Rupert has got to be 5'8"-5'9"+, so it would make perfect sense if Emma were 5'7". Don't these pictures prove that she's really only about 2 inches shorter than the 5'9" or so Rupert (seeing as that is what Tom's listed at and Rupert really could be taller than Tom)? And just one last thing. If you would like, search 'order of the phoenix uk premiere' at youtube.com and you will find interviews with Emma, Rupert, Dan, and Jo Rowling done by the same lady. Seeing as the actual photos taken were kind of rubbish, it's sort of interesting to see them all compared to the same person and kind of standing up straight. And here is a shot of Emma's heels at the Paris premiere, which are surprsingly not that large. Click Here I would say 2 inches if not slightly under or over.... Sorry for the long-windedness, but if you don't want to read, just click on the links and you'll see why I think Emma is 5'7"/5'7.5" and Rupert is 5'9"/5'9.5".
Anonymous said on 4/Jul/07
wow. a lot of arguing here about dear rupert's height. considering the premiere is approaching fast, let's leave it to that time. anyway, concerning his stature, in pictures, he is always 2-2.5 inches taller than dan and emma. emma IS 5'5" max at thsi point so i think that rob has rupert's height pinpointed. 5'7.5"-5'8" is perfect at the moment
wow. a lot of arguing here about dear rupert's height. considering the premiere is approaching fast, let's leave it to that time. anyway, concerning his stature, in pictures, he is always 2-2.5 inches taller than dan and emma. emma IS 5'5" max at thsi point so i think that rob has rupert's height pinpointed. 5'7.5"-5'8" is perfect at the moment
Evanna said on 4/Jul/07
umad80, Grint can not be close to 5'10" because in the pictures from Paris premiere he looks considerably shorter than 6 foot(ish) David Yates. 5'8", that's what he is, maybe just a tad above, but no more.
umad80, Grint can not be close to 5'10" because in the pictures from Paris premiere he looks considerably shorter than 6 foot(ish) David Yates. 5'8", that's what he is, maybe just a tad above, but no more.
umad80 said on 4/Jul/07
Oh, the picture moved... Click Here
There are others, but Rupert seems to be leaning a lot or Tom ends up leaning. I think this is probably the best one to show that Rupert is only maybe a half inch shorter than Tom. They seem to have pretty similiar posture (Rupert might be a leaning a bit, so he might be the exact same height as Tom), but Tom has dress shoes on and Rupert has chucks. Meaning that Tom has a half inch to three quaters of an inch on Rupert in footware.
Oh, the picture moved... Click Here
There are others, but Rupert seems to be leaning a lot or Tom ends up leaning. I think this is probably the best one to show that Rupert is only maybe a half inch shorter than Tom. They seem to have pretty similiar posture (Rupert might be a leaning a bit, so he might be the exact same height as Tom), but Tom has dress shoes on and Rupert has chucks. Meaning that Tom has a half inch to three quaters of an inch on Rupert in footware.
umad80 said on 4/Jul/07
Yeah Evanna, that picture of him and Tom had me cracking up. Just because some people were insistant that he was not taller than Tom. But if you look at it, Rupert might be a smidgen shorter, but Tom has like maybe 3 quaters of an inch with footware. So Rupert is actually taller!! Click Here
So either the twins are taller than 6'3" or Rupert never has good posture with them. Because it's obvious to me that Rupert can indeed be close to the 5'10" that I've always said he was at. And finally, around Dan in dress shoes, and he has several inches on the boy who claims to be 5'6".
Yeah Evanna, that picture of him and Tom had me cracking up. Just because some people were insistant that he was not taller than Tom. But if you look at it, Rupert might be a smidgen shorter, but Tom has like maybe 3 quaters of an inch with footware. So Rupert is actually taller!! Click Here
So either the twins are taller than 6'3" or Rupert never has good posture with them. Because it's obvious to me that Rupert can indeed be close to the 5'10" that I've always said he was at. And finally, around Dan in dress shoes, and he has several inches on the boy who claims to be 5'6".
Evanna said on 4/Jul/07
umad80, there's no point in posting premiere pics just yet, because the galleries are still incomplete, and the editors will be moving pictures around. But indeed there's a bunch of premiere photos at Getty, and Grint is around the same height as Tom Felton, and noticeably taller than both Radcliffe in dress shoes and Emma in high heels. I agree that anything under 5'8" for Grint is out of question.
umad80, there's no point in posting premiere pics just yet, because the galleries are still incomplete, and the editors will be moving pictures around. But indeed there's a bunch of premiere photos at Getty, and Grint is around the same height as Tom Felton, and noticeably taller than both Radcliffe in dress shoes and Emma in high heels. I agree that anything under 5'8" for Grint is out of question.
umad80 said on 3/Jul/07
Okay, Dan's got extra height being in dress shoes while Rupert is wearing converse: Click Here I think under 5'8" is a travesty at this point.
Okay, Dan's got extra height being in dress shoes while Rupert is wearing converse: Click Here I think under 5'8" is a travesty at this point.
Sue said on 3/Jul/07
Since i believe it has been established he's not 5'7", why isn't his height fixed yet?
Since i believe it has been established he's not 5'7", why isn't his height fixed yet?
umad80 said on 2/Jul/07
I don't think anyone is saying you have to agree with us or disagree with the site. I also don't agree with what Anna has been saying. But I believe Rupert is taller than what you want to believe. Which is my right. And the recent photos prove that he is a few inches taller than Dan (same footware; different postures though) and looked close to an inch taller than the heeled Emma when behind her. I don't think the claim of Rupert's height being more than 5'7.75" is unreasonable. You don't have to agree, but you don't have to really laugh at anyone with a different view point or be rude. I mean, this is all in fun, right? No one but Rupert knows his true height...
I don't think anyone is saying you have to agree with us or disagree with the site. I also don't agree with what Anna has been saying. But I believe Rupert is taller than what you want to believe. Which is my right. And the recent photos prove that he is a few inches taller than Dan (same footware; different postures though) and looked close to an inch taller than the heeled Emma when behind her. I don't think the claim of Rupert's height being more than 5'7.75" is unreasonable. You don't have to agree, but you don't have to really laugh at anyone with a different view point or be rude. I mean, this is all in fun, right? No one but Rupert knows his true height...
6'3'' JK said on 2/Jul/07
I agree with the Trios height listed on this site, and are you talking to the Anna who was saying that Radcliffe was 5'3.5'' a couple of months ago?? are you telling me tha Dan grew two inches just to make your poing "RIGHT" about Emma being 5'7'' and Rupert being 5'9'', You can't fool us, we're not stupid
I agree with the Trios height listed on this site, and are you talking to the Anna who was saying that Radcliffe was 5'3.5'' a couple of months ago?? are you telling me tha Dan grew two inches just to make your poing "RIGHT" about Emma being 5'7'' and Rupert being 5'9'', You can't fool us, we're not stupid
umad80 said on 2/Jul/07
Anna, it can be utterly fustrating at times. Like you said, we might not agree, but I'm totally cool with your thinking. I don't think saying Emma is 5'7" is out of the ordinary even if I don't agree. It's your opinion. Just like Rupert being 5'9" shouldn't be out of the ordinary. It's not like I'm saying he's 6'3"! LOL But I think a lot of these latest pictures prove the trio may be taller than the heights given here. Dan looks like he could be between 5'5.5" and 5'6", Emma hard to judge with the heels but it is possible she's a half inch taller than the 5'5" because she has quite a few inches on Dan in her heels. And Rupert is still quite a few inches taller (than Dan especially, hard to tell with Emma sometimes) and he usually is leaning to the side or standing comfortably and not raising himself up to his full height.
Anna, it can be utterly fustrating at times. Like you said, we might not agree, but I'm totally cool with your thinking. I don't think saying Emma is 5'7" is out of the ordinary even if I don't agree. It's your opinion. Just like Rupert being 5'9" shouldn't be out of the ordinary. It's not like I'm saying he's 6'3"! LOL But I think a lot of these latest pictures prove the trio may be taller than the heights given here. Dan looks like he could be between 5'5.5" and 5'6", Emma hard to judge with the heels but it is possible she's a half inch taller than the 5'5" because she has quite a few inches on Dan in her heels. And Rupert is still quite a few inches taller (than Dan especially, hard to tell with Emma sometimes) and he usually is leaning to the side or standing comfortably and not raising himself up to his full height.
umad80 said on 2/Jul/07
I don't think Rob is not infallible. I would assume he'd be the first to tell you that this is based on his own judgement and that he could be absolutely wrong.
Truth is, Emma with her 2-2.5" heels and usually standing in front of Rupert and he usually was still taller. (Depending on the angle and how he was standing.) Therefore we can definitely argue that 5'7.75" might be under what he truly is. Also look at how much Emma has to struggle to put her arm around Rupert in shots where they're all standing together. One can assume she's pushing him down a bit, and he's probably slouching down. With her probably around 5'7.5" with those heels on, it's quite possible Rupert is losing an inch or so in those photos just because I think if she and Rupert were the same height, she wouldn't have to strain herself to put her arm around his shoulders.
Rob judging from the picture I provided in my last post, would you say that Emma has another inch advantage on Rupert? I'm curious because I really don't know how to measure for that. hehe
I don't think Rob is not infallible. I would assume he'd be the first to tell you that this is based on his own judgement and that he could be absolutely wrong.
Truth is, Emma with her 2-2.5" heels and usually standing in front of Rupert and he usually was still taller. (Depending on the angle and how he was standing.) Therefore we can definitely argue that 5'7.75" might be under what he truly is. Also look at how much Emma has to struggle to put her arm around Rupert in shots where they're all standing together. One can assume she's pushing him down a bit, and he's probably slouching down. With her probably around 5'7.5" with those heels on, it's quite possible Rupert is losing an inch or so in those photos just because I think if she and Rupert were the same height, she wouldn't have to strain herself to put her arm around his shoulders.
Rob judging from the picture I provided in my last post, would you say that Emma has another inch advantage on Rupert? I'm curious because I really don't know how to measure for that. hehe
Anna said on 1/Jul/07
No, I honestly don't think Rob would, not trying to be offensive, but I honestly think he is too busy to care. Or I sort of hope he is too busy to care. I'm not saying that I'm not on here a lot, but it is the summer for me and, well, I actually find it quite fun to annoy people, but I really do think Rupert's 5'8/5'9" and Emma is 5'7" at the least and I actually quite hate it when people are so stubborn to think otherwise. Although umad80 and I disagree about some things, I think we can agree that it's annoying when people don't open their minds at all. But overall, I'm sorry, but it's fun to see how you lot react; it's like if somebody says something out of the ordinary they are incredibly and utterly stupid and a right blow up is required or much harrassmnet. It's not a big deal though, it doesn't really affect anything or anyone. And that's good evidence umad80, with the BAFTAs thing, although I find it really random that they measured their heights. That's actually sort of funny when you think about it.
No, I honestly don't think Rob would, not trying to be offensive, but I honestly think he is too busy to care. Or I sort of hope he is too busy to care. I'm not saying that I'm not on here a lot, but it is the summer for me and, well, I actually find it quite fun to annoy people, but I really do think Rupert's 5'8/5'9" and Emma is 5'7" at the least and I actually quite hate it when people are so stubborn to think otherwise. Although umad80 and I disagree about some things, I think we can agree that it's annoying when people don't open their minds at all. But overall, I'm sorry, but it's fun to see how you lot react; it's like if somebody says something out of the ordinary they are incredibly and utterly stupid and a right blow up is required or much harrassmnet. It's not a big deal though, it doesn't really affect anything or anyone. And that's good evidence umad80, with the BAFTAs thing, although I find it really random that they measured their heights. That's actually sort of funny when you think about it.
6'3'' JK said on 1/Jul/07
Look Rupert is not a 5'9'' guy face it, If he was then Daniel and Emma would have to be 5'7'' which they are not, Rupert is the only one who is 5'7'' from them, and he is 2 inhes shorter than Tom Felton who IS 5'9'', If Rupert was 5'9'' (lol) don't you think Rob would have upgraded him from 5'7''???
Look Rupert is not a 5'9'' guy face it, If he was then Daniel and Emma would have to be 5'7'' which they are not, Rupert is the only one who is 5'7'' from them, and he is 2 inhes shorter than Tom Felton who IS 5'9'', If Rupert was 5'9'' (lol) don't you think Rob would have upgraded him from 5'7''???
umad80 said on 30/Jun/07
Incorrect mathematics doesn't matter? You're arguing with me over what someone said at an award show when introducing them. If it's said they equal 11'9" then you can't argue with ME about Rupert's height. You have to wonder why they would say that and maybe give in the idea that they know something you don't.
oh, and it does when he stands behind them and is still taller.
Point is, you keep saying it as fact, but you have to wonder where Stephen Fry and the BAFTAs got this measurement. Rupert is not a person to stand straight. He leans into people in his photos. And at times puts his head down. He is very hard to get an accurate measurement. In 2005 he looked an inch to a half inch shorter than Tom Felton.
Emma Watson seems to be wearing 2" to 2.5" heels at the OotP Photocall. Many times Rupert is standing behind her and still manages to be taller. Click Here - now I know her leg is a bit bent but it doesn't seem to be in such a way to reduce height (as she looks the same in comparison next to Dan) and again she IS standing in front.
I am a Rupert fan, and one thing I know of this guy is that he leans. It's not as bad as it used to be, but he never stands perfectly straight. And knowing him, I wonder if the 'about 5'8" comment was more he was measured at 5'8.5" but instead of giving that half inch he just said "about 5'8". Of course, about a month later he said he was 5'7" and around that same time an article came out claiming the 5'10" deal. LOL
Rob, how much taller can a person be if they're standing in front?
Editor Rob
Incorrect mathematics doesn't matter? You're arguing with me over what someone said at an award show when introducing them. If it's said they equal 11'9" then you can't argue with ME about Rupert's height. You have to wonder why they would say that and maybe give in the idea that they know something you don't.
oh, and it does when he stands behind them and is still taller.
Point is, you keep saying it as fact, but you have to wonder where Stephen Fry and the BAFTAs got this measurement. Rupert is not a person to stand straight. He leans into people in his photos. And at times puts his head down. He is very hard to get an accurate measurement. In 2005 he looked an inch to a half inch shorter than Tom Felton.
Emma Watson seems to be wearing 2" to 2.5" heels at the OotP Photocall. Many times Rupert is standing behind her and still manages to be taller. Click Here - now I know her leg is a bit bent but it doesn't seem to be in such a way to reduce height (as she looks the same in comparison next to Dan) and again she IS standing in front.
I am a Rupert fan, and one thing I know of this guy is that he leans. It's not as bad as it used to be, but he never stands perfectly straight. And knowing him, I wonder if the 'about 5'8" comment was more he was measured at 5'8.5" but instead of giving that half inch he just said "about 5'8". Of course, about a month later he said he was 5'7" and around that same time an article came out claiming the 5'10" deal. LOL
Rob, how much taller can a person be if they're standing in front?
Editor Rob its complicated. It depends on how high the camera is, how many inches between the faces and the closeness of the camera to them. The closer the camera usually the greater the enhancing of differences.
I might one day show something about this, rather than using the pens.
I might one day show something about this, rather than using the pens.
6'3'' JK said on 30/Jun/07
The "incorrect" mathematics don't matter, I can't just Imaging Rupert Being same height as Tom Felton, 5'9'' Guys are guys Like Jesse Mccartney, Pharrell Williams Or Wayne Rooney, I can't imagine him even being near the same height as them lol, just because he is only a bit taller than his other two co-stars dosen't make him "5'9''"
The "incorrect" mathematics don't matter, I can't just Imaging Rupert Being same height as Tom Felton, 5'9'' Guys are guys Like Jesse Mccartney, Pharrell Williams Or Wayne Rooney, I can't imagine him even being near the same height as them lol, just because he is only a bit taller than his other two co-stars dosen't make him "5'9''"
umad80 said on 30/Jun/07
6'3" JK, I don't mean to be rude, but are you even doing the math? For them to equal out 11 feet, 9 inches, Mosely would have to be 6'1.25" for Rupert to be 5'7.75". (More than that for it to work on your 5'6.5" to 5'7") Or Will would have to be 6' and Rupert at 5'9". It's simple math. Try it.
Look, maybe this will help.
6'0"
5'9"
----
11'9" = What Stephen Fry said they equaled too.
Or, to go with what is on the site...
6'1.25"
5'7.75"
------
11'9.00" = what Stephen Fry said again.
Now either the BAFTAs guestimated for their little introduction or they actually measured them in their shoes. Making Will actually 5'11" like he claimed, but 6' with the dress shoes on. And Rupert about 5'8.5" but 5'9" with his converse.
6'3" JK, I don't mean to be rude, but are you even doing the math? For them to equal out 11 feet, 9 inches, Mosely would have to be 6'1.25" for Rupert to be 5'7.75". (More than that for it to work on your 5'6.5" to 5'7") Or Will would have to be 6' and Rupert at 5'9". It's simple math. Try it.
Look, maybe this will help.
6'0"
5'9"
----
11'9" = What Stephen Fry said they equaled too.
Or, to go with what is on the site...
6'1.25"
5'7.75"
------
11'9.00" = what Stephen Fry said again.
Now either the BAFTAs guestimated for their little introduction or they actually measured them in their shoes. Making Will actually 5'11" like he claimed, but 6' with the dress shoes on. And Rupert about 5'8.5" but 5'9" with his converse.
6'3'' JK said on 30/Jun/07
Or either Moseley isn't wearing lifts and Rupert is just 5'7'', The truth is sometimes hard for people to handle
Or either Moseley isn't wearing lifts and Rupert is just 5'7'', The truth is sometimes hard for people to handle
umad80 said on 29/Jun/07
I don't know why I didn't realize this before, but when William Mosely and Rupert were presenting at the BAFTAs, host Stephen Fry gave them a combined height of "eleven feet and nine inches". Quick math would suggest for Rupert's height to be on the money here, William would have be 6'1.25" and only way to do that since celebheights insist on 5'10.25" is really big lifts. Now if we go by the fact that William says he's 5'11" then, if they were measured in their footware before they went on, an inch taller would seem accurate in dress shoes. Making Rupert about 5'8.5" or so when wearing his converse.
I doubt very much they would lie on the BAFTAs for no apparent reason... Click Here So either, as I said, Mosely is wearing lifts, or Rupert is taller than 5'7.75".
I don't know why I didn't realize this before, but when William Mosely and Rupert were presenting at the BAFTAs, host Stephen Fry gave them a combined height of "eleven feet and nine inches". Quick math would suggest for Rupert's height to be on the money here, William would have be 6'1.25" and only way to do that since celebheights insist on 5'10.25" is really big lifts. Now if we go by the fact that William says he's 5'11" then, if they were measured in their footware before they went on, an inch taller would seem accurate in dress shoes. Making Rupert about 5'8.5" or so when wearing his converse.
I doubt very much they would lie on the BAFTAs for no apparent reason... Click Here So either, as I said, Mosely is wearing lifts, or Rupert is taller than 5'7.75".
umad80 said on 25/Jun/07
I know Emma's legs are bent a little here, but she's closer to the camera with what looks to be 2 inch heels and Rupert is still taller. Click Here - maybe close to an inch taller? But definitely still taller with all those things going against him. If Emma is about 5'7" (give or take) with heels on, and then you add what... about another inch for being in front? And then Rupert is *still* taller, I would think that means he's even taller that the 5'7.75".
It's definitely hard to get an accurate reading out of all these because they seem to make him stand behind everyone and slouch a bit. His posture is a LOT better than it used to be, but he's not standing as straight as Dan so you do have to account for that. In a lot of these new photos he has his head tilted to the side.
I know Emma's legs are bent a little here, but she's closer to the camera with what looks to be 2 inch heels and Rupert is still taller. Click Here - maybe close to an inch taller? But definitely still taller with all those things going against him. If Emma is about 5'7" (give or take) with heels on, and then you add what... about another inch for being in front? And then Rupert is *still* taller, I would think that means he's even taller that the 5'7.75".
It's definitely hard to get an accurate reading out of all these because they seem to make him stand behind everyone and slouch a bit. His posture is a LOT better than it used to be, but he's not standing as straight as Dan so you do have to account for that. In a lot of these new photos he has his head tilted to the side.
6'3'' JK said on 24/Jun/07
To be Really honest Rupert only looks 5'6.5'' to me (even when he stands straight), but I'll still give him 5'7'', 0.75 inch shy of what he is listed here
To be Really honest Rupert only looks 5'6.5'' to me (even when he stands straight), but I'll still give him 5'7'', 0.75 inch shy of what he is listed here
umad80 said on 23/Jun/07
Yeah, my only problem with that is that Rupert looks like he's 6ft tall. lol But I'm convinced of at least 5'9". It's hard to tell because Rupert does have his knees bent and his head tilted. But comparing him to Emma who exhibits the same stance, though closer to the front, he's at least 4 inches taller.
But you're right about Dan. He stands completely straight, like he's in the military or something. lol Plus he's closer to the camera. But I will say that I think that 5'5.5" to 5'6" isn't that crazy as I thought it was...
Yeah, my only problem with that is that Rupert looks like he's 6ft tall. lol But I'm convinced of at least 5'9". It's hard to tell because Rupert does have his knees bent and his head tilted. But comparing him to Emma who exhibits the same stance, though closer to the front, he's at least 4 inches taller.
But you're right about Dan. He stands completely straight, like he's in the military or something. lol Plus he's closer to the camera. But I will say that I think that 5'5.5" to 5'6" isn't that crazy as I thought it was...
Evanna said on 23/Jun/07
Actually that's not the picture I was trying to show you, because they moved it yet again. Click Here If they move it again, scroll right (the same album), there's a screencap from Grimmauld Place, and both Grint and Watson are pictured from behind.
As for the new press conference photoshot, it's funny - Radcliffe is standing as straight as he can, while the others have a mega slouch. In fact Radcliffe looks as if he'd swallowed a stick or something to keep him straight. I'd say he and Watson are still around the same height.
Actually that's not the picture I was trying to show you, because they moved it yet again. Click Here If they move it again, scroll right (the same album), there's a screencap from Grimmauld Place, and both Grint and Watson are pictured from behind.
As for the new press conference photoshot, it's funny - Radcliffe is standing as straight as he can, while the others have a mega slouch. In fact Radcliffe looks as if he'd swallowed a stick or something to keep him straight. I'd say he and Watson are still around the same height.
umad80 said on 22/Jun/07
Yeah. I'm going to start saying between 5'8" and 5'9" for Rupert now, but he definitely is taller than 5'7". It looks to me that Dan might actually be 5'6" though. There is another picture of the trio and Rupert and Emma are on what appears to be maybe a two inch step and Dan still appears to be taller. He is closer to the camera, but he clearly seems to be an inch taller than the 5'5" Emma.
Yeah. I'm going to start saying between 5'8" and 5'9" for Rupert now, but he definitely is taller than 5'7". It looks to me that Dan might actually be 5'6" though. There is another picture of the trio and Rupert and Emma are on what appears to be maybe a two inch step and Dan still appears to be taller. He is closer to the camera, but he clearly seems to be an inch taller than the 5'5" Emma.
Evanna said on 22/Jun/07
Nah, they moved the picture in the gallery, here's the correct link for now: Click Here
Nah, they moved the picture in the gallery, here's the correct link for now: Click Here
Evanna said on 21/Jun/07
umad80, you are going to love this picture: Click Here
Although Grint might be slightly closer to the camera, I think this picture proves that he is some four inches taller than Emma, maybe more. Something's definitely wrong with the Trio's celebrity-heights, but I'm not sure if Grint is taller than we all thought, or Watson is simply under 5'5".
umad80, you are going to love this picture: Click Here
Although Grint might be slightly closer to the camera, I think this picture proves that he is some four inches taller than Emma, maybe more. Something's definitely wrong with the Trio's celebrity-heights, but I'm not sure if Grint is taller than we all thought, or Watson is simply under 5'5".
umad80 said on 16/Jun/07
Oh, and I forgot to add how he looks in a promotional shot with the twins. Click Here - now the twins are leaning down, but Rupert is leaning to his right. Rupert looks like he can be just below eye level, or more in the middle of the nose. They're all on equal footing and no one seems to be really closer to the camera. Well, the twin on the right is a little more forward than Rupert and the other twin. But for the most part, good shot I'd say.
Or how about this one? Click Here - back in late 2005 and the twins are more forward. Rupert was wearing tennis shoes for a change. Twins were wearing chucks/other type shoe, so it's possible that Rupert had a slight height advantage this time.
Oh, and I forgot to add how he looks in a promotional shot with the twins. Click Here - now the twins are leaning down, but Rupert is leaning to his right. Rupert looks like he can be just below eye level, or more in the middle of the nose. They're all on equal footing and no one seems to be really closer to the camera. Well, the twin on the right is a little more forward than Rupert and the other twin. But for the most part, good shot I'd say.
Or how about this one? Click Here - back in late 2005 and the twins are more forward. Rupert was wearing tennis shoes for a change. Twins were wearing chucks/other type shoe, so it's possible that Rupert had a slight height advantage this time.
umad80 said on 16/Jun/07
I know a lot of people are too busy thinking Rupert is short because of his leaning and laid back posture, but here are some pictures from Rome with the twins. I realize of course the twins are leaning down and Rupert sometimes is more in front. But take it away, and Rupert is definitely between nose and eye level. I think just above the tip of the nose makes the most sense at this time.
Here are some examples: Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here
Now again, I realize the twins have their heads down and/or Rupert is in front, but for the most part, it looks like Rupert is definitely nose level or a bit higher. Making him at least 5'9" during this time. (March of last year.) Other pics of the twins, Rupert leans and slouches a LOT. He knocks off about 2 inches of his height because when he's taking pictures with people he tends to lean into them, or have a laid back posture. (Even this site acknowledges his laid back posture.)
I know a lot of people are too busy thinking Rupert is short because of his leaning and laid back posture, but here are some pictures from Rome with the twins. I realize of course the twins are leaning down and Rupert sometimes is more in front. But take it away, and Rupert is definitely between nose and eye level. I think just above the tip of the nose makes the most sense at this time.
Here are some examples: Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here
Now again, I realize the twins have their heads down and/or Rupert is in front, but for the most part, it looks like Rupert is definitely nose level or a bit higher. Making him at least 5'9" during this time. (March of last year.) Other pics of the twins, Rupert leans and slouches a LOT. He knocks off about 2 inches of his height because when he's taking pictures with people he tends to lean into them, or have a laid back posture. (Even this site acknowledges his laid back posture.)
Arjun said on 13/Jun/07
There is not a chance that Rupert is 5'10". 5'8" is the most that can be feasibly argued for him, based on the photos with the twins.
There is not a chance that Rupert is 5'10". 5'8" is the most that can be feasibly argued for him, based on the photos with the twins.
anna said on 12/Jun/07
If I get criticised, I really could not care less. It is a website for fun, it's not a life or death situation. I know that I post a lot, but I really don't care if I am right or wrong. It's actually quite funny to see how mad people get when you disagree with them. No more from me though, I'm done until more photos/the film come out.
If I get criticised, I really could not care less. It is a website for fun, it's not a life or death situation. I know that I post a lot, but I really don't care if I am right or wrong. It's actually quite funny to see how mad people get when you disagree with them. No more from me though, I'm done until more photos/the film come out.
6'3'' JK said on 12/Jun/07
ahhaaa that was just an excuse anna wasn't it?, so if you get proved wrong so then you can get away with it without being criticized, wrong my friend, you will get a lot of criticism from people if you get proved wrong, because you have been bragging for nearly a year that emma is 5'7'' lol, truly she maybe just about 5'4'', and if you get proved wrong you will get critsized by all of us who were against you!
ahhaaa that was just an excuse anna wasn't it?, so if you get proved wrong so then you can get away with it without being criticized, wrong my friend, you will get a lot of criticism from people if you get proved wrong, because you have been bragging for nearly a year that emma is 5'7'' lol, truly she maybe just about 5'4'', and if you get proved wrong you will get critsized by all of us who were against you!
Arjun said on 12/Jun/07
The twin on the right (in the full body shot) looks closer to 8 inches taller actually. He absolutely towers over Rupert.
The twin on the right (in the full body shot) looks closer to 8 inches taller actually. He absolutely towers over Rupert.
Arjun said on 12/Jun/07
umad80, in the first pic of Rupert and the twins where we can see their footwear, I can't believe that you only see a 5 inch difference between either of the twins and Rupert. The twin on our left (Rupert's right) is slouching more than Rupert is (Rupert does'nt even look to be slouching that much) and he is STILL 7 inches taller! The other twin is easily 7 inches taller as well, both him and Rupert are in flat converse. The tallest Rupert could feasibly be is 5'8" even ..... and the pics which show the twins to be significantly different in height are misleading, as Editor Rob has met them and says that both are around the same height - near 6'3". If one looks significantly taller than the other, then the ground has to be uneven.
umad80, in the first pic of Rupert and the twins where we can see their footwear, I can't believe that you only see a 5 inch difference between either of the twins and Rupert. The twin on our left (Rupert's right) is slouching more than Rupert is (Rupert does'nt even look to be slouching that much) and he is STILL 7 inches taller! The other twin is easily 7 inches taller as well, both him and Rupert are in flat converse. The tallest Rupert could feasibly be is 5'8" even ..... and the pics which show the twins to be significantly different in height are misleading, as Editor Rob has met them and says that both are around the same height - near 6'3". If one looks significantly taller than the other, then the ground has to be uneven.
anna said on 11/Jun/07
I agree JK. And when you think about it, you could be completely right with the Rupert only 5'6.5" or 5'7" and the Emma a weak 5'4". I mean, you could really be correct. We have no idea if celebrities give their actual heights and even wehn people do meet them at premieres and do take pictures, the footwear stuff is so crazy now that it is really hard to tell. I mean, I know we can try and I know we can listen to what they say, but they could easily be lying either way. It's just all so ****ing messed up, who really cares? I don't know, I think Rupert really is about 5'9" or 5'10", Emma really 5'7", and Dan really 5'5", but I could be totally and completely wrong. I'm so confused, thus I will wait until the the trio attend something together or until the actual film comes out. Ah, this is so crazy. Ah well!
I agree JK. And when you think about it, you could be completely right with the Rupert only 5'6.5" or 5'7" and the Emma a weak 5'4". I mean, you could really be correct. We have no idea if celebrities give their actual heights and even wehn people do meet them at premieres and do take pictures, the footwear stuff is so crazy now that it is really hard to tell. I mean, I know we can try and I know we can listen to what they say, but they could easily be lying either way. It's just all so ****ing messed up, who really cares? I don't know, I think Rupert really is about 5'9" or 5'10", Emma really 5'7", and Dan really 5'5", but I could be totally and completely wrong. I'm so confused, thus I will wait until the the trio attend something together or until the actual film comes out. Ah, this is so crazy. Ah well!
Jessica said on 11/Jun/07
I went to the Dl premeiere and me and rupert had a picture and he towered over my 5'3 he was about 7 inches taller than me .which puts him at 5 10'
Editor Rob
I went to the Dl premeiere and me and rupert had a picture and he towered over my 5'3 he was about 7 inches taller than me .which puts him at 5 10'
Editor Rob why not show your photo then?
Maya said on 11/Jun/07
umad80, please do go to NYC premiere of OotP and take as many photos as you can. I think that the ICM website organizes something for New York based fans, so you might go with them.
umad80, please do go to NYC premiere of OotP and take as many photos as you can. I think that the ICM website organizes something for New York based fans, so you might go with them.
umad80 said on 11/Jun/07
I don't see how he can be 5'7" when he was as tall as Dermot O'Leary who gives himself a 5'9" height, and Celebheights says 5'8". Rupert was even taller.
I think people misjudge faces and such a LOT. I know because my brother was 6'3" and my dad is 5'10". My brother had a "long face", but my dad still came up around the same height as Rupert does on the twins. And I know what 5'10" looks like on a 5'5" person as that is what I am.
You can sit there and say, "But this is what it looks like..." all you want, but when you saw it everyday, you know what it looks like.
I mean, if Rupert is as tall as Laura Linney - in HEELS (making her at least 2 inches taller than her normal height) - and just appeared just slightly shorter because he was leaning in, then he is taller than 5'8". And he's much taller than the evelator shoe-wearing Radcliffe.
He also was never much shorter than the 5'10" Stan Ivenvinski at the GoF photocall. And he was eyebrow level with the 6'1" Rob Pattinson who was wearing heels.
I don't see how he can be 5'7" when he was as tall as Dermot O'Leary who gives himself a 5'9" height, and Celebheights says 5'8". Rupert was even taller.
I think people misjudge faces and such a LOT. I know because my brother was 6'3" and my dad is 5'10". My brother had a "long face", but my dad still came up around the same height as Rupert does on the twins. And I know what 5'10" looks like on a 5'5" person as that is what I am.
You can sit there and say, "But this is what it looks like..." all you want, but when you saw it everyday, you know what it looks like.
I mean, if Rupert is as tall as Laura Linney - in HEELS (making her at least 2 inches taller than her normal height) - and just appeared just slightly shorter because he was leaning in, then he is taller than 5'8". And he's much taller than the evelator shoe-wearing Radcliffe.
He also was never much shorter than the 5'10" Stan Ivenvinski at the GoF photocall. And he was eyebrow level with the 6'1" Rob Pattinson who was wearing heels.
6'3'' JK said on 11/Jun/07
Arjun, i coulden't agree with u more man, he is 5'7'' at his max
Arjun, i coulden't agree with u more man, he is 5'7'' at his max
Arjun said on 11/Jun/07
umad80: the twins have a little longer heads than most people, plus this 7 inches to bottom lip only counts when they are tilting their chin up. Looking straight ahead or slightly down, it is 8+ inches. Rupert barely reaches their ears - which is 7 inches. He is no taller than 5'8" next to them - I think Editor Rob's 5'7.5" - 5'7.75" is spot on.
umad80: the twins have a little longer heads than most people, plus this 7 inches to bottom lip only counts when they are tilting their chin up. Looking straight ahead or slightly down, it is 8+ inches. Rupert barely reaches their ears - which is 7 inches. He is no taller than 5'8" next to them - I think Editor Rob's 5'7.5" - 5'7.75" is spot on.
Maya said on 10/Jun/07
umad80, I basically agree with you, especially after seeing pictures of Rupert & Heyman in different situations. Still I think 5'9" is a bit too much to ask of him. It is true that he is a sloucher, but so are the twins, even more so, because they always tend to lean towards him a bit when he's in the middle. If they stood up straight, the top of his head would be somewhere in their upper lip area. In any case he is about 3-4 inches taller than both Dan and Emma, as neither of them comes even to the brothers' chins.
umad80, I basically agree with you, especially after seeing pictures of Rupert & Heyman in different situations. Still I think 5'9" is a bit too much to ask of him. It is true that he is a sloucher, but so are the twins, even more so, because they always tend to lean towards him a bit when he's in the middle. If they stood up straight, the top of his head would be somewhere in their upper lip area. In any case he is about 3-4 inches taller than both Dan and Emma, as neither of them comes even to the brothers' chins.
umad80 said on 10/Jun/07
Anna, I would agree, but Emma was wearing boots AND in front of Rupert, who was also leaning down. And as I said, the Empire Award pics were definitely askewed too. We've proven that.
Maya, I don't think Rupert is 6 to 7 inches shorter than the twins. According to this site, on a 6'3.5" person, a 5'8" person would only come to the middle of one's chin (depending of course on face, etc., but in theory...) so a 5'8" person on a 6'3" person would not be that much taller. Bottom lip at best. Click Here - To me, Rupert would definitely come just below their nose, but maybe even nose level if they all stood straight up and had equal footing. (Only one twin had converse like Rupert.)
Then from the same place: Click Here - Rupert is just under eye level with the twin on the right, but seems to be shorter than the 6'3" he and his brother claim. His brother, the twin on the left, seems to be border on 6'3.5". Dunno if this is the camera angle or not, but it might be. That said, if a 5'8" person comes only middle of the chin on a 6'3.5" person, then Rupert is obviously taller than 5'8".
Then you have this: Click Here - as you can see, the twin on the right is quite a bit taller than his brother, so you can't even count him in this. But the twin on the left, Rupert is standing directly next to, and he has dress shoes on! Which should give him an inch extra height.
This one always interested me the most. Rupert is standing straight for a change, and Dan is standing taller than Emma. This was back in November of 2005. Click Here - Which is proof that you cannot pay attention to Dan in figuring out Rupert's height! He is clearly two or so inches taller than the 5'5" Emma. (Whom I do agree is 5'5". Her heels at the GoF NY premiere only gave her maybe an inch, inch and a half. I was wearing tennis shoes that would give me an inch making me 5'6", and she was NOT much taller than me. She is in NO way a weak 5'4". And Rupert? Taller than me too, but by more than 5'6.5"!!)
Dermot O'Leary claims 5'9" - and I've heard, like Rupert, he wears flat shoes, practically giving him no height advantage. So this site giving him 5'8" might be very wrong. Even so, if he is 5'8", he is still shorter than Rupert. Click Here IF Dermot is 5'9" like he claims, then Rupert is clearly 5'9.5" at least.
As for Graham Norton, we still don't know his height either. He said he's been slowly shrinking, so Rob gave him a 5'8". BUT he was wearing dress shoes at the Generation Fame thing, so he was probably 5'9" (if he is only 5'8").
I think people always tend to forget that Rupert is a sloucher and when you put him against Dan who wears elevator shoes and always stands straight, you get askewed height. That is one reason why I love that photocall pic, because Rupert is standing straight up for a change. lol
Anna, I would agree, but Emma was wearing boots AND in front of Rupert, who was also leaning down. And as I said, the Empire Award pics were definitely askewed too. We've proven that.
Maya, I don't think Rupert is 6 to 7 inches shorter than the twins. According to this site, on a 6'3.5" person, a 5'8" person would only come to the middle of one's chin (depending of course on face, etc., but in theory...) so a 5'8" person on a 6'3" person would not be that much taller. Bottom lip at best. Click Here - To me, Rupert would definitely come just below their nose, but maybe even nose level if they all stood straight up and had equal footing. (Only one twin had converse like Rupert.)
Then from the same place: Click Here - Rupert is just under eye level with the twin on the right, but seems to be shorter than the 6'3" he and his brother claim. His brother, the twin on the left, seems to be border on 6'3.5". Dunno if this is the camera angle or not, but it might be. That said, if a 5'8" person comes only middle of the chin on a 6'3.5" person, then Rupert is obviously taller than 5'8".
Then you have this: Click Here - as you can see, the twin on the right is quite a bit taller than his brother, so you can't even count him in this. But the twin on the left, Rupert is standing directly next to, and he has dress shoes on! Which should give him an inch extra height.
This one always interested me the most. Rupert is standing straight for a change, and Dan is standing taller than Emma. This was back in November of 2005. Click Here - Which is proof that you cannot pay attention to Dan in figuring out Rupert's height! He is clearly two or so inches taller than the 5'5" Emma. (Whom I do agree is 5'5". Her heels at the GoF NY premiere only gave her maybe an inch, inch and a half. I was wearing tennis shoes that would give me an inch making me 5'6", and she was NOT much taller than me. She is in NO way a weak 5'4". And Rupert? Taller than me too, but by more than 5'6.5"!!)
Dermot O'Leary claims 5'9" - and I've heard, like Rupert, he wears flat shoes, practically giving him no height advantage. So this site giving him 5'8" might be very wrong. Even so, if he is 5'8", he is still shorter than Rupert. Click Here IF Dermot is 5'9" like he claims, then Rupert is clearly 5'9.5" at least.
As for Graham Norton, we still don't know his height either. He said he's been slowly shrinking, so Rob gave him a 5'8". BUT he was wearing dress shoes at the Generation Fame thing, so he was probably 5'9" (if he is only 5'8").
I think people always tend to forget that Rupert is a sloucher and when you put him against Dan who wears elevator shoes and always stands straight, you get askewed height. That is one reason why I love that photocall pic, because Rupert is standing straight up for a change. lol
6'3'' JK said on 10/Jun/07
I still honestly give him 5'6.5'' but i could say he is absolute 5'7'' Max, lets just stop with the stupid dodgy angle picture sending which all favour Rupert, lets just all wait for the film to come out then we will see who is wrong, then youll see emma is nothing but a weak 5'4'' and rupert is 5'6.5'' - 5'7'', for now lets stop the bias picture sending and wait for the film which is out next month!
I still honestly give him 5'6.5'' but i could say he is absolute 5'7'' Max, lets just stop with the stupid dodgy angle picture sending which all favour Rupert, lets just all wait for the film to come out then we will see who is wrong, then youll see emma is nothing but a weak 5'4'' and rupert is 5'6.5'' - 5'7'', for now lets stop the bias picture sending and wait for the film which is out next month!
Maya said on 10/Jun/07
anna, in this picture emma is not far behind, she and Rupert are standing almost next to each other; plus if you compare her to the Phelps brothers (who ARE standing a bit behind) she doesn't even come up to their chin(s). 5'7" is out of question for her.
anna, in this picture emma is not far behind, she and Rupert are standing almost next to each other; plus if you compare her to the Phelps brothers (who ARE standing a bit behind) she doesn't even come up to their chin(s). 5'7" is out of question for her.
anna said on 9/Jun/07
Maya, I see your point, somewhat, but Emma is standing a fair distance behind Rupert in your photo. How can you even consider that a photo that is even remotely good to judge heights on? And, plus, she looks 3-4 inches shorter than him there, which would mean she would mean the gap would be less if she came up to his position. And, it again makes sense, the gap would be more like 1-2 inches. And I don't think Rupert is 5'8", he's more than that. He is easily 5'9", which would put Emma at, once again, the very least, 5'7". I think those heights are extremely plausible. And with the promotional images/screencaps, I am guessing that the movie people are puttin Dan in some sort of height boosting footwear seeing as he is only 5'5", noticeably shorter than Emma, and quite a bit shorter than Rupert. I would definitely not be surprised if his Hogwarts shoes have a bit of an extra "boost" in them. What do you think of it?
Maya, I see your point, somewhat, but Emma is standing a fair distance behind Rupert in your photo. How can you even consider that a photo that is even remotely good to judge heights on? And, plus, she looks 3-4 inches shorter than him there, which would mean she would mean the gap would be less if she came up to his position. And, it again makes sense, the gap would be more like 1-2 inches. And I don't think Rupert is 5'8", he's more than that. He is easily 5'9", which would put Emma at, once again, the very least, 5'7". I think those heights are extremely plausible. And with the promotional images/screencaps, I am guessing that the movie people are puttin Dan in some sort of height boosting footwear seeing as he is only 5'5", noticeably shorter than Emma, and quite a bit shorter than Rupert. I would definitely not be surprised if his Hogwarts shoes have a bit of an extra "boost" in them. What do you think of it?
anna said on 9/Jun/07
I do laugh out loud at the prospect that Rupert has only grown a quarter of an inch since the PoA era as well, umad80. Like I have said, 5'9" or even 5'10" seems to be what he is at now. And let me ask you to think about this. You say that Rupert looks 5'7.5" to 5'8" in that photo with Chris Columbus who, you say, is 5'9" in his dress shoes. And you say that Rupert is now 5'9" to 5'10". Now, looking at good promotional and new images, does the gap between Rupert and Emma not looking almost exactly the same as the gap between Chris and Rupert in that photo that you posted? Which would lead one to believe that the gap between Rupert and Emma as of now is 1"-1.5", which would put Emma at 5'7.5"-5'9". And this makes my argument even more plausible, I am not even debating that Emma is 5'9" or even 5'8.5", I am saying 5'7"-5'8". Then, look at your PoA photo with Heyman (Emma looks to be barely past Heyman's shoulder) and then go to that website and look at one where Emma is standing up straight (at the Empire Awards) and she is easily well over Heyman's shoulder, here is a good photo to demonstrate it Click Here So, although a lengthy and scattered post, I do believe it gives adequate proof that Emma is at the very least 5'7" (and up to 5'8") now and that Rupert is, once again, between 5'9" and 5'10". It explains everything. Plus, like you said, I do think that they make Emma and Rupert slouch in a lot of shots of the trio to make Dan appear shorter, which says something, seeing as he has a huge footwear advantage most of the time....
I do laugh out loud at the prospect that Rupert has only grown a quarter of an inch since the PoA era as well, umad80. Like I have said, 5'9" or even 5'10" seems to be what he is at now. And let me ask you to think about this. You say that Rupert looks 5'7.5" to 5'8" in that photo with Chris Columbus who, you say, is 5'9" in his dress shoes. And you say that Rupert is now 5'9" to 5'10". Now, looking at good promotional and new images, does the gap between Rupert and Emma not looking almost exactly the same as the gap between Chris and Rupert in that photo that you posted? Which would lead one to believe that the gap between Rupert and Emma as of now is 1"-1.5", which would put Emma at 5'7.5"-5'9". And this makes my argument even more plausible, I am not even debating that Emma is 5'9" or even 5'8.5", I am saying 5'7"-5'8". Then, look at your PoA photo with Heyman (Emma looks to be barely past Heyman's shoulder) and then go to that website and look at one where Emma is standing up straight (at the Empire Awards) and she is easily well over Heyman's shoulder, here is a good photo to demonstrate it Click Here So, although a lengthy and scattered post, I do believe it gives adequate proof that Emma is at the very least 5'7" (and up to 5'8") now and that Rupert is, once again, between 5'9" and 5'10". It explains everything. Plus, like you said, I do think that they make Emma and Rupert slouch in a lot of shots of the trio to make Dan appear shorter, which says something, seeing as he has a huge footwear advantage most of the time....
umad80 said on 9/Jun/07
Thank you Maya! I've been saying that forever. They don't want Rupert to look taller than Dan! But when you get him where they're not really trying to make him look short, he's not that much shorter! I always thought it was odd because when David Heyman and Rupert were in Japan during PoA there is maybe 2-3 inches difference. And suddenly at the Empire Awards there is a massive difference! And at the awards, he's actually standing a bit behind David and leaning down more so than David is. So you could argue he might be the same height, or very close to it!
And if you look at the second one, Rupert is just a tad taller than Dan, but he is standing behind him AND slouching quite a bit. Also, check out from PoA era with David... Click Here - definitely a bit shorter here then at the awards when they're on stage. But the awards where they're all together, he's massively shorter than that!
I wish I knew how tall Matt Lewis is (I don't believe 5'10" because he doesn't seem too much shorter than the 6'3" twins nor the 6'2" Jamie Waylett.) because Rupert in front is actually a bit taller than Matt. Click Here (Rupert is leaning his head down a bit in this shot.) Now I know in front Rupert would be taller. Maybe a couple of inches. But if we knew Matt Lewis' height, which Rupert never seemed that much shorter than (at PoA promotion where it was first stated Matt was 5'10", Rupert only seemed maybe 2-3 inches shorter and Matt had dress shoes!) and I've noticed this all throughout OotP. Rupert seems a few inches shorter, but not very much.
Also during PoA, Rupert never seemed much shorter than the 5'8" Chris Columbus who is wearing dress shoes. Click Here so you could argue he's standing at 5'9". Rupert looks 5'7.5" to 5'8" here, give or take. Meaning he only grew about a quater of an inch at the least since PoA if we go by what this site has for Rupert now. lol
Thank you Maya! I've been saying that forever. They don't want Rupert to look taller than Dan! But when you get him where they're not really trying to make him look short, he's not that much shorter! I always thought it was odd because when David Heyman and Rupert were in Japan during PoA there is maybe 2-3 inches difference. And suddenly at the Empire Awards there is a massive difference! And at the awards, he's actually standing a bit behind David and leaning down more so than David is. So you could argue he might be the same height, or very close to it!
And if you look at the second one, Rupert is just a tad taller than Dan, but he is standing behind him AND slouching quite a bit. Also, check out from PoA era with David... Click Here - definitely a bit shorter here then at the awards when they're on stage. But the awards where they're all together, he's massively shorter than that!
I wish I knew how tall Matt Lewis is (I don't believe 5'10" because he doesn't seem too much shorter than the 6'3" twins nor the 6'2" Jamie Waylett.) because Rupert in front is actually a bit taller than Matt. Click Here (Rupert is leaning his head down a bit in this shot.) Now I know in front Rupert would be taller. Maybe a couple of inches. But if we knew Matt Lewis' height, which Rupert never seemed that much shorter than (at PoA promotion where it was first stated Matt was 5'10", Rupert only seemed maybe 2-3 inches shorter and Matt had dress shoes!) and I've noticed this all throughout OotP. Rupert seems a few inches shorter, but not very much.
Also during PoA, Rupert never seemed much shorter than the 5'8" Chris Columbus who is wearing dress shoes. Click Here so you could argue he's standing at 5'9". Rupert looks 5'7.5" to 5'8" here, give or take. Meaning he only grew about a quater of an inch at the least since PoA if we go by what this site has for Rupert now. lol
anna said on 8/Jun/07
I have to say, Natalie's current heights do seem quite accurate, all but Daniel Radcliffe, who, let us face it, is no more than 5'5" at the moment. And, I mean come on now, we cannot argue with research such as Natalie's, she is "not wrong!" period. Her predicted heights may be a bit off (especially as she has Daniel Radcliffe listed as 5'7.5"-5'8" and same height), but i really think her other heights are accurate. Rueprt and Emma really do seem a fair deal taller than what they were during the GoF era.
I have to say, Natalie's current heights do seem quite accurate, all but Daniel Radcliffe, who, let us face it, is no more than 5'5" at the moment. And, I mean come on now, we cannot argue with research such as Natalie's, she is "not wrong!" period. Her predicted heights may be a bit off (especially as she has Daniel Radcliffe listed as 5'7.5"-5'8" and same height), but i really think her other heights are accurate. Rueprt and Emma really do seem a fair deal taller than what they were during the GoF era.
umad80 said on 8/Jun/07
Oh wow, even I am not pushing for Rupert to ever be 6ft. LOL He'll be 19 in a couple months and unless he's lucky enough to grow beyond that, I only see him at the height I'm convinced he is at now (between 5'9" and 5'10"). And Dan is barely 5'5.5" now (even though he insists on 5'6"). He wears elevator shoes though, making an accurate 5'7.5" claim true!
I just hope I can take a picture with Rupert at the LA premiere and get an accurate height. He tends to bend down to people's level. But I will do my best.
Oh wow, even I am not pushing for Rupert to ever be 6ft. LOL He'll be 19 in a couple months and unless he's lucky enough to grow beyond that, I only see him at the height I'm convinced he is at now (between 5'9" and 5'10"). And Dan is barely 5'5.5" now (even though he insists on 5'6"). He wears elevator shoes though, making an accurate 5'7.5" claim true!
I just hope I can take a picture with Rupert at the LA premiere and get an accurate height. He tends to bend down to people's level. But I will do my best.
Natalie said on 7/Jun/07
This whole entire "height" thing needs to be updated. From my research:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Radcliffe: 5'6.5
Rupert Grint: 5'10
Emma Watson: 5'7.5
This is updated research, so I'm not wrong! Anyway, I just needed to point that out.
P.S. These guys will probably grow a couple of inches, but no more; Emma Watson will stay the same (most likely). Here the my "guessing" heights:
Daniel Radcliffe: [Probably Around] 5'7.5 - 5'8
Rupert Grint: [Probably Around] 5'11.5 - 6'0
Daniel Radcliffe: [Probably Around] Same height
Editor Rob
This whole entire "height" thing needs to be updated. From my research:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Radcliffe: 5'6.5
Rupert Grint: 5'10
Emma Watson: 5'7.5
This is updated research, so I'm not wrong! Anyway, I just needed to point that out.
P.S. These guys will probably grow a couple of inches, but no more; Emma Watson will stay the same (most likely). Here the my "guessing" heights:
Daniel Radcliffe: [Probably Around] 5'7.5 - 5'8
Rupert Grint: [Probably Around] 5'11.5 - 6'0
Daniel Radcliffe: [Probably Around] Same height
Editor Rob I hope you don't do research for a living :) 5ft 7.5 radcliffe lol
umad80 said on 5/Jun/07
Yeah Maya, it was from Generation Fame on New Years Eve of 2005! And Rupert was definitely the same height. If this site is correct in putting him at 5'8", he was around 5'9" with the dress shoes on, so Rupert was definitely around 5'9" because there was hardly any difference in height. But some people felt Graham Norton is taller then what the site gives him!
Yeah Maya, it was from Generation Fame on New Years Eve of 2005! And Rupert was definitely the same height. If this site is correct in putting him at 5'8", he was around 5'9" with the dress shoes on, so Rupert was definitely around 5'9" because there was hardly any difference in height. But some people felt Graham Norton is taller then what the site gives him!
Maya said on 5/Jun/07
umad80, if I'm not mistaken the pic with Graham Norton is from the Generation Fame show. I saw that show (there are clips at youtube too) and Rupert did look around the same height as Norton.
umad80, if I'm not mistaken the pic with Graham Norton is from the Generation Fame show. I saw that show (there are clips at youtube too) and Rupert did look around the same height as Norton.
umad80 said on 4/Jun/07
Got a few more height things to throw around. These were both back in 2005. The first one with Al Murray was either early 2005 or middle 2005. Al Murray, on this site, is listed at 6'3" and I believe had dress shoes on. Click Here
Now this one was just the end of the 2005. It's with Graham Norton who is at least between 5'8" and 5'10". No clue how much he shrunk since he says he has, and he was also wearing dress shoes. Rupert doesn't seem that much different in height. Click Here
These were the best pictures I could find. IMO this does at least prove that Rupert was taller than 5'8", even it was only 5'8.5" if we go by the height given to Graham Norton on here.
Got a few more height things to throw around. These were both back in 2005. The first one with Al Murray was either early 2005 or middle 2005. Al Murray, on this site, is listed at 6'3" and I believe had dress shoes on. Click Here
Now this one was just the end of the 2005. It's with Graham Norton who is at least between 5'8" and 5'10". No clue how much he shrunk since he says he has, and he was also wearing dress shoes. Rupert doesn't seem that much different in height. Click Here
These were the best pictures I could find. IMO this does at least prove that Rupert was taller than 5'8", even it was only 5'8.5" if we go by the height given to Graham Norton on here.
umad80 said on 29/May/07
I think the Tom Felton being 6' thing had to do with Jason Issacs. I think he is the one who claimed Tom was that tall. While Empire magazine doesn't end the discussion, it does give you the mindset that Rupert has definitely been growing each time they saw him.
I think our best indication of how tall Rupert is won't be until the foot/hand/wand-print ceremony though. Because Dan we know likes to wear dress shoes, and I'm pretty sure they're elevator shoes. (Going from 5'5"/5'5.5" to around 5'7" proves that!) But he probably won't be wearing those when they do the ceremony.
I think the Tom Felton being 6' thing had to do with Jason Issacs. I think he is the one who claimed Tom was that tall. While Empire magazine doesn't end the discussion, it does give you the mindset that Rupert has definitely been growing each time they saw him.
I think our best indication of how tall Rupert is won't be until the foot/hand/wand-print ceremony though. Because Dan we know likes to wear dress shoes, and I'm pretty sure they're elevator shoes. (Going from 5'5"/5'5.5" to around 5'7" proves that!) But he probably won't be wearing those when they do the ceremony.
anna said on 28/May/07
Yes, I do agree that the Teen Vogue photos are not necessarily the most accurate, but I just have to add that she switched shoes with nearly every outfit. You can see that she was wearing those black heels and then two different pairs of flats. And I do agree that females should wear heels whenever they can, but obviously Emma doesn't feel this way seeing as she can almost always be seen in flat flats. And with the Empire Magazine article, they may say that (although I am not sure as I am too lazy to read it...), but I don't think it really affects this discussion. I have noticed that they have said such things quite often before, namely after the PoA film. I think the media got a distorted view of how tall the teenage actors were. Such as they thought Tom Felton was sudenly 6'. I think the thing with Rupert's growth spurts has come to be because of his voice cracking and such, which is much more noticeable than Dan's because we have never really heard it crack in the movies. Rupert's seemed to be almost ongoing for a period. I don't know if this makes sense, but it is a thought.
Yes, I do agree that the Teen Vogue photos are not necessarily the most accurate, but I just have to add that she switched shoes with nearly every outfit. You can see that she was wearing those black heels and then two different pairs of flats. And I do agree that females should wear heels whenever they can, but obviously Emma doesn't feel this way seeing as she can almost always be seen in flat flats. And with the Empire Magazine article, they may say that (although I am not sure as I am too lazy to read it...), but I don't think it really affects this discussion. I have noticed that they have said such things quite often before, namely after the PoA film. I think the media got a distorted view of how tall the teenage actors were. Such as they thought Tom Felton was sudenly 6'. I think the thing with Rupert's growth spurts has come to be because of his voice cracking and such, which is much more noticeable than Dan's because we have never really heard it crack in the movies. Rupert's seemed to be almost ongoing for a period. I don't know if this makes sense, but it is a thought.
umad80 said on 24/May/07
Well, Empire Magazine mentioned Rupert's growth spurts. And only his. Click Here In it it says "This is Empire's third Potter set visit and the grand halls seem to be affected by as many growth spurts as Rupert Grint." Of course, obviously, that doesn't give you much in the way of knowing his height. However it does insinuate that Rupert is growing quite tall.
Well, Empire Magazine mentioned Rupert's growth spurts. And only his. Click Here In it it says "This is Empire's third Potter set visit and the grand halls seem to be affected by as many growth spurts as Rupert Grint." Of course, obviously, that doesn't give you much in the way of knowing his height. However it does insinuate that Rupert is growing quite tall.
jesi said on 24/May/07
Girls would always appear a bit taller than they really are because they have every reason to wear heels! I would suspect Emma won't wear superflat shoes all the time because they don't flatter and don't do much for the female looks. She would have at least half an inch at least, or an inch for additional height! You can already see in one outtake (where she carries a cat in her arms) that she's wearing quite high heels.
Girls would always appear a bit taller than they really are because they have every reason to wear heels! I would suspect Emma won't wear superflat shoes all the time because they don't flatter and don't do much for the female looks. She would have at least half an inch at least, or an inch for additional height! You can already see in one outtake (where she carries a cat in her arms) that she's wearing quite high heels.
umad80 said on 23/May/07
I think they were going for the cutesy thing there. In the cover, Emma is not taller than Dan. They're about the same height. Don't count the hair, her's is outrageously high. The outtake photo, Dan is leaning so much, that you can't possibly figure out whois taller, even if Emma is leaning and tilting her head. And poor Rupert, you can't even figure out, because they put him off to the side so much so that you can't even get an accurate height.
I think they were going for the cutesy thing there. In the cover, Emma is not taller than Dan. They're about the same height. Don't count the hair, her's is outrageously high. The outtake photo, Dan is leaning so much, that you can't possibly figure out whois taller, even if Emma is leaning and tilting her head. And poor Rupert, you can't even figure out, because they put him off to the side so much so that you can't even get an accurate height.
anna said on 22/May/07
Why would they not just put Dan on an apple box or something, as they did in the Life Magazine photoshoot? And interestingly, in the cover photo, Emma is slouching considerably/tilting her head, which is different then this outtake photo....?
Why would they not just put Dan on an apple box or something, as they did in the Life Magazine photoshoot? And interestingly, in the cover photo, Emma is slouching considerably/tilting her head, which is different then this outtake photo....?
anna said on 22/May/07
If Emma is the girl, why would they not want to make her look taller? I've always learnt (especially from this site) that the girl is supposed to be shorter than the guy. It makes me wonder why they would make the trio do the position they did for this shoot applying the above "logic", if you can call it so much. ??
If Emma is the girl, why would they not want to make her look taller? I've always learnt (especially from this site) that the girl is supposed to be shorter than the guy. It makes me wonder why they would make the trio do the position they did for this shoot applying the above "logic", if you can call it so much. ??
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.