|
Hugh 191cm says on 18/Nov/09
6ft3.75 peak and 6ft1.25 now
Mark says on 17/Nov/09
Filmfan; I guess I'm missing something. No one here is judging anyone by their height, or being petty. This is a site for those just plain curious about celebrities heights. It may not be your thing, and that's fine. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why , every now and then, someone comes to a site like this, and posts that we shouldn't be so petty as to wonder how tall someone is. I mean...why bother, if this is not something you're interested in? It's as though 1 out of every 20 posters, here, considers themselves to be the moderator of what is acceptable to shoot the bull about. Call us petty, but your comment isn't exactly the pinnacle of well spent time and maturity. peteyork says on 17/Nov/09
So since I have witness my father loosing 3 to 4 inches, without back problems, well except the neck hump. Loosing 3 to 4 inches is nothing with old men. A guy in my office has lost 2 1/2 due to back problem and he is not even 60. peteyork says on 17/Nov/09
four inch loss, for an old man is not extreme. My father used to be an inch taller than me, maybe 3/4 inch. Anyway when he retired at 65, he was still 1/2 taller than me. I am 5'10 3/4 or 5/8 evening, 5'11 3/8 immediately out of bed. In reality I am 5'11 ten minutes out of bed. So my father was 5'11 and 1/2 to 3/4 when young. About 5'11 1/2 at 65, by the time he was 71 he was about 5'10 shorter than me. Now he is 76 and looks about 5'7 1/2 which is my brothers height. He can perhaps straighten out to near 5'9, he has bone crumbling disease. filmfan says on 16/Nov/09
Eastwood is nearly 80. He can't be expected to have the body of a man in his 20s or 30s. In his youth he was clearly well over 6ft. His movies have given pleasure to millions bitching over whether he was 6'4'' or 6'2'' seems petty. Mark says on 15/Nov/09
...I'm not sure I "totally" agree that these shirtless pics of Eastwood show reason to believe he lost 4 inches in his back. Look at Eastwood in Every Which Way But Loose, with no shirt on. I always thought he looked slightly odd, shirtless. Danimal says on 15/Nov/09
YET ANOTHER PIC OF CLINT'S VERY CROOKED SPINE. THIS ONE AND THE ONE BEFORE SAYS IT ALL: Click Here Danimal says on 14/Nov/09
A picture speaks a thousand words. Here's Clint of recent with Arnold. Clint is MAX 6'0" today. As you will see from my previous post, his entire spine is MESSED UP: Click Here Danimal says on 14/Nov/09
This pic is ASTONISHING. This is where Clint has lost MOST of his height (4" height loss). His entire lower back is pushed forward and to the side. Quite remarkable and it explains EVERYTHING about his DRASTIC height loss:
Click Here Harry Lime says on 13/Nov/09
Eastwood has lost at least three inches, no question about that. Danimal says on 12/Nov/09
Hugh's RULE: Add 1-2" minimum for everyone, no exception. Danimal says on 11/Nov/09
Aleks says on 10/Nov/09
Clint sure was a tall fella in his youth, but only 1/2 inch shorter than Tim Robbins? I don't see it.
Robbins was much taller than 6'4.5" in the 80's/90's. He was a 6'6" man. Shaun says on 11/Nov/09
Yeah I know Aleks it doesn't add up. Tim Robbins if he is a legit 6'4.5" barefoot looks way taller than Eastwood ever did. To me at peak Eastwood looked 1.5-2 inches shorter than Robbins does today yet the proof he was in the 6'4" range compared to other people is great although there are some ones like the one with Liam Neeson where Eastwood doesn't look 6'4". Aleks says on 10/Nov/09
Clint sure was a tall fella in his youth, but only 1/2 inch shorter than Tim Robbins? I don't see it.
I think he was 6'3˝" maximum peak. Hugh 191cm says on 9/Nov/09
I'll go with 192cm peak and 186-187cm now. noname says on 2/Nov/09
looks a good 2.5 inches taller thant Matt Damon in that pic -go by the eye level anon Harry Lime says on 29/Oct/09
Heston was two inches shorter than Vincent Price and slightly shorter than Gregory Peck. I would say that Heston was around 6-2˝ prime or so.
Clint was 6-4. Nowadays no more than 6-1. anon says on 29/Oct/09
Here he is with Matt Damon looking equal in height to Matt: Click Here Hugh 191cm says on 28/Oct/09
Looks taller than 6ft2.5 (6ft2 min) Morgan Freeman, what does that tell you Shaun says on 27/Oct/09
Eastwood had 1-1.5 inches on Heston, the proof is also on YouTube in an award ceremony. Heston was at least 6'2", probably 190cm in his prime. The proof that Eastwod was a legit 6'4" is overwhelming. Mark says on 26/Oct/09
Well, here we go, again. Now, I don't know what to believe. The pic of Eastwood with Heston "does" seem to imply Eastwood was 6'4, unless Heston really wasn't 6'3. My brother said he was about 6'0, ata n autograph show a few years ago. Granted, he was older, and in poor health. But if Freeman really is 6'2, and that picture is recent, Eastwood hasn't shrunk as much as I thought. DANG IT, CLINT...SETTLE THIS FOR US! Heightcritique says on 25/Oct/09
It's probable that Clint was 6'4" in his prime. Next to 6'3" Charlton Heston he does look 6'4": Click Here Click Here Click Here
As far as Clint present height he is probably 6'1" in bad posture, and close to 6'2 in good posture. Next to 6'2" Freeman he looks aproximately the same height: Click Here jeffrey adam says on 21/Oct/09
Slightly above six feet now and 6-4 prime. That`s the way it is. Hugh, he is not over 6-1 nowadays. If he is, then 5-10 Brad Pitt is 6-2 and 6-5 Robbins 6-8. Aleks says on 20/Oct/09
Saying Clint is 184 cm is ignorant, but saying he is 185 cm isn't? Hugh 191cm says on 19/Oct/09
Still looks at least 6ft1 today. Peak 6ft3.5-6ft4? Hugh 191cm says on 19/Oct/09
claiming that Eastwood is 184cm is ignorant. Mark says on 15/Oct/09
Interesting photos, RisingForce. I just saw Jeffrey(?) Wolcott on Bonanza. He was in Joe Kidd and Any Which Way You Can, is listed as 6'4, and seemed a literal hair taller than Eastwood. At one point, I concluded, from this, that Eastwood was a weak 6'4, prime. And he may have been. But I've read that Pernell Roberts was either 6'0 or 6'1, no more. Wolcott was no more than 2 inches taller than Roberts in the scenes I saw him in. Roberts was not known for wearing lifts, either. I'm now thinking Eastwood was a good 6'3.5, but now less. Who KNOWS what happened. Original says on 13/Oct/09
6'2.75 to 6'3 peak. 6.05' now. RisingForce says on 12/Oct/09
Clint is tough to gauge these days because of his posture. Look at another picture of him taken on that same day with Forest Whitaker. Click Here
I think he's taller than a flat 6 feet today, but no taller than 6'1". For a comparison here's what Eastwood looked like with Whitaker in 1988. Click Here Danimal says on 10/Oct/09
Shaun says on 10/Oct/09
Hugh, you're full of BS. Why do you persist on claiming actors like Connery and Eastwood are inches taller than what they really are today? You are obessed with 6'1"-6'4" men. Eastwood is barely over 6' today. 187cm today for Eastwood is clearly too high, otherwise Freeman is 194cm. At peak yes he was close to 6'4" today 6'1" absolute max, looks increasingly like a flat 6' or 184cm to me... If Eastwood is "still close to 6'2" as you ignorantly declare then Tim Robbins is 6 ft 7.
Hugh does the same thing with wrestlers. Shaun says on 10/Oct/09
Compared to Freeman who is 6'2" today, Clint is struggling with a flat 6' actually he looks suspiciously like a 5'11" in that photo but I don't think he is below 6'. I think he is 6' flat today, I believe he was 6'1" several years ago but has continued to shrink to 6' flat. He has lost a great amount of height, considering he is the same age as Sean Connery who has lost barely 2cm in height Eastwood's height loss is extreme and is probably shorter than Connery today even though he was two inches taller at peak. Shaun says on 10/Oct/09
Hugh, you're full of BS. Why do you persist on claiming actors like Connery and Eastwood are inches taller than what they really are today? You are obessed with 6'1"-6'4" men. Eastwood is barely over 6' today. 187cm today for Eastwood is clearly too high, otherwise Freeman is 194cm. At peak yes he was close to 6'4" today 6'1" absolute max, looks increasingly like a flat 6' or 184cm to me... If Eastwood is "still close to 6'2" as you ignorantly declare then Tim Robbins is 6 ft 7. Danimal says on 9/Oct/09
miko says on 6/Oct/09
Next to 6"2 guys Morgan Freeman and Forest Whittaker.
Rob is he really still 6"1?
Click Here
HOLY $@!#!....Sorry guys, but your idol is under 6'0" today. It's undeniable. Morgan Freeman is MAX 6'2" today and Clint is looking MAX 6'0" there. No idea what's happening to him, but it isn't good. Danimal says on 9/Oct/09
Anonymous says on 9/Oct/09
Clint is 5'10".
Hi Ali. Anonymous says on 9/Oct/09
Clint is 5'10". Hugh 191cm says on 8/Oct/09
Eastwood was probably around 6ft3 in Unforgiven. Aleks says on 7/Oct/09
Scary. He was at least as tall as Freeman in Unforgiven. Mark says on 6/Oct/09
Does anyone suppose, short of my reading any medical reason, that Eastwood's height loss may be due to weight lifting his whole life? Does bench pressing or even doing standing curls...even if done properly, put so much strain on the spinal discs, that you could lose some height due to it? I can see Eastwood being maybe 6'2, now...being almost 80. But, given that he kept in shape, it seems odd he lost SO much height. miko says on 6/Oct/09
Next to 6"2 guys Morgan Freeman and Forest Whittaker.
Rob is he really still 6"1?
Click Here miko says on 6/Oct/09
Not looking 6"1 with a lifted 5"7.5/5"8 Downey Jnr. jeffrey says on 5/Oct/09
Nope. 6-1 max now and peak was 6-4. Like it says above -has lost AT LEAST three inches. Possibly more. Hugh 191cm says on 30/Sep/09
186-187cm nowadays and 192-193cm peak. Aleks says on 23/Sep/09
Frank2, have you ever met Clint? Frank2 says on 21/Sep/09
I'd say Eastwood has dropped down to about 6'1". Gene Hackman was taller than 6'. More likely 6'2". He and Warren Beatty were close to the same height in BONNIE AND CLYDE. And I've seen Beatty. Stood right next to him and talked with him. I'm 5'11" and he made me feel short! Hugh 191cm says on 21/Sep/09
I'm confident that Eastwood was 6ft4 flat up until the mid to late 70s. However in the dead pool he still looked close to 6ft4 with 2 inches on jim carrey. filmfan says on 21/Sep/09
Eastwood is nearly 80 yrs of age. Although significant height loss occurs more commonly in women, men can also lose height when they become elderly. It's not that surprising he's gotten shorter. Hugh 191cm says on 19/Sep/09
5ft11.5 is bogus. He's obviously taller than that. frank says on 19/Sep/09
No way eastwood is below 6'0, I still dont see him being 5'10, no way, he is still a tall man, he is not 6'3, 6'4 as he was in his prime, I would say he is around 6'1 these days, he is still a tall guy, I don't see clint being below 6'0. Aleks says on 19/Sep/09
If Hackman was 6' peak, then you'd have Harrison Ford at 5'10". Mark says on 18/Sep/09
Risingforce or Danimal...Does anyone have any idea what happened to his spine? RisingForce says on 18/Sep/09
I agree with you Danimal about him defintley being below 6'1". 6'0" and change does look a little generous next to Arnold, Robert Downey Jr. and Brad Pitt. I'll give him that though assuming he could straighten out to that height. Danimal says on 18/Sep/09
Definitely has fallen below 6'1" today. I'm being generous with him by saying he's about 6'0" and a little change today. He is shorter than Arnold today and we all know that Arnold is 5'11.5"-6'0" today. To claim Eastwood is 6"1"+ today is a fantasy. The man's spine is MESSED UP. We're looking at a 4"-5" height loss since his prime imo. Mark says on 17/Sep/09
No name. You asked why everyone is so hung up on Eastwood's height. I don't know if "hung up" is the right expression but, isn't this a site about heights of celebrities, or am I missing something? And I disagree about Hackman. He had to have been taller, as he wasn't 4 inches shorter than Chris Reeve in Superman. And Hudson had to have been 6'5, or John Wayne was no more than 6'2.5, and Peter Breck (told me he's 6'2) who guested on udson's TV show, would be like 6' even. I still go back to Eastwood being a weak 6'4, prime...but losing a bunch of height from reasons unknown. I have no idea what he is now. no name says on 17/Sep/09
Clint Eastwood stood 6ft 3ins (190.5cm)tall! in his peak bare foot atleast he appeared to be around this. He started losing height around 1993/1995. There is a picture of him stood next to Gene Hackman who is 6ft tall at this time clutching oscars for Unforgiven. Gene has always has been this height and now he's lost about an inch. There is another picture around the mid eighties of Clint stood next to Ronald Reagan. He had a good 3 inches on Reagan. Regan was 6ft tall! this is fact. See picture of Reagan stood next to Rock Hudson who was 6ft 4ins another fact. Even Rock Hudson stated he was 6'4". Whilst he was doing Mcmillan and Wife. He said in an interview at the time asked about hie height: '"I hated been this tall, I felt awkward and tried to stoop with every body else. But Later I began to like my height of 6'4" '. Clint had shrunk to about 6'1" by 2001. He appeared on Michael Parkinson and is pictured stood next to him. He was exactly the same hieght as Sean Connery pictured next to Parkinson in his Book at the same time. It is quite clear to see that Clint is around 181 -183 these days. He's always been a lanky rangy type of guy. Hell! Even if he is 5ft 11.5ins today, he's still a lanky guy. 5'9" average height in the UK and 5'10" average height in The US. Personally, I don't give a damn wahat height he was or is now. He is tall, when he was younger he was slightly taller, who cares. The guy is a legend, his work and films speak for themselves. Why is everybody so hung up on this height thing anyways. Not all heros are 6'4" and not all the best charismatic actors are 6'4". When you watch a Clint Eastwood film you know you're going to be entertained. To Me clint has always portrayed characters who are larger than life - that's the idea. He is the great American legend, a force to be reckoned with. I like all the mythicalisation and bull**** of Hollywood. Take Arnie as a great example, on screen he looks about 6'3"plus!
We all know he's 6ft tall(this is tall by the way!), it's just make believe, he's playing a character. Anyway, Clint Eastwood is tall, always has been tall. Who cares if he nveer was 6'4". What if he really was 6'2.5" in reality. does it really matter. I can't wait to watch tightrope and dirty harry again this weekend. ed brady says on 12/Sep/09
yes, its amazing how many different opinins you get on height of actors.Well here after much research is the facts of height on these actors. Clint Eastwood in his prime was aegit 6"4 in height. He has shrunk to about 6"1 now. Donald Sutherland in his prime was 6"4. If you watch kellys heroes you see him standing side by side with clint eastwood and there exactly the same height. Clint Walker is 6"6. Anthony Perkins was 6"2 1/2 And Roger Moore is 6"2. Those are the true facts!!!!!!! Hugh 191cm says on 11/Sep/09
6ft1.5 now I'd say. mark says on 7/Sep/09
Clint Eastwood was 6'4 in his prime, now he is 6'1 tall, he is still tall, just not as tall as he was in his younger days, He is a true legend though. Aleks says on 4/Sep/09
He still looked pretty tall in Gran Torino. I think he is 6'1" today. Hugh 191cm says on 29/Aug/09
6ft4 peak and somewhere between 6ft1 and 6ft2 these days. Anonymous says on 28/Aug/09
I believe this...Clint has no reason to lie and still looks tall to this day. Definitely still over 6 feet lol! Good one Rob Mark says on 27/Aug/09
Bob...Peter breck told me, himself, he's 6'2. When he guested on McMillan and Wife, he was a good 3 inches shorter than Hudson. And Hudson appeared a bit taller than John Wayne. I just don't see how he was under 6'5. And, once again, could someone (Bob?) please elaborate on this Clint Eastwood back surgery I keep reading about, only on this site? I can find no evidence of it ever happening, anywhere on the net. And Clint Walker, in many, many interviews, says or said he is/was 6'6. Frank2 says on 27/Aug/09
FYI The Clint Walker I met was way over 6' 4". I'd say his peak was 6'6" or quite possibly 6'7". filmfan says on 27/Aug/09
Eastwood was never an actor he was a filmstar. Yeah his range was limited but can you imagine him playing the part of a guy lacking in self confidence struggling with women. It just wouldn't be convincing. In Hollywood looks are important like it or not. If you look like a hero then that's the parts you get to play. Of course you need a certain amount of acting ability and Clint has that in my opinion. As for his height I've said it before but he always looked round about 6'4'' to my eyes. He might be slightly over or slightly under but about 6'4'' seems right. Outlaw says on 27/Aug/09
The bob guy is funny. Seriously... Walker was absolutely NOTHING under 6'6". I couldn't care less whether or not you claim to know him. And even if you do, you must only have known him for say, the past 5-10 years, which he could clearly be down to 6'4.5" by now at his age, but certainly 6'6" in his prime.
At least you're not too far away about Eastwood's height. He could have been 6'3.5" in his prime, but I do doubt that much, too. He always seemed at least 6'4," that is, until the '80s. And if you think he's only shrunk 2 inches, you're out of your mind. More like 3.5". However, you're Rock Hudson height is RIDICULOUS! Anything below 6'5" for Rock is just flat-out dumb. He was possibly 6'5.5" at his peak.
I suppose by your logic, either these men wore lifts when playing aside very, very tall men, like say, John Wayne, James Stewart, or James Arness. Or all of the above and others were shorter than their acclaimed heights. Hudson at 6'3.5" would put Arness bewteen 6'5"-6'5.5," Stewart around 6'1.5"-6'2," and Wayne around 6'2"-6'2.5". As well as Eastwood around 6'2"-6'2.5" peak who you say was 6'3.5". Among many, many other very tall actors. I believe that is just nonsense.
My opinion. If I sound rude, forgive me. Take care and may the Lord be with y'all. Anonymous says on 26/Aug/09
he use to be 6ft3 in 1960~70s, in 80s looks a solid 6ft2 then now 6ft1 Frank2 says on 26/Aug/09
bob, Walker is amazing. What other guy could get a ski pole stuck into his heart and live to tell the tale?
So you think Hudson wasn't over 6'3.5"? Did you ever meet him? He always looked to be at least 6'4" when I'd see him at Universal back in the 1970s. I can tell you I felt very short standing next to him.
Best thing to do with Adam is just ignore him. bob says on 26/Aug/09
I see adam is over here stiring the pot as usual! Well, adam, like it or not I have met most of these folks and I do know Clint Walker very well and for a very long time. Clint NEVER was over 6'4.5" tall, Clint Eastwood was about 6'3.5" in his prime, due to back surgery he is only about 6'1.5" now, like it or not. Arnold, who I've known since 1970, was and still is about 6'1" and your hero Rock Hudson never was over 6'3.5". Again, I'm still 6'4" at 61 years and like it or not I did beat Clint Walker arm wrestling. And he is still just as strong as ever. Get a life my man instead of pissing a lot of people off over an issue you just think you know about. By the way, I will be with Clint Walker this weekend, eat your heart out. adam says on 23/Aug/09
Clint was definitely 6-4! Possibly 6-4˝. Rock was 6-6. Mark says on 22/Aug/09
Very interesting pic in Eastwood's Life in Pictures book, of Lee Marvin, Eastwood, Rock Hudson, John Wayne and others. A side view version of this shot is posted on this site's John Wayne page, but the pic I saw is front on. If Hudson was 6'5, and all accounts seem to say so, Eastwood was definitely close...but I still say a weak 6'4. Mark says on 18/Aug/09
The reason I think Eastwood had to have been 6'4, is because he seems built an awful lot like Mike Farrell from MASH, also billed as 6'4. But more than that, in scenes where both men are on motorcycles or running, they have that overly lanky look that you just don't get with someone, say, 6'2. adam says on 18/Aug/09
Talkin to me? Frank2 says on 18/Aug/09
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” - Mark Twain adam says on 18/Aug/09
Alackaday! The 62-year-old wonder man still running wild like a 12-year-old! Bless you! Frank2 says on 18/Aug/09
Adam, you have a new title. At least as far as I'm concerned. The comic king of non sequiturs. Frank2 says on 18/Aug/09
I didn't bring out the hatchet in the first place. adam says on 18/Aug/09
Here we go again... Frank, let`s bury the hatchet. Frank2 says on 17/Aug/09
Mark, Adam is a punk kid who thinks he's acting cool, but in fact comes off rather psychotic at times. I have zero idea why he keeps asking me if I believe in God. He's ask this on several threads. He contradicts himself all the time and then accuses me of making contradictions. True, I've had to reevaluate a handful of celeb's heights based on seeing them over a long period as well as watching more of their films. But then there were times when some joker would post using my name which anyone can do on this forum. Only Rob knows since he knows the IP addresses of those who post. I have seen my name used where someone posted stuff I never said.
Eastwood was 6'4". But these days he's lost quite a bit of height. So has James Garner. I believe Garner is now barely 5'10". He was slightly over 6'1" prime. Mark says on 17/Aug/09
Well, then, Adam, now that you've definitively settled Eastwood's height, I suppose there's no reason for you to come back here and post. I mean...you don't "seriously" expect to outdo me in cleverness and grammar, do you? As for minding my own business, one of my faults, in life, is that I let some of our more socially challenged individuals draw out my sarcasm. Sad, but true. As anyone I work with. When I hear a nut is in the store, I actaully try to engage them. It entertains me. Height-wise, for the rest of you, my guess is Eastwood was a weak 6'4. His height now is anyone's guess. adam says on 17/Aug/09
And back to height!
Clint Eastwood was six-feet-four in his prime. adam says on 17/Aug/09
Hah! You`re funny guy, Mark. Mind your own business tough. I like height, just we like to throw some "off-topic" comment in between.
And Frank has obviously read my posts. He is scared to answer. But that is alright, Frank son. Im with you now, my boy. Mark says on 16/Aug/09
...I really wish I could leave well enough alone, I really do. Sigh. Alas, I can never let sleeping dogs lie. Now, Adam. It's great you believe in God. I have no clue what your point is to Frank2, but I'll let that go. But, if you "do" believe in God, should you really be posting things like "... My guess is that you were some cheap-ass errand boy and then you come here and say all this big talk about "I was about fourty years part of the business!", to Frank2??. Oh, and just to keep this a height related post, based on scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin, scientists estimated Jesus to be approximently 5'11...quite tall for 2000 years ago (tests that were presented to debunk the shroud were refuted by many scientists, and so it's a matter of faith. Buuuut that's another story). And so, it appears you'd better be nicer to Frank2, Adam, as he and Christ were/are the same height. Aleks says on 16/Aug/09
I think Eastwood was 6'3˝" peak and 6'3" when he made Unforgiven. adam says on 16/Aug/09
Well... dont you want to admit that, brother? I believe in God. Now it`s your turn. adam says on 15/Aug/09
Frank, do you believe in God? RisingForce says on 15/Aug/09
I have my doubts that Eastwood is still a legit 6'1". Even Robert Downey Jr. looked 2 inches shorter than him recently in lifts/sneakers. Downey in platform shoes(yes actual platform shoes) looked 3 inches shorter than 6'1" Keanu Reeves who was slouching, and Downey's head was titled up!
Eastwood also looked shorter than 6' Arnold Schwarzenegger recently and 5'11" Brad Pitt(who may have worn lifts, but his shoes didn't look ridiculous). adam says on 15/Aug/09
Eastwood stood 6-4 peak. Nowadays he is 6-1 max. Frank2 says on 15/Aug/09
To what? Oblivion? Mark says on 14/Aug/09
Frank2, regarding today's so-called stars vs yesteryears, I totally agree. Everyone you mentioned, Pitt (even the name), Cruise, Depp, Damon, Hanks...all these guys are to me, actors who should have done 1 or 2 cheap comedies, then been forgotten. No one is replacing the leading men we used to have. No matter how old they get, all we have now are boys pretending to be men. adam says on 14/Aug/09
Frank! UNFORGIVEN is a great film! His best, definitely. He is a good director, no doubts but not any kind of genius, no. adam says on 14/Aug/09
And you are right about the changes in the film industry! Frank, I feel a change! We`re getting closer... Frank2 says on 14/Aug/09
Eastwood is limited as an actor, but as a director he has talent.
I haven't seen Eastwood in a while. I suspect he's lost at least a couple of inches in height. adam says on 14/Aug/09
Frank, what do you think about Clint Eastwood? He has done some great films but in my opinion he was never a good actor either. RisingForce says on 13/Aug/09
Danimal, how do you know the article about Cruise's height was accurate? Mark says on 13/Aug/09
Frank2, take my advice, ignore the needless hostility on here. As I don't have time to go through everything, here, I know you mentioned you met Eastwood. But, have you seen him, recently? I'd be curious as to your thoughts of your old encounter vs a more recent one. Frank2 says on 13/Aug/09
My favorite Peck role besides that of Atticus Finch in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is Captain Ahab in John Huston's magnificent 1956 version of MOBY DICK. Peck was ridiculed at the time, but looking at the film today and especially comparing it and his performance to the dreadful later TV version that starred Patrick Stewart as Ahab, Peck was in the same league as Olivier. MOBY DICK is a great movie on so many levels. It has a superb music score by classical composer Philip Sainton, his only film score. Photography is top notch as well as is the entire cast of supporting players. But it's Peck who truly stands out in this gem of a movie. Try to imagine Rock Hudson doing Ahab. Or even Clint Eastwood. Peck was in another league compared to most actors back then, but more importantly, today. There is no one who compares with him among today's crowd of film thespians. How about Tom Cruise as Ahab? Or Brad Pitt? Or Sylvester Stallone? Or any of today's bozos masquerading as stars. Truly pathetic how far down the entire entertainment industry has sunk. It's no longer an art form. Just a business. adam says on 13/Aug/09
True, Frank. Peck was a great actor. And solidly 6-3. Danimal says on 13/Aug/09
Frank2 says on 12/Aug/09
Danimal, do you remember the title of the article and who published it?
I agree. Cruise is probably under 5'7".
Unfortunately Frank, I do not, however, I know it was published in/around 1988. Frank2 says on 13/Aug/09
I agree about Hudson's acting ability. Or lack of. SECONDS is a classic and Hudson did give an excellent performance. But he was never in the same league as say Gregory Peck, another tall, good looking leading man. adam says on 13/Aug/09
And Frank, your post from 2006:
"Frank2 says on 3/Apr/06
Jack was closer to 6'1" and was about an inch shorter than Sean Connery in Dr. No.
By the way, Chris Walken is well-over 6'. I'd say at least 6'1". At least that's how tall he looked when I saw him. He was a good two inches taller than me. And he's a very skinny 6'1". I doubt he weighs more than 160 lbs. soaking wet."
So there. You change your stories way too often to be a reliable witness, my boy. My guess is that you were some cheap-ass errand boy and then you come here and say all this big talk about "I was about fourty years part of the business!". adam says on 13/Aug/09
One more time: Hudson had 4-5 inches on Joseph Cotten. So Cotten at 6-2 and Hudson at 6-5 just isnt possible. No lifts or anything. Watch THE LAST SUNSET. It`s an ok-flick.
Hudson was a dull actor by the way! Another one who had a great presense and therefore was the star. If you want to see some talent watch films like SLEUTH, THE THIRD MAN and RAGING BULL.
Most films Rock made were junk. My favourite one is SECONDS. Frank2 says on 13/Aug/09
Thanks Mark. I just call 'e as I see them and sometimes I make mistakes. Nobody's perfect.
As for Hudson, the chief reason he looked so damned tall compared to just about every actor is that most actors lie about their height. Whereas Hudson was at minimum 6'4" and could easily have been 6'5". Watch his films. He looks huge next to actors who are supposedly tall. Mark says on 12/Aug/09
Well, I for one pretty much rely on your posts as the best authority here, Frank2. Getting back to Clint Eastwood, I wonder if his spine got curved (like an s) the way Hulk Hogan's did, according to a recent xray on his daughter's show. People have alluded to an Eastwood back problem. I don't know what else could explain such a height loss to a guy in such good shape, I don't care how old he is. RisingForce says on 12/Aug/09
I found the Rock Hudson interview you mentioned a while back, Frank2. I believe it was from 1982 and he mentioned that he was once 6'5" and that he was 6'4" at the time of the interview and I think he joked that being in TV shrinks you.
Anna, the movie with Burt Reynolds is City Heat. If I remember correctly Clint had Burt by about 4 inches, but you never know when it comes to Burt's footwear. adam says on 12/Aug/09
Frank, John Wayne is the ONLY person whose politics I`ve mentioned. And come on, man, honestly: Do you agree with his views about black people and gay people? I thought he had some silly views but nevertheless -he made some good films and was probably a nice man. Frank2 says on 12/Aug/09
Danimal, do you remember the title of the article and who published it?
I agree. Cruise is probably under 5'7". Frank2 says on 12/Aug/09
Never worked in a commissary Adam.
As for Rock, his studio bio listed him at 6'4". When I'd see him on the lot, he was so tall he could have been 6'5". I also remember mentioning on an old post that Rock claimed he was 6'5", but later on admitted he'd lost an inch.
Kevin Bacon looked 5'11" when I saw him in person, but the more I see him in films, he appears to be 5'10". He could have worn shoes that boosted him when I saw him. As for Walken, he's roughly six feet even.
Now if you want to talk about kidders, just read all of Adam's silly posts. He likes to probe into who drank the most, who did what to who and he just loves to downgrade people who's politics go 180 degrees the opposite of his own such as John Wayne. Danimal says on 12/Aug/09
Frank2 says on 10/Aug/09
Cruise is no more than 5'7". Watch A FEW GOOD MEN. 5'10" Kevin Bacon towers over Cruise. And I assume Cruise wore lifts.
5'6 3/4" to be exact (Glenn's height). This was revealed to the public in the late 80's. I used to have the article. adam says on 12/Aug/09
Oh. I didnt think his head is really that big! Maybe his head is as big as Frank´s, who knows. Anna says on 11/Aug/09
I just watched an old movie with Clint and Burt Reynolds. Clint was not only much taller but his head seemed a lot bigger than Burt's or anyone elses. adam says on 11/Aug/09
Risingforce, you`ll have to understand that Frank`s opinions are like weather -they always change when you`ll least expect it.
On occasions he said that Rock Hudson was 6-4 prime. Then he has said that he could have been 6-6 prime.
He has said that Christopher Walken is exactly 6`. Then on another occasion he said that the same guy is "at least 6-1".
The fact that Frank has worked as an errand boy at the good old MGM company doesnt change the fact that he is just a little boy inside. A kidder. He enjoys spreading BS. RisingForce says on 11/Aug/09
Frank2, check out your old posts on the Kevin Bacon page. You said Bacon was exactly 5'11". Claude says on 10/Aug/09
You could do some little "miracles" with camera. Just looking movie "The green miles" with Tom Hanks, David Morse and Michael Duncan Clarke (or Clarke Duncan?). Duncan looked a lot taller than Morse in this movie but in fact, there's 2 inches, i think, of difference. Frank2 says on 10/Aug/09
Cruise is no more than 5'7". Watch A FEW GOOD MEN. 5'10" Kevin Bacon towers over Cruise. And I assume Cruise wore lifts. RisingForce says on 9/Aug/09
Stallone is no less than 5'8.5" and Pitt is a solid 5'11" while Cruise is probably closer to 5'8" than 5'7".
Arnie though was defintley 6'1.5"-6'2" range and now 6'0". Ed T. says on 8/Aug/09
Adam, I agree with your heights in your last post, although I think Stallone was more 5'8", max 5'8.5". Sutherland possibly 6'3.5" peak. adam says on 6/Aug/09
And Stallone was 5-7˝ peak. Cruise is 5-7. Pitt 5-10˝.
And Sutherland was shorter than Jeff Goldblum in BODYSNATCHERS by a good inch or so. I believe that Donald was 6-3 in his prime. Opinion about that, Frank? Have you ever met Sutherland? Doug says on 3/Aug/09
Agreed Adam. Peak height Arnie was 6'1.5" solid barefoot. Today just scrapes 6' more like 5'11.5". Anonymous says on 2/Aug/09
I think all the actors of the Clint, Hackman,Cain,Sutherland,generation need to have their peak hights reduced by 1 inch. adam says on 2/Aug/09
Well check his page. He has lost a great deal of height in the past ten years. Years and years of heavy weight-lifting + steroids isnt a great combination if you want to stay tall.
He is six feet even max today. Check his page here. Yes, a normal man at the age of 60 hasnt lost much but he sure has! Doug says on 2/Aug/09
Arnie was definately around 6'2" at peak. I actually thought he looked even bigger in Junior. Doug says on 2/Aug/09
I have the Clint Eastwood biography that I'm currently reading. He always looked the tallest in any picture or room in old photographs. There are a number of photos of him standing barefoot and he towers above others around him. Definately a lofty guy, looks 6'3"-6'4" barefoot. Doug says on 2/Aug/09
Adam, I have the Dirty Dozen on DVD, seen it many times. I agree Walker looked huge. That's not what I said. I said he wasn't a legit 6'7" barefoot. Small difference. I believe he was 6'6" barefoot and reached 6'8" in cowboy boots. You can't have thought even he looked taller than 6'8" in boots? You can tell by the proportions of a man what sort of height they are roughly. He looked like a legit 6'6", blinkin massive. Frank2 says on 2/Aug/09
"adam says on 1/Aug/09
And Arnold was close to being 6-2 peak. Nowadays he is struggleling with the six foot mark."
What makes you think Arnold is struggling? This is nonsense. I've met him back in the 1990s. He was 6'2". He might have lost an inch since then, but over two inches? Please! Danimal says on 2/Aug/09
Hugh 191cm says on 1/Aug/09
Eastwood was still close to 6ft4 at that point in his career. Today Eastwood is close to being 6ft2. 186-188cm.
Eastwood is barely over 6'0" today. Do you only see 2.5" between him and Tim Robbins today? Mister Lennon says on 2/Aug/09
Sutherland was the same height than Clint at peak. Look Kelly's heroes. They were about the same height. And in space cowboys, Sutherland looked slightly taller. adam says on 2/Aug/09
And I find it somewhat amusing that you find Sterling Hayden taller than Clint Walker! adam says on 2/Aug/09
Hmmm... yes, it is starting to get a bit suspicious!
But Doug, remember that EVERYONE wore boots in westerns. That`s not the smartest way to measure height. Far better way is to compare a fellow to other people.
And you are telling me that Clint Walker was 6-7 in boots, so 6-5 barefeet! Well then I guess Donald Sutherland was barely over six feet and Lee Marvin clearly under six feet and so on.
Walker was at the very minimum 6-6 and probably 6-7. I know that he said something like "Jim is about an inch taller than me" but I dont know. I`d say they both were around 6-7 in their primes.
Doug, watch the Dirty Dozen. Or go to youtube and type in "clint walker dan blocker". You`ll notice that Walker is towering over Blocker in an old Bonanza episode. Blocker was definitely 6-3 and some believe 6-4. Clint had easily four inches on him.
And yes, I believe now that John Wayne was 6-4. As was Clint Eastwood. Doug says on 2/Aug/09
Clint Walker was not a legit 6'7" barefoot. Hell he'd be 6'9" in cowboots. The guy was huge but 6'9" in boots is a clear exaggeration. Personally I thought he looked 6'7" in boots. Doug says on 2/Aug/09
Adam, do you have a man crush on Rock Hudson or something, LOL there isn't a conversation that goes by where you don't mention him!!! Hugh 191cm says on 1/Aug/09
Eastwood was still close to 6ft4 at that point in his career. Today Eastwood is close to being 6ft2. 186-188cm. adam says on 1/Aug/09
Good pics, Frank. Eastwood was definitely 6-4 in his prime. Sutherland was probably around 6-3. And Matthau was definitely a solid 6-3 as a young man, by the time of that pic he was probably around 6-2.
And Arnold was close to being 6-2 peak. Nowadays he is struggleling with the six foot mark.
Eli Wallach was probably around 5-7 prime. In THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY he was just about nine inches shorter than Clint.
And one more time: Hudson had over four inches on Joseph Cotten and was a head taller than Kirk Douglas who was wearing lifts. In GIANT Hudson is a foot taller than 5-6 James Dean who wore lifts. -> Hudson HAD TO BE 6-6.
Hayden was at least 6-5 and could have been 6-6. Walker and Arness both were around 6-7 prime.
Gene Hackman was at least 6-2 prime, possibly a bit more. Caine was near 6-2 prime.
And Lee Marvin was two inches shorter than the slouching Sutherland and ageing Robert Ryan in THE DIRTY DOZEN. I believe that Ryan at the time was about 6-3.
So there! And Frank, I believe now that Wayne was 6-4.... in lifts! Just kidding. Doug says on 1/Aug/09
Frank2 why do you refrain from addressing me? Every one of your posts is directed at Adam. Doug says on 1/Aug/09
I thought Lee Marvin was 6'1"-6'1.5", yet Frank says he was 6'2". Doug says on 1/Aug/09
Eastwood was taller than Sutherland at peak I'm sure of it. By the 1990s he had lost height and definately didn't still look 6'4", he was barely taller than Arnie in that photo. Frank2 how tall do you think Sutherland was? Frank2 says on 1/Aug/09
Eastwood and Donald Sutherland:
Click Here
Eastwood with Walter Matthau:
Click Here
Eastwood with Arnold Schwarzenegger:
Click Here
With Ann Jackson and Eli Wallach:
Click Here Frank2 says on 1/Aug/09
Hackman is 6'2". Michael Caine is 6'1" and in that first photo Eastwood still looks close to being 6'4".
Adam, Lee Marvin was 6'2". I know since I met him. He was two inches shorter than 6'4" John Wayne in THE COMANCHEROS. talker says on 1/Aug/09
Click Here
Click Here
Eastwood looks taller than Hackman who looks taller than Cain.Did they all shrink that much? adam says on 1/Aug/09
If Sutherland was 6-3 max then how tall was Lee Marvin? Sutherland had at least two inches on him. adam says on 31/Jul/09
Well if Sutherland was 6-3 max then how tall was Elliot Gould? Under 6-2 then. And remember that Gould had two inches on Arnold. Doug says on 30/Jul/09
Sutherland was 6'3" max. Reagan in office was a weak 6' in my view. I'd say Hudson was 6'6" in shoes, 6'7" in cowboy boots. Agree? I can buy 6'6" for Walker, 6'6.5" for Arness. Hayden was 6'6". If we talk in centimetres Hudson was 196cm, Walker 198-99cm, Hayden 198cm and Arness 200cm. Walker would have been 6'8" in cowboy boots, seriously you couldnt' have thought he looked any taller? adam says on 30/Jul/09
Well if Walker was "only" 6-6 then Donald Sutherland was definitely under 6-3. Walker had at least five inches on him. Watch THE DIRTY DOZEN. Walker looks absolutely huge. And the fact that he was taller than Hudson only reconfirmes it.
Rock was over four inches taller than Joseph Cotten who was at least 6-1 and probably 6-2. Rock had six inches on Robert Stack and six inches on Reagan.
And I believe that Arness was not taller than Walker. In their primes they were both just about the same height - 6-7 or so. Remember that in HELLGATE Arness is just slightly taller than Sterling Hayden. Doug says on 29/Jul/09
Walker was not 6'7" and Hudson was not 6'6". They were as they claimed, 6'6" and 6'5". Doug says on 29/Jul/09
Can we please forget about Hudson and talk about Eastwood? Anyway I watched the Good the Bad and the Ugly last night and I'm pretty certain Van Cleef was a legit 6'2", he looked every inch of 6'2". Clint was two inches taller, must have been around 6'4", both were in cowboy boots so nobody had a footwear advantage. Frank2 says on 28/Jul/09
I'm not saying he was. Hudson himself always said he was 6'5". Universal listed him officially at 6'4".
Here's a funny story regarding Hudson that I posted over on the Arness thread:
Many moons back when I was working at Universal, the tour tram happened by and I heard the tour guide tell the people that the big sound stage they had stopped in front of housed the TV series "McMillan and Wife." The tour guide then went on to add that Rock Hudosn was really not tall at all, that he was average height and the studio made him look big. At that very moment, the stage door flung open and out walked Rock Hudson, all 6'5" of him. I heard the crowd on the tram stirring as flash cameras went off. One woman shouted "You're tall! See! I was right! He's not short!" I looked over and the tour guide was looking the other way tapping on the shoulder of the driver to move on. As the tram sped off, Hudson exclaimed "What the hell was that all about?" I told him that the tour guide had informed the people that he was not tall, but average height and it was all done with smoke and mirrors. Hudson said something like "Maybe he needs glasses or better yet, they need to hire tour guides with a f------g brain!" RisingForce says on 28/Jul/09
Interesting stuff about Hudson, Frank2. I always thought he was 6'5" peak, but 6'6" was possible. adam says on 27/Jul/09
Yet Walker towered over Dan Blocker in an old Bonanza episode by at least four inches. Blocker was 6-3. Walker could have been 6-7. And watch THE DIRTY DOZEN: Walker towers over the whole cast, including Donald Sutherland. No way is there only a two-inch difference. More likely 4-5. Doug says on 26/Jul/09
Clint Walker was measured at 6'6" with a 48 chest and 32 waist, awesome measurements. He was definately not 6'7". Hudson was a 6'5" er. Doug says on 26/Jul/09
Arness was an inch taller than Walker. I think Hudson was 6'5"-6'5.5" and Walker maybe 199cm. Frank2 says on 23/Jul/09
Hudson could have been that tall when he was younger. I do remember that Universal execs commented that a Rock Hudson film was more involved as far as production since it was difficult keeping actors within the frame with him. This is something I doubt many people understand. A frame has just so much height. Worse with widescreen. The wider, the more difficult. So to keep people within the frame they must do all kinds of adjustments. I saw where they'd raise a chair just so the seated actor would appear at a certain point in the frame when shot from across a desk. It had absolutely nothing to do with the actor's height. Next time you have your video camera out, imagine keeping stuff within the frame so it appears in a pleasing manner and not doing it by merely moving the camera. It's not easy.
Those heights you listed are pretty much dead-on accurate. Arness mentioned he was 6'7" in an interview of him I watched. Plus I met him and at 5'11" I came up to just above his chin level. adam says on 23/Jul/09
So Frank, Hudson was 6-6? Because I certainly could buy that. Yes he was the same height as Mickey Simpson and he towered over Cotten who was at the very least 6-1 and yes, probably 6-2.
How about:
Joe Cotten: 6-2
Rock Hudson: 6-6
Clint Walker: 6-7
James Arness: 6-7
Clint Eastwood: 6-4
John Wayne: ...alright, 6-4
What`d ya say, Frank? Doug says on 23/Jul/09
I'd like to see a picture of Rock Hudson and Clint Walker. To me Walker would be an inch taller and I'm pretty sure Walker was nothing above 6'6". Doug says on 23/Jul/09
If Cotton was an inch taller than Welles he was definately in the 6'2" range. Welles was certainly a legit 6'1" at peak. There is some evidence to suggest Hudson was 6'6", I know he looked it still in the early 80s compared to Reagan. adam says on 23/Jul/09
Doug, that is exactly what I`d like to believe. But then why did Rock look so enormous in his films, especially in THE LAST SUNSET. Rock towers over Joe Cotten who was at least the same height as Orson Welles and probably taller. Rock looks at least five inches taller. Frank2 says on 22/Jul/09
I thought this was Eastwood's thread. Oh well....
Anyway, Cotten was most assuredly 6'2", at least when he was younger. Here he is looking at least two inches taller than 6' Robert Walker and five inches taller than 5'7" Jennifer Jones who with heels stood about 5'9" to 5'10":
Click Here
Cotton was an inch taller than 6'1" Orson Welles in THE THIRD MAN:
Click Here
Here's 6' Walker with 5'7" Jones (without heels) and 6' Guy Madison:
Click Here
By the way, Hudson was the exact same height as 6'6" Mickey Simpson who played Sarge in the movie GIANT. Hudson and Simpson have that great fight in the roadside diner. adam says on 22/Jul/09
Walker looks 2-3 inches taller but they are NOT standing on even ground. There is a pic where both men are standing in even ground and they are about the same height. Walker possibly just slightly taller.
And if you`ll get a chance, watch the film called IRON MAN. Arness is about an inch taller than Hudson.
And you still havent answered to this:
If Cotten truly was 6-2 and Rock "only" 6-5, then why does Rock look that huge and why Joe looks 5-6 inches shorter? Doug says on 22/Jul/09
Arness was taller than Hudson for sure. So was Clint Walker seriously. And Walker and Arness met and Walker said than Arness was exactly an inch taller. They were Hollywood's tallest 6'6" and 6'7". Hudson was a solid 6'5" maybe a little more at peak. Frank2 says on 22/Jul/09
Nope. I've seen photos taken on the set of SEND ME NO FLOERS and Walker was clearly two to three inches taller than Hudson. Hudson wasn't 6'6". His peak was 6'5". No way was Arness the same height as Hudson. Arness had two inches on him. adam says on 22/Jul/09
If Cotton was 6-2, then Rock was definitely above 6-6. Watch the film. In THE LAST SUNSET Hudson looks enormous. I mean enormous. Huge. Joseph Cotten looks short and small next to him. No way is there a three-inch difference. More like 5-6 inches.
And in SEND ME NO FLOWERS Walker does look clearly taller than Hudson but Walker is standing on a slope. Had they been in even ground, then they`d be just about the same height. Walker might have had an inch on him because Clint was at least 6-6 peak, probably 6-7.
And Arness was 6-7. In a film he did with Rock (it`s called IRON MAN, also Jeff Chandler is in it) Arness and Hudson are just about the same height. Arness possibly slightly taller. But they both are clearly taller than Jeff Chandler who was 6-4. Doug says on 21/Jul/09
I thought Hudson was 6'5" peak. Clint Walker looked taller I thought. Frank2 says on 21/Jul/09
It was taken at the same publicity shoot at Paramount. Only the book has several shots in it. Clint is not wearing lifts. Just regular boots. Not even cowboy boots. Sorry can't post it. But I'm sure if you look around you can find the book.
Rock wasn't 6'6". I met him, stood right next to him. I also met 6'7" James Arness. Big difference in height. In SEND ME NO FLOWERS, Clint Walker showed up and made Rock look short.
Cotton was 6'2" and Dean was about 5'6". adam says on 21/Jul/09
Frank2, could you share that pic where Eastwood is standing with Hudson? And please, dont use that Paramount photo where Wayne and Eastwood are standing with boots on and Rock is wearing dress shoes. And they are in a different row.
Frank, what do you say about these:
-Joseph Cotten was 6-2, right? Hudson had 4-5 inches on him in THE LAST SUNSET.
-James Dean was 5-6 or just slightly more. He wore lifts in GIANT and still looked just about a foot shorter than Hudson.
-In the same film (GIANT) Rock Hudson is the same height as Mickey Simpson who was 6-6
-Rock Hudson was clearly taller than Jeff Chandler in a film they did together. Chandler was at least 6-4. (By the way, they supposedly had an affair during the filming!)
-Rock Hudson was just about the same height as James Arness in a film they did together. Arness was 6-7 peak.
So, Frank. Im claiming that Rock was 6-6 -not 6-5. And that he was THE tallest leading actor of all time. Taller than Christopher Lee, Sterling Hayden, Vince Vaughn and so on. What do you say about that? Doug says on 20/Jul/09
What has amazed me is that Kennedy is still living. I'd have predicted a 300 pound + guy of his size to have dided of a heart attack long ago in the 80s. Miracle he is still living. Frank2 says on 20/Jul/09
Then Adam, we need to downgrade every actor who worked with Kennedy by an inch.
I have photos in a book showing Clint Eastwood next to Rock Hudson as well as John Wayne, Yves Montand and Lee Marvin. Clint is as tall as Rock and is two to three inches taller than Marvin who I met and was a solid 6'2". Clint and Kennedy were the same height in the EIGER SANCTION. I met Clint back when he did that film and he was most certainly all of 6'4". So was Kennedy wearing lifts in that film? adam says on 20/Jul/09
George Kennedy is 6-3 and weighs over 300lbs. His bulk makes him appear taller. Kennedy was the same height as Dan Blocker who was 6-3 at the very most. Doug says on 20/Jul/09
Nielsen only looked 5'11" in Naked Gun series, at the time he claimed 6'. I think Niellsen was close to 6'1" at peak though, maybe 184cm. In Naked Gun Kennedy still looked in the 6'4" rang, he was 3 inches taller than 6'1" OJ Simpson. adam says on 20/Jul/09
Eastwood was shorter than Liam Neeson by a good inch. Neeson was 6-4˝ peak, nowadays an even 6-4.
Eastwood was probably near 6-4 peak. But Wayne wore lifts! Frank2 says on 20/Jul/09
Well, in the POLICE SQUAD movies, Kennedy towered over Leslie Nielson:
Click Here
Nielson was 6'1" in his prime, but by the time of the POLICE SQUAD movies he had lost a couple of inches.
In FORBIDDEN PLANET, Nielson was the same height as 6'1" Walter Pidgeon:
Click Here
Click Here jervis says on 18/Jul/09
But was GEORGE kENNEDY 6ft4 or 6ft3? peteyork says on 17/Jul/09
Has anybody got a photo of clint with another famous celeb in the 70's like jeff bridges, and clint with the same celeb now. Unforgiven to million dollar baby is indisputable proof of at least 2 inch height loss between 1992 and 2004. Doug says on 17/Jul/09
And don't forget Kennedy was minimum 6'4", likely 6'4.5" at peak. Saw pics of Eastwood next to Reagan in the late 80s though, and next to Arnie and Moeller in the early to mid 90s and he looked 6'3" max. In 1995's Madison County he looked a solid 6'2", no more as he looked 6'2" in 1999. Peak height I'm pretty sure he was close to 6'4" same as Wayne. Today he is struggling with 6'1" barefoot, looks 184cm next to 194-195cm Robbins today. Frank2 says on 17/Jul/09
In THE EIGER SANCTION, Eastwood was the same height as 6'4" George Kennedy.
I believe Eastwood has lost a few inches in height. Why? I have no idea. In SPACE COWBOYS he looked way shorter than his old height of 6'4". jervis says on 17/Jul/09
Yes Doug in true crime Clint was the same as 6ft2 Dennis Leary.He was 69 and had lost about 1 inch off his peak hight of 6ft3. Mark says on 16/Jul/09
I realize I'm wasting away precious time on banter, Doug, but did you not think I understood your point, before you even typed it? But, I resereve the right to grow tired of comments that wander off the main topic so much, that we FORGET what is supposed to be relevant to what. I think I'm spending too much time on this site, as I'm now debating with a guy who does that silly ALL CAPS thing to get his point across. Signing off for a good, long while. Doug says on 16/Jul/09
Dave, I also watched the film like you and I didnt think he looked anything above 6'2". Doug says on 16/Jul/09
Mark discussions here are taking place about Robbins and Freeman because THEY ARE RELEVANT to how tall Clint was in comparison. Mark says on 15/Jul/09
..Is this about Robbins and Freeman, or Clint Eastwood? Maybe I'll check out Robbin's and Freeman's pages on this site, to find Clint Eastwood discussions. jervis says on 15/Jul/09
I dont agree, I see 3 inches between Robbins and Freeman in that picture,and 4 with Costner.If Freeman is 6ft1 then you are right TELLEM,but i dont think he is I still think he is 6ft2 and a half.iN recent pictures with 6ft1 Forest Witicker FREEMAN was at lest 1 inch taller maybe 2.If Freeman is6FT1 that would make Witicker less than 6ft witch i dont belive. Dave, UK says on 15/Jul/09
Saw True Crime here in the UK last friday. Eastwoods posture, especially when walking, is terrible. When he walks his lower back is tilted to the right & is pushed forward. When he stands, again he is clearly sloping to the right withhis pelvis pushed forward. He clearly suffers with something my paternal grandfather had, called "lumbar scoliosis". This clearly explains the obvious height loss, especially in old age of a good 2-3 inches. If any of you out there actually try & stand like this & then get someone to measure you, you will easily get a drop of 3 inches. ps I am a med student, in case anyone thinks this is made up!!! Hugh 191cm says on 15/Jul/09
Eastwood was taller than freeman in the 90s. Vegas says on 15/Jul/09
i was talking about clips i seen of robbins and costner on tv together in 88 not bull durham but if you want to talk about the movie robbins is still roughly 4 inches taller in that, its certainly more than 3 inches Click Here TELLEM says on 14/Jul/09
tim robbins and morgan freeman: Click Here
doesn't look like 3 inches here. TELLEM says on 14/Jul/09
kevin costner and tim robbins again:
Click Here
tim is slightly tilting his head up and has better posture than costner. if they would straighten up it would be 3.5 inches TELLEM says on 14/Jul/09
you ppl over estimate tim robbins' height. look at him with 6'1 kevin costner: Click Here thats 3 inches, not 4. hes 6'4 and a half. TELLEM says on 14/Jul/09
tim robbins wasn't 6'6. he stated his HEIGHT at 6'4 and a HALF. how the hell is he 6'6? look at him in the police line up in "the player". he wasn't even close to 6'6, even if he was in shoes. 6'4.5 for tim robbins, like he's said. Danimal says on 14/Jul/09
Doug says on 14/Jul/09
Robbins is a roughly 6'5" today but you look at older pics of him and he looks every inch 6'6".
He's also been described as having been 6'7" by a former coworker of his on Conan Obrien. NO WAY is/was he only 6'4.5". He had way more than 2-2.5" on Morgan Freeman. We're talking at least 4" if not more. Vegas says on 14/Jul/09
robbins looked about 4 inches taller than 6-1 kevin costner in 1988, he is a giant of a man no doubt Doug says on 14/Jul/09
Robbins is a roughly 6'5" today but you look at older pics of him and he looks every inch 6'6". Doug says on 14/Jul/09
That is not right anon. Christopher Reeve WAS 6'4". He looked looked easily 6'42 next to 6' Ronald Reagan. Google image them. Robbins was about 2 inches taller than Reeve pointing to a 6'6" peak for Robbins which I'd always thought. Reeve WAS 6'4". His son is also very tall and 6'3" and still growing. Vegas says on 14/Jul/09
you don't know who liam neeson is?? stars episode one playing Obi-Wan Kenobis master, schindlers list playing schindler, batman begins playing Ra's al Ghul, not sure why neeson has been mentioned in this but he is at least 6'3 and probably in the 6-4 range Anonymous says on 14/Jul/09
Have you seen the pictures of Robbins with Christopher Reeve,Robbins dose not look only half an inch taller,more like 2 or 3 inches.I think Clint was a strong 6ft3 when young and began to lose hight at around 60 years old.He was never 6ft4 and all other actors like Marvin, Kennady,Hackman,and i could go on forever need to be listed at 1 inch shorter. Danimal says on 13/Jul/09
TELLEM says on 13/Jul/09
morgan freeman sure wasn't over 6'2 in shawshank redemption. he was about 56 yrs. old during that time, he probably lost an inch of height.
Morgan Freeman was said to be 6'3.5" in his younger days. He was minimum 6'2"-6'2.5" in the Shawshank Redemption, put Tim Robbins at minimum 6'6". TELLEM says on 13/Jul/09
by the way: heres a photo of tim robbins looking no more than 6'4.5 with muhammad ali, ali was about 6'2-6'2.5 peak and here hes most likely shorter than 6'2 since his condition has affected his posture and hes lost height: Click Here TELLEM says on 13/Jul/09
i don't know who neeson is, and quite frankly, i don't care. show some proof? browse on over to the tim robbins page, and the man is quoted saying: "I'm six foot four and a half and I have a temper." playboy magazine 1992. Theres your PROOF straight from the man's mouth. hes not 6'5. and morgan freeman most likely isn't 6'2. end of. Anonymous says on 13/Jul/09
So Tellem Clint was about 1 inch shorter than Neeson in the dead pool and was 58 years old.Do you think he lost an inch to?or do you not think Neeson was ever 6ft4.Morgan Freeman is still at least 6ft2 now its complet rubbish to say he is not.Robbins is at least 6ft5,show some proof he is not.HE WAS AT LEAST 3 INCHES TALLER THAN FREEMAN AND IM STICKING TO THAT.Freeman was 6ft2 and a half in shawshank and there is no photos to say he was not. Hugh 191cm says on 13/Jul/09
Eastwood at 6ft2/188cm nowadays I can maybe buy. I've decided at clints peak was really 6ft3-6ft4. 193cm out of bed. peteyork says on 13/Jul/09
Mark google Clint Eastwood back problems TELLEM says on 13/Jul/09
morgan freeman sure wasn't over 6'2 in shawshank redemption. he was about 56 yrs. old during that time, he probably lost an inch of height. Anonymous says on 13/Jul/09
So how tall was Morgan Freeman in shawshank TELLEM? Mark says on 12/Jul/09
Bob...Exactly what is this Eastwood back surgery I keep reading about, on this site only. I have searched the net for info to back that up, and found nothing. When did he have it, what for, and where did you read it? |
