How tall is Rupert Grint

Rupert Grint's Height

5ft 7.75in (172 cm)

UK Actor from Harry Potter movies (Ron Weasley). This guy's posture looks laid back in a lot of his photos. He "doesn't" know his height but has said "about 5ft 8".

Add a Comment 250 comments




Mike6'2 said on 29/Aug/16
In casting him he was a tall kid and I guess they expected he would surpass the 6' mark.
rop said on 26/Jun/16
Tom felt on is 5cms taller than Rupert
MazZayn said on 18/Apr/16
In google said 178 ,rob why are some of the height wrong placed???!??
Editor Rob: he's only claimed 5ft 8 so maybe it is outdated information, especially if their algorithm took the height from some sites that had him listed 5ft 10.
Maximus said on 4/Apr/16
Probably around 5'8" or very close......
themis said on 23/Mar/16
tom felton is 179 its taller than helena than danniel and its 8 m shorter than rupert and mathew
TommyGunner said on 17/Mar/16
5'7 2/4
Rubio said on 14/Feb/16
Looks no taller than 5' 6". Rob I think he needs a serious downgrade.

Here he is with 5' 5 emma watson. Click Here

Emma probably has a 1" advantage and it looks like rupert grint is wearing lifts.
Editor Rob: I think you could argue 5ft 7 for him, but 5ft 6 seems a bit short
Rubio said on 12/Feb/16
Grint is 5 ft 6 no more. Rob I think he needs a downgrade.
thatmanoverthere said on 3/Feb/16
Who is taller? Ed Sheeran or Rupert?
KnightX said on 30/Jan/16
AHAHA.... Definitely Google haves some kinda of deal with short actors, because Google had posted 1,78 m for Rupert, when he haves just 1,72 m. What is the idea of Google by doing so?!
Ally said on 13/Apr/15
He doesn't look any taller than he is listed here. 5'7.75" seems right
CD said on 5/Apr/15
More likely Ed Sheeran is 171 range. Rupert at 172 is fine. He has never looked more than 3 inches taller than Daniel Radcliffe either who is 164 or 165.
Keltoi said on 3/Apr/15
I actually think he's a proper 173cm, maybe a fraction over.

He looked taller than Sheeran by a half inch. If Ed is 172cm, then Grint must be 173cm-ish. I think his posture and choice of footwear can make him look around 170cm at times, but he's taller.

I'm 173cm and have been guessed anywhere from 170cm to 178cm depending on the circumstances.
LX1 said on 8/Mar/15
no it's not, Ria. he's 5'7-ish. not 5'7 neither 5'8
Chilean said on 2/Feb/15
he looks shorter than ed sheeran
Height182 said on 5/Dec/14
5'7.75''? Wow, I thought he was like 5'5.5'' or something. This guy must be the shortest looking near 5'8'' guy in HISTORY.
kale said on 27/Sep/14
he really look not more than 172cm
mate said on 5/Jul/14
i reckon he is about 5'6" (168 cms)
Realist said on 30/Apr/14
Rob he has grown some bit since Order of Phoenix i think. He looks taller in Half Blood Prince. He and Felton are almost exact. Felton: 174 Grint: 173
Lurker said on 20/Apr/14
I was stood next to him a couple of days ago, I'm 6'0 in my Doc Martens so I would think 5'8 is a reasonable guess.
abhay said on 20/Apr/14
i think he is 5'8 flat170cms
abhay said on 20/Apr/14
i think he is 5'8 flat170cms
avi said on 27/Mar/14
closer to 5'7 flat than 5'8
Realist said on 8/Feb/14
Rob i think he is 5'7 flat 170 cms.
Forrest95 said on 18/Jan/14
He's so similar to Ed Sheeran, both looked same height in the music video lego house near the end although might be his posture
Peter said on 2/Dec/13
171 cm tom cruise 172 with long nek
Wip said on 14/Sep/13
when i met him in a supermarket about a year ago he was wearing those pumps with very little soles and seemed slightly taller than me. I would guess I had about 0.5 inch footwear more and have measured myself using Robs method at 5'8.1. Seemed more 5'8.5ish to me.
Willow said on 25/Aug/13
I've seen Rupert in person and I must say he's surely more than 197,5 high... I swear!
Byron T. said on 4/Apr/13
Looks about the same height as Ed Sheeran in the ''Lego House'' music video. Under 5'8'' as listed.
Jay said on 14/Mar/13
Felton: 174 (confirmed by Rob)
Grint: 170-172
Watson: 161 (seen her in person; much shorter than expected)
Radcliffe: 164
Wright: 167
Rheneas said on 23/Feb/13
For me:
Felton 175
Wright 165
Radcliffe 166
Watson 168
Grint 173
Oldman 178
Rickman 185
Gambon 180-183
Thewlis 189-191
marla singer said on 28/Dec/12
To me:
felton 174 (as Rob met him, but he pulls off looking much taller)
bonnie 166-167
daniel 164 (he's noticeably shorter than bonnie...1cm wouldn't be noticed)
emma 163 (i think she's shorter than daniel but i'm not sure how much)
rupert 172 (but he has very bad posture and lower shoes than everyone so he can look 170 sometimes)
Anyway before I discovered this site, I had read on a magazine that Daniel was 5'8"... that made felton look 6'1, and I was damn sure he was 6 ft tall xD
Original said on 24/Dec/12
Felton: 174 cm
Rupert: 172 cm
Daniel: 165 cm
Emma: 164 cm
srinu said on 1/Oct/12
ah.... His height is about 5.8fit his look tollor then dnil & emma(my friend)
Keltoi said on 5/Sep/12
He looked very similar in height to Ed Sheeran who's 5'7" ish.

Having said that though, I don't think a half inch would be very noticeable to most, and certainly not to me; so there's a possibility he could be just under 5'8".
Keltoi said on 5/Sep/12
He looked very similar in height to Ed Sheeran who's 5'7" ish.

Having said that though, I don't think a half inch would be very noticeable to most, and certainly not to me; so there's a possibility he could be just under 5'8".
marla singer said on 2/Sep/12
He's 5'7"
matt789 said on 25/Aug/12
5 ft 8 i wouldnt say is realley short for a guy i mean i'm 5 ft 10 1/2 and i've never been called short and thats only 2.5 inches taller then 5 fot 8
Maximus Meridius said on 24/Aug/12
Rob is there a chance he is 5ft 8in.
Primo said on 18/Aug/12
Think this guy is more like 5ft6 then 5ft7.75 but is my opinion
hpfinatic said on 15/Aug/12
Rupert is 5'8". That's really short for a guy. He seems tall because of how short Daniel is. He's only 5'5".
theblacklab said on 12/Jun/12
I have no idea why people are saying girls and boys stop growing at sixteen. Patterns in growth are so erratic it is almost impossible to identify any correlation. Boys and girls generally stop growing at 21, but after 18.5 years the growth is so minimal is can barely be noticed. However, as I mentioned before, this isn't always the case. Some people can grow until they are 28, but the chances of this is slim. Anyway, as for Rupert's particular height, I believe is a legitimate 5'7.5", whilst Dan is 5'5", perhaps even 5'4.5", and Emma I have no doubt a petite version of a 5'4" girl, 2" of her ambitious 5'6" claim.
Ethan Johnston said on 23/Jan/12
Rupe 5’7’’ Radcliffe 5’6’’
Jonas said on 3/Jan/12
How can you call Grint 5'10? Rupert is around 5'8... Ria, you have no clue... Daniel Radcliffe 5'8? Have you completely lost the plot? Radcliffe is 5'5.
Godred said on 27/Dec/11
Ria & Kashfia - You have absolutely no idea how to do this.
Felton - 5`9.
Grint - 5`8 max.
Radcliffe - 5`5.
Thierro said on 27/Dec/11
Rupert: 174 cm
Daniel: 165 cm
Emma: 164 cm
Bonnie: 169 cm

These are my opinions.
fricanman said on 27/Dec/11
Check these photos from Daily Mail at Harry Potter wrap. Rupert taller than Daniel, Daniel taller and Emma (except when she wears heels) Tom Felton taller than all three in cast photo. We know Tom is 5'8"-9" range from Rob's picture - the rest is common sense!
Interesting height comparisons over the years - looks to me like Daniel may have grown the most since the films began.
Click Here
Ryan said on 17/Dec/11
You are an idiot, if thats what you think, kashfia. Check out Rob next to tom felton (174cm). tom felton is about 3-4 inches taller than radcliffe. You obviously want that kid to be tall, but lets face the facts, he's SHORT.
Kashfia said on 13/Dec/11
Daniel Radcliffe is definitely NOT 5'5" or shorter in his bare feet. Daniel Radcliffe is only 5'8" in his bare feet. Rupert Grint is 5'10" or 5'11" in his bare feet. My dad is 6'5" in his bare feet and Daniel Radcliffe looked 9 inches shorter than him.
Greg said on 11/Dec/11
Rob's got this guy pinned, there's exactly 0.75'' between him and Felton. It's funny because in the movies Rupert looks about 6'0'', but then when you factor in that Daniel Radcliffe is barely 5'5'' you realize that Rupert is more like 5'8''.
Kashfia said on 10/Dec/11
How could Rupert Grint be only 5'8" or 5'9" if his younger brother, James is at least 6'1"?
medha said on 29/Nov/11
i think deniel's height is just same as me.
David said on 25/Nov/11
He never looks taller than 5'8 to me. Daniel is more like 5'4.5, I think.
sylinher said on 26/Sep/11
the funny thing about this guy it's that his character...ron weasly... is pretty tall in the books of harry potter..that has to be the reason of why he looks taller in the movies..
iam surprised about his real height...he looked at leats 5'11...mad world
jim said on 4/Sep/11
sep, 6 11 hey I am 5'9 inches, my familys height is about 5'5 average yet my gramps was 6'0 I wonder if I will recieve some of that height as well. oh i almost forgot, rupert is 5'9
Jay said on 2/Sep/11
This listing is quite spot on - the main three of HP are not tall people at all - all three are under 5'8" (Emma doesn't even reach 5'8" in massive heels... I don't think it's plausible to make them any bigger). I'd say 5'7.5", but this is pretty good.
amitesh said on 20/Aug/11
yeah thats for sure that rupert grint is surely between 5'8-5'9 and no more taller than that.
dementor alice said on 19/Aug/11
I am looking at the recent DH2 New York opening photos where they are all standing next to Alan Rickman. Rickman is known to be 6'1. Keep in mind Watson is wearing heels maybe platforms but looks about 5'8 in the photo compared to Rickman. You can get a better idea how tall the male cast members are. Felton and Grint both look to be about 5'10. Lewis looks pretty close to the same height as Rickman, so 6ft or 6'1. Radcliffe 5'6, 5'7 tops. Hope that helps.
Henkka said on 10/Aug/11
@Jay: You're right, but that's the risk of being young and famous: fan claims are usually exaggerations, and you can't really know anything for certain unless you've met them or have something to help gauging them.
In the case of Rupert or Tom I think it's pretty clear that 5'7.5" for the first and 5'8.5" for the later is pretty much spot on. I haven't met Emma, but I agree she looks 5'3 tops (though I heard her claim 5'5", not as much as 5'6"). But I met Daniel once and he didn't look 5'4" flat to me. It might have been because of his footwear, I don't know, but at that moment he looked 5'5" flat to me (but I agree, he might be below that, sometimes he looks shorter).

I've also met Matt Lewis and Evanna Lynch, and can confirm that the 5'11.5" and 5' listings, respectively, are pretty much correct.
paul said on 7/Aug/11
with 5'8.5 listed Tom Felton
Click Here
DMan said on 7/Aug/11
"well, at 16 you are pretty much done growing"
Having just turned 19 and witnessed for myself, i can tell you that this isn't true. I know a number of people who have grown quite a number of inches since 16. I think for the MAJORITY of people, this is the case, but there is a significant yet smaller number of people where this is just not true at all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. Alot of people have major spurts after the age of 16. I remember a friend of my was around 5'7-5'8 around his 16th birthday and a year later he was an easy 6'0-6'0.5, and the year after that he hit 6'1.

As for Grint, I always thought he looked taller in the Potter films, maybe his slim build or the fact he's around shorter actors/actresses?

Click Here
That's a fairly recent photo, not the best of angles but gets dwarfed by the Phelp twins, 5'8 MAX.
Jay said on 7/Aug/11
Agree with Henkka, there is a lot of exaggeration out there. Particularly with the young cast of HP - I've never heard/seen Rupert state his height but Emma and Dan both add several inches (Emma is less than 5'3" but claims 5'6", Dan has a less ludicrous claim - he says he is 5'5" while he is actually 5'4"). A lot of it is strange fan speculation too - people *still* insist Tom Felton is 6'1", when he is 5'8" or slightly less. Rupert is about half an inch shorter than he is, so 5'7.5" is accurate.
This listing is pretty accurate
SunKing said on 28/Jul/11
He's between 5'7.5" - 5'8".

I'm slightly above 5'7.5" at night myself and he looks my height.
Henkka said on 27/Jul/11
@Jed: Well, it happens a lot. Tom Felton is listed in some places at 6'1, when he's around 5'8.5. Or Josh Herdman, who is listed at 6'4 when he's 5'10.5. Some people like to exagerate a lot and have pretty bad sight, that's it.

I'm positive Rupert is between this listing and 5'8, but no more. Felton's got a good inch on him, and he's slightly below 5'9.
Martin said on 27/Jul/11
he looks about 5'8-5'8.5" to me
Jed said on 26/Jul/11
He can't be 5'7.75 if he's being called 5'11 in places. 8cm isn't going to be seen if it's not there.
jake said on 20/Jul/11
He might be 5ft8.5
Drizzle said on 20/Jul/11
This makes me think that I'm perfect for him! I'm quite short, but he's not so short nor so tall. Well, I'm ready for our wedding Rup!
Honor said on 17/Jul/11
I saw Rupert at the Deathly Hallows Part II premier, he explicitly told me he was 6 ft however I believe him to be lying as I am 6 ft and he appeared shorter than me.
5\'8.56784 said on 14/Jul/11
He's 5'7, tho he usually wears boots, so he miay appear 5'8.
Benj said on 11/Jul/11
Noticed the guardian article -which claims him to be 5'11 at a somewhat arbitrary point in the article. Surley taller than 5'8 then
Prague, CZ said on 4/Jul/11
These are so ****ing short. God dammit, I thought he was at least 6 feet tall.
Compared to him, I am very tall person. I'm 6 feet 1 inches (186 cm) tall.
Reed said on 3/Jul/11
dan radcliffe is 5'5" so 5'7 5'8 seems about right for rupert
Therese said on 3/Jul/11
Just read The Guardian article that came out today. The interviewer at one point refers to Rupert as 5'11. Truthfully I don't think he's that tall, but this guy was walking around with him so, who knows? The article: Click Here
Red said on 13/May/11
If Daniel Radcliffe is really 5 ft 5 as listed, then I think Rupert is closer to 5.8.5"-5.9".
maria said on 8/May/11
what? i was think rupert 180 cm and he was 172 cm
rafa said on 28/Apr/11
He has a VERY BAD posture. He should improve his posture; look at Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt; they have A STRAIGHT POSTURE.
Tori said on 23/Apr/11
Wow, in the movies he looked a little taller than that. But I dont care because im only 5'3". He's my favorite, partly cuz of his hight. ;*
David said on 12/Apr/11
Lol, always noticeably shorter than 5'4 Emma Watson is heels... How can anyone think he's 5'9 or even 5'10? Even 5'8 seems like a stretch. 5'7.5 is about right. And yes, he's done growing. He's 22. He already looked his current height back in 2007... Most guys are done growing by the age of 18. Of course, there are late bloomers who can grow past that age, but Rupert is definitely not one. Neither are most people.
Jack said on 9/Apr/11
I'd say this site has it right. Rupert is max 5'7.75", maybe a tiny bit shorter. Unless he's had a strange growth spurt since the last premiere, he's finished at under 5'8". As for Daniel and Emma, they are both in the region of 5'2" to 5'4", and given that photographic evidence is ridiculously inconsistent (angles, footwear advantages in Emma's case, hair height etc ad nauseum) it's impossible to say which is taller, but Rupert is obviously the tallest of the trio.
Anon said on 7/Apr/11
They must have been slouching big time then because any pictures I've seen with the three of them, Rupert has looked a good 7-8 inches smaller.

His head tends to come up to around the beginning of their noses.
Therese said on 4/Apr/11
Just watched an extended DVD clip of Rupert and the Phelps brothers. If they're 6'3 as some sites report and they have a good 5 or 6 inches on Rupert, I think saying Rupert is around 5'9 isn't too far off.
Aaron said on 2/Apr/11
Sorry, but 5'10" or anything near that is just an impossibility for this guy.
Aside from the fact that he usually wears tall heels, there's no way Grint is even 5'9" unless Watson is wearing 6 inch heels in this pic. He's grown a little over the past 4 years, but by no more than half an inch.
Click Here
Anonymous said on 13/Feb/11
Well he looks a good inch shorter than Tom Felton (174cm) in most photos and he wasn't much taller than Matt Lucas (169cm) in Come Fly With Me, so I'd say he's somewhere between 170cm and 173cm, but no more.

I'd be more inclined to think that he's 171cm-ish than 173cm though.
the truth said on 12/Feb/11
Average height of a caucasian guy below 50 years old is 5-10.5 in the US
Paula said on 22/Jan/11
ele não tem so isso, em 2006 fez um filme chamado Lições de Vida(Driving Lessons)e ele perto da atriz Laura Linney que tem 5'10" ficava quase do mesmo tamanho, imagina agora que se passaram 4 anos.
maximus meridius said on 7/Jan/11
he is 22 now i don't think he will grow anymore besides 5ft 8in is not short because it's not many inches below average height some boys carry on growing until there 22 that's only the lucky ones most boys are done growing by 17 18 that's only the early bloomers it's not uncommon for boys to carry on growing until there 22 some boys carry on growing until they are 23 24 25 26 and 27 which is very rare some boys just happen to be late bloomers.
michael said on 3/Jan/11
5-8 seems dead on if Radcliffe is 5-5, because in general he looks about 3 inches taller than him.
Anonymous said on 30/Dec/10
People don't realize how tall a legit 5'9 or 5'10 is. This guy is not 5'10. Not 2 inches only away from 6'!! I agree you can look shorter or taller but there are scenes where there is only 3 inch difference between him and Radcliffe. He is 5'8. He isn't taller than Felton and Rob has a pic with him and he is barely over 5'8 himself. Rob you've got it within a half inch.He isnt taller than 5'8.
d wade said on 24/Dec/10
5,7 maximum a 5,9 doesnt look so short.
Andy said on 23/Dec/10
good 4 inches on harry 5'9''minimum
Click Here
Julia said on 6/Dec/10
I met him in London last week, and I'm 5"9.5 and he had a good half inch / inch on me.
TheTruth said on 2/Dec/10
I have an actual book that says Rupert Grint is 5'10" and it doesn't matter how tall he "looks" because people can look 5'8" if they're 5'6", etc. But I know that he is 5'10" and this book was published like 3 years ago and I don't think that he would shrink in 3 years. If you want to see the book, it's called: Boys We Love.
I don't know anything about it. So, stop saying he's 5'7"-5'9" because that is obviously not true right now.
d wade said on 29/Nov/10
radcliffe and emma watson are both 5,4 not 5,6 and rupert grint is 5,7 not 5,9 a 5,9 doesnt look that small.
tweetybirdflii said on 28/Nov/10
i think he is 5'9 probably he luks mah tall tho so :-/ lml :]]]
maximus meridius said on 27/Nov/10
Rupert Grint is defiantly 5ft 8in for sure 5ft 10in is a bit too high for him he is not 5ft 10in
Emma Watson is 5ft 5in she is not 5ft 6in 5ft 6in is a bit high for her
Daniel Radcliffe is 5ft 6in he is not 5ft 8in that is too high for him
maximus meridius said on 27/Nov/10
Since he is 5ft 8in he still has short legs a 5ft 9in and a 5ft 10in would have average legs a man of 5ft 11in has long legs tall starts from 5ft 11in he has longer legs that daniel radcliffe but he still has short legs.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Nov/10
He must've grown a bit. Not under 5"8, probably 174cm
Blah said on 20/Nov/10
Acutally, for boys you can grow more until you're mid 20's, that's only if you haven't reached your limit in your DNA. Some boys these days only grow until they're 16 because these days nutrition is easier to get, so they grow quickly but reached their limit faster too.
Moke said on 20/Nov/10
I also think 5'8 might be the better guess. The guy very often wears converse and has the posture of an old man. What do you think he has on Bonnie Wright here: Click Here
I've no clue what her footwear gives....
Close said on 19/Nov/10
Well I saw the new harry potter film: Deathly Hallows, and I gotta say, Rupert had a lot of height on Daniel. He had at least 3 1/2 inches on Daniel. You need to upgrade him. Hes a 5'8, maybe 5'8.5.
Anonymous said on 19/Nov/10
well look at this pic... Assume Emma has 3" heels, she's taller than Dan and he's wearing shoes as well... And Rupert is about her height with heels...
Click Here(PEOPLE.com:+Top+Headlines)
Justme said on 13/Nov/10
Well Shoes and Hair can add a little height, so can't blame people for thinking
he is a little bit taller then his true height.
Anonymous said on 12/Nov/10
"well, at 16 you are pretty much done growing"
Having just turned 19 and witnessed for myself, i can tell you that this isn't true. I know a number of people who have grown quite a number of inches since 16. I think for the MAJORITY of people, this is the case, but there is a significant yet smaller number of people where this is just not true at all.
Rikashiku said on 7/Nov/10
My brother was 6'2" at 12 and 6'4" at 22. He grew to 6'5" when he turned 26.

Men keep growing into 21 on average, girls grow until 16 today. It used to be 18.
daigo said on 31/Oct/10
WOW.... cant believe this...im 171cm and he's 172. and i thought dan was 170 so in my mind i always thought of him (rupert) as a 178-179...
Rampage(\\-_-_-/)Clover said on 27/Oct/10
5"8(173cm) by now surely?
Anonymous said on 15/Oct/07
umad80, why do you still bother answering Anna's posts, she's already been discredited. That Pride of Britain video was a definite proof that Watson is either as tall as JKR or slightly shorter, which puts her closer to 5'4" than to 5'6". But Anna only sees what she wants to see. Just ignore her.
Anna said on 14/Oct/07
lmao, I've looked at that umad80, and that's where I "learnt" how to mesure inches. However, going by your new way of thinking, Rupert has barely a 1/2" on Emma and Dan is only an inch shorter than RUpert. And you seem to think Dan and Emma are nothing more than 5'5" to a weak 5'6", so I am guessing you now believe that Rupert is no more than 5'6" or 5'6.5". Interesting. I'm joking (slightly), but I think you get the general direction I'm going - you say one thing whilst comparing Rupert to someone such as Tom (e.g. your belief that Rupert is only a 1/2" shorter) and then you completely disregard what you said whilst comparing Rupert and Dan/Emma. It's quite obvious that you are doing it, at least to me, and do not get me wrong, I am probably absentmindedly doing it as well, but I am just quite noticing that you are doing it blatantly or absentmindedly, which way is still to be discovered on my part. And as for the JKR/Emma video. Fistly, I'd like to say that i strongly believe that it is hard to see where the two are standing in regard to one another (when JK is getting the award) and from what I can determine, Emma is standing in back, thus losing height presumably. I question placement because Emma looked easily as tall as JK before and after "the hug", which, like I said, makes me question where said were standing, although Emma still did not look considerably shorter than JK during the award giving. That is, definitley not 2 inches shorter like you are saying. And, okay, I shall be open-minded, but the only way I'll believe you is if you give me a photo of JK and Emma at the ceremony where you can actually see how and where they are standing (again, in the video we don't know how they are standing either). If you can do so, I'll believe you. But as of now, Emma looks as tall if not slightly taller than JK in the more reliable part of the video I saw. And, give Rob a break, he's Scottish ;).
umad80 said on 13/Oct/07
Anna, obviously YOU are. An inch would be right on the forehead, this is clearly above. Again I direct you to Rob's "How to Measure a Celebrities Height" on the left hand corner. (And no, I didn't misspell or anything, that's what Rob has.) It'll show you that. It may be a little more than a half inch, but it's definitely not a full inch. But this is coming from the girl who thinks that Emma was taller than JKR at the PoB awards any way... And for Rupert to be 5'7" in 2005, he'd have to be two inches shorter than Tom. But it's definitely not two inches... But again, I refer you to think JKR is shorter than Emma at the awards, so your opinion really holds no weight.

As for Tom's head, so is Rupert. That was the point. They are standing about the same. But of course, this again is coming from the girl who posted a picture of Rupert and Emma where the camera focused on Emma, and thus called it proof that Emma is "5'6"ish". But when it doesn't fit into your little world of what you think is accurate, you say these things.
Anna said on 12/Oct/07
umad80, that's a 1/2"? Sadly, it looks more like 1 to 2 inches to me, which points one to the conclusion that Rupert was only 5'7" to 5'8" then, which seems pretty reasonable. Plus, we don't know how they are standing and Tom seems to be tilting his head, thus causing problems....but, honestly, I think our lack of agreeing is created by our varying opinions on how large a 1/2" to 1" is in photos because to me, that looks at least to be 1 inches, possibly 2 inches like I sadi. Definitley not only 1/2". Does anyone else agree with me? Not about everything, just that bit about the Rupert and Tom photo.....? I'm really confused. Either I am totally off in decifering an inch, or umad80 is.
umad80 said on 9/Oct/07
I don't mean to make a double post but I realized after I initially typed my first one that Anna made an absurd statement about Rupert and Emma standing in the background and Emma "surprisingly" being 1"-2" shorter. So I had to prove that this is not the case. Click Here - Emma has her head down, but it's illogical to think that would take 2"-3" off. Another: Click Here So, it's pretty absurd to say that Emma is 1"-2" shorter than Rupert here because it's clearly around 3"-4".

Here's another thing. If you look at the poster behind them, you can clearly see that Rupert comes to the chin of his alter-ego in the poster. Click Here (This is pretty consistant if you look at all the pictures.) However when you look at Emma? The v-line of Ron's sweater: Click Here
umad80 said on 9/Oct/07
How do YOU know where the shot was taken? You were not there. The point is that it's obvious that Rupert is very much taller than his co-stars and that Emma could not suddenly be taller than him in 3" heels.

Btw, I suggest you read your own link. They're very upfront and say that this is just THEIR belief as they are only fans and have no real contact with Emma.

Back in 2005 Rupert and Tom presented an award at the Pride of Britian awards. I finally found a picture of them standing together. Rupert was at least 5'8.5" if Tom was 5'9". Click Here
Anna said on 8/Oct/07
Yeah, I just realised it after I read into it more, but it was from a website manager, not just a fan. So, it gives it a bit more validity. And I know very well the shot is taken from above, which means, according to Rob, the person in back, in this case Rupert, gains height. Plus, he's getting even more advantage because of the angled shot. And in the cement, I was quite surprised by the fact that Emma didn't look much shorter than Rupert. Even being essentially barefoot. Also, when the trio took turns giving speeches, there are some shots of Rupert and Emma with both standing properly and quite surprsingly, Emma looks 1 to 2 inches shorter.
umad80 said on 8/Oct/07
That's not Emma's site, so it's just a fan thought. It doesn't count.

And you know very well that angle is not favoring Rupert because he's all the way in the back. If you look what Rob has posted: Click Here you can see very well that the angle would favor Rupert less. And of course if you look at them standing straight on the cement, Rupert is quite a bit taller than Emma.
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
The angle is favouring Rupert. Look at the floor and look at the old man, in other photos he is the same height ad Dan whereas in this photo he looks noticeably shorter. And with the website thing, I thought it was something from her official site, but just realised it was just a fansite. Nevertheless, here it is. Click Here And it does indeed show that another person/group of people believe that EMma is in that range.
umad80 said on 7/Oct/07
That doesn't help Anna. You could've written that. You need to show a link so we can see it for ourselves on the website. :)

And what I mean is that when they were barefoot and all, Rupert was quite a few inches taller. Click Here (and besides tilting her head just a bit, Emma is pretty straight - no knee bending). Click Here - this angle really favors Emma so her bending her head like that shouldn't make a difference. And you can still see Rupert is taller.
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
"15. How tall is Emma Watson?
She is always growing, so there is no exact figure. But as of now she is around 5' 6" or 5' 7". An article from a while back said that she was about 5' 5", but she has grown since then."
Anna said on 6/Oct/07
Honestly, I'll try and find the link when I have the time, but it really did say that. I'm being completely honest. And, I just find this bit of your post quite funny, "Besides the fact that if she's 5'6" to 5'7" then Rupert must be 6'." How? Even if you say Emma is only 5'5.5", 5'6" to 5'7" is only 1/2" to 1.5" more than that, so how can you go from saying 5'9" for Rupert to 6'? That's a 3 inch difference, not a 1.5" one. lmao. Right? And I still deny your claims that Rupert looked taller than Emma in those heels. I'll give them the same height when she's obviously slouching and rupert standing properly, but if you look at the video, with her standing properly she has at least an inch on him, which leads me to believe, once again, 5'6" to 5'7" for Emma and 5'8" for Rupert. Plus, it's utter crap to say "Rupert is much taller than her" when Emma isn't wearing heels. Crap I say! Perhaps when she is slouching awkwardly like she was at the train station whilst Rupert attempts to look "tall" compared to her, but when she stands up straightly, he really doesn't look to have more than 1 to 2 inches on her. Alex Watson is the only Harry Potter guy (he was an extra in OotP, sitting next to RUpert in the Great Hall, thus, he can be considered an HP guy) nowadays that can actually look to have a good 3 inches on Emma. To be honest, I would not be surprised if Emma had some late growth spurt and caught up to Rupert in the next film. However, let it be know that I quietly pray that this day will never come because that would be ever so depressing for the Harry Potter franchise. The 6'3" Ron and the 5'4" Hermione, oh, come again, the 5'8" Ron and the 5'9" Hermione Granger, who is taller than both of her MALE co-stars. Ah, how awful that would be.
umad80 said on 6/Oct/07
There were only a few angles that made Emma taller and that is because the camera angle favored her. Most of the time Rupert was taller but at least a half inch if not more. There were some photos, with her knee bent and head tilted where she knocked off like 3 inches of herself. Now, yes, obviously those things contributed but I doubt it was three inches. That would be a LOT. I can see 1-2 inches, but three? I just don't see that. Rupert was taller. Btw, Rob said that the heels definitely gave her around 3" so if she's 5'5" then she'd be 5'8". If she is 5'6" she'd be 5'9". And if by some crazy chance she is 5'7" then she'd be 5'10" in them.

And where on Emma's site is this? You'll have to link because I put it in all sorts of ways on google and got nothing. Besides the fact that if she's 5'6" to 5'7" then Rupert must be 6'. When Emma isn't wearing heels, Rupert is much taller than her.

Oh, Rupert's brother's name is James, but I don't know his height. His dad's name is Nigel and I don't know his height either. lol James said 5'11" with Rupert to a friend (he happens to be a huge Emma fan too) but it might've been some miscommunication and he meant himself.
Anna said on 6/Oct/07
How tall is Rupert's brother and what is his name? And as for umad, you are really still advocating that Rupert is taller than Emma in those heels? Come on, I think those photos reveal he is 5'8.5" tops in Converse, making him 5'8". And I would say the heels are 2.5"-3", so that would put Emma somewhere between 5'6" and 5'7", which would make sense. And as for her putting 1/2 inches and 1/4 inches on their official websites, I am quite positive that NO one does that. So, if she really were 5'6.25" or 5'6.5", she would just round down to 5'6". Also, I searches Emma Watson height on Google and something came up like "FAQ about EW" on her official site and they asked how tall she was and they responded by saying, "She said 5'5" in 2005, but Emma has grown since then and is 5'6" to 5'7" now." No joke, honeslty, look at the site.
umad80 said on 5/Oct/07
Sorry Anna. The only family members I saw were Rupert's brother and father, who always stick really close by him when he's with fans. Plus James (Rupert's brother) tends to sign autographs too. LOL He was signing a bunch at the ceremony. It was pretty funny. Of the pictures I did see of Emma's brother, he did look pretty tall. I couldn't possibly say how tall though.
Anna said on 4/Oct/07
umad80, I'm just curious, did you see Alex Watson's (Emma Watson's brother) at either the LA OotP premiere or printing ceremony and, if yes, how tall do you think he is? He and Emma have taken some photos together recently and it would just be another person to compare her to if we knew his height. To be honest, he looks taller than Rupert, but that's just going off of photos and we have obviously not seen Rupert and Alex together. I really don't know. Have you any idea? If you do, it would be helpful in figuring all members' heights.
umad80 said on 4/Oct/07
Truthfully when you see people on the big screen and then see them in person, there is quite a shock to realize how short they are. I'm not sure why, but it is there.

I still say Rupert was taller than Emma depending on the angle. She had three inch heels on and he was usually a half inch to an inch taller. In fact, there is a screencap of them walking up to get the award together, and they are the same height. Of course, it's a bit bad because walking does nothing for height. But it kind of shows you that if nothing else, they are the same when she's in 3" heels. Which means that she'd have to be 5'5" for Rupert to be 5'8". So if Emma is 5'6" then Rupert would be 5'9".

Hugo, to be honest, you're the one that's getting a bit emotional. lol I was calmly explaining things and you got all irrational because I might not mean two when saying 'a couple'. It's like people who use "literally" in the wrong text. Or how about the word "ignorant" which has changed meaning too. Everyone is different. I just think if you're going to go that off the edge over a comment about not meaning two just because I say 'a couple' you do have some issues to work out. And I agree that you should have an opinion and it doesn't matter what anyone says... but I think it's pretty obvious that Emma is definitely 5'5". Whether she's over that is debatable, but I just don't see under. And also, this is discussion, so if you say something to me, I'll respond. LOL
Anna said on 4/Oct/07
Okay, umad80, but I was just slightly thrown off by Evanna calling me unrealistic when I, like you (with regards to Rupert), am advocating within an inch of what Emma said. Plus, she always slouches and still looks taller than Dan and his hair and, you must admit, not much shorter than Rupert. When she stands properly she is about an inch taller in 3ish inch heels (possibily a bit lower), which would mean she is 5'6" or slightly over if Rupert is 5'8". And I still say, look at the new movie. For some reason Emma seems to have better posture in it and there is no way you can say she is anything more than 2 inches shorter than Rupert and that's when she's in converse and he is in shoes that give him at least an inch. I know a few people that were quite surprised and frightened by this fact. They also disliked the fact that she was now noticeably taller than Dan, but of course, how could I have forgotten? They all have vision impairemtns and must not be seeing correctly because it's a fact that Emma is 5'0", Dan 5'5", and Rupert 5'10". Mea culpa.
umad80 said on 4/Oct/07
But don't forget that Rupert also said he doesn't know and changed his height entirely within a month. And then later on an article was written pitting him at 5'10"! And not let's forget the recent 5'10" listing at his agency. So I don't think it's unrealistic to still talk about Rupert's height when there are so many conflicting reports even from Rupert himself! I think we all have a right to think what we want based on what we see, what the person says, etc. That doesn't make us crazy or unrealistic or mental. It is just all in fun, right? So we should all just have fun with it. We don't have to agree obviously. lol

I think Matt is a legit 6' and could be taller. (Sorry Anna, can't see that photo.) Thus putting Rupert at 5'8" and nothing below it. But I think he's closer to 5'9". It is also entirely possible for Rupert to have grown since saying what he said. I know he was pretty much 18 at the time, but boys, while usually the norm is to stop growing at 18, don't always stop. Usually girls stop at 16 and even younger. Like I said, I stopped at 15 at the very latest. (If you're wondering, the only reason I know I stopped growing at 15 is because I had knee injury and when getting it looked over, I was told I had stopped growing.)

Oh, and we can't forget him standing next to Tom Felton and he only seemed a half inch shorter. Of course we don't know the shoe difference there. Plus photos with Greg Grunberg he seemed only 2-4 inches shorter. (Hard to tell with their posture, but it was quite similiar.) And we know he's 6'1". But Rupert was definitely not 5 inches shorter.
Hugo said on 4/Oct/07
umad80, I told you you would shadow what I say. I think it's the other way around, you have issues to work out because all I did was point out what you said and you got sensitive about it by saying I "have issues to work out." You didn't prove anything about Emma. My estimation of Rupert is NOT off because it's my OPINION. I think Emma is a little above 5'4" and Rupert is 5'7". But I did prove that it doesn't matter if you see them in person because you've come up with the same height. Now I'm telling you, I'm DONE debating so if you write something I'm going to ignore it.
Anna said on 3/Oct/07
" but I really don't want you to turn into another Anna and start advocating stubbornly unrealistic heights." Not that I don't entirely disagree, but come on, think about what you are saying. You just said that you think Rupert is 5'8" and it is quite clear that umad80 thinks him 5'9" at the least. now, let's tie this into my circumstance. You think that Emma is 5'5" and I think Emma is 5'6" at the least, which would mean we have the same difference between Emma as you do with umad80 on Rupert. So, how can her advocating not be conined unrealistic as well? haha, that just makes me laugh. And the funny thing is, Emma looks a legitimate 5'6" in photos and has listed herself as 5'6" to 170 centimetres, whereas Rupert looks 5'8" at the most and has said about 5'8" when asked. So, I again question why I am the one advocating unrealistically? And as for Matt, I think he is at least 6', possibly 6'1"ish because a girl who met her (she's 5'10") took a photo with him and said he looked 6'-6'1". Here's the photo if you care to see it. I'm not sure if it will work, because it's on facebook, but I'll post nevertheless. Click Here
umad80 said on 3/Oct/07
JK, he's not 4 inches shorter. You can clearly see that the top of his head comes up above the twins eyebrows when standing behind them so he'd clearly be at least 3" shorter. He's a solid 6'. C'mon, you're so big on what Rob says, and even Rob said that over at Oliver's page!

Hugo, I think you obviously have some issues to work out. lol All I said was sometimes I say a couple for everything and not mean that exactly. You're really just making a mountain out of a mole hill over one little thing. And yes, I will continue 5'9" until I can see absolute proof otherwise. As I said, seeing him in person is a whole different ballgame right now. And I noticed you didn't say word one about how I proved that Emma is around 5'5" meaning that your estimation for Rupert is off. I can see 5'8", I can, but no way is he 5'7".

Evanna, yeah. And when you do press things, it is harder to get photos with the stars. But as I said, a lot of people who have gotten the chance have been putting him at 5'8" and 5'9". Like I said, I can see 5'8" but nothing below. :)
6'3.5'' JK said on 2/Oct/07
Matt is 4 inches shorter than the twins as your picture shows and that makes Matt 5'11'', Matt was 4 to 5 inches taller than Rupert which makes Rupert again around that 5'7'' mark, umad80 i think now you're just being an obsessive Rupert fan who is very stubborn and will not beleive that Rupert is under 5'9'' when all the pictures show that he is CLEARLY 2 inches shorter than 5'9''
Evanna said on 2/Oct/07
Yeah umad80, I know it's easier said than done, getting photographed with celebs. I once bumped into Julie Walters in the street, right here in Manchester, and I wasn't even sure it was her, I thought it was just a random lady who looked a lot like Walters, so I didn't react. It was only a week or so later that a friend of mine told me that Walters was touring UK at the time, promoting her book. So it was probably her. She's really small, 5'2" or 5'3" max.
Hugo said on 2/Oct/07
umad80, you better clarify what you mean because a "couple" means 2. And when you DO mean 2, how can this forum be sure you really mean 2? I didn't put words in your mouth. You said when you say,"a couple inches" you don't mean 2 inches taller. But that's exactly what a couple means, 2. Very confusing. You've come up with 5'9" for Rupert in person AND in photos so it would be pointless to see the HP cast in person.

This debate back and forth is going nowhere. You'll always come up with something to shadow what I've said. Since this is an opinion place about heights, you keep 5'9" for Rupert and I'll keep 5'7" for him.
umad80 said on 2/Oct/07
Hugo, I never said that. I said that sometimes when saying "a couple of inches" I don't always mean two. But if I say "two" and "three" I mean those. You're putting words in my mouth. As for your shoe analysis... Rupert wears cons which only give about a half inch over barefoot. So he'd only be 5'7.5" in shoe, not 5'8". And I don't quite get what you mean by your last sentence. I never said 5'9" for Rupert in 2005 on here. But he was definitely quite a bit taller than me in 2005. I think he was 5'7.5" then. Maybe even the range that Rob has him now with shoes. Now, to put it in perspective, I was wearing something similiar to this shoe: Click Here - but I think mine was smaller so probably only an inch or so. I was at least 5'6" with it. (I have been 5'5" since I was 15 btw.) Compare to Rupert's cons which would give only a half inch to him. They were old if I remember correctly (looking at photos and all) and so it'd definitely be a legit half inch. Rupert was pretty close to 5'8" back in 2005. Now when I say "a couple" I really don't mean anything specific, but he was at least two or so inches taller than me.

Now, you talk about Dan wearing lifts (which I have ALWAYS said) but if he was 5'3" he'd be over 5'5" and that would still put Rupert in the 5'8" range because he looked a legit 3" taller than Dan in every photo. And his posture wasn't the same as Dan's. But Glenn said in 2005 Dan looked 5'4" to him. Rob thinks Dan looks 5'5" to him. I think Dan looks 5'5" as does Emma. Just because, as I said, Emma was about the same height as me in 2005. And to give you perspective, her shoe looked to give about an inch. Click Here So if we were about the same height then, wearing shoes that would give us about the same, she was pretty close to 5'5" obviously.

JK, you always listen to everything Rob says and even he agrees that Matt is a legit 6'. Standing behind the twins in similiar footware he looked less than 4" shorter. So standing together he probably would only be 2" to 3" shorter. Click Here Thus putting him at a legit 6' to 6'1". I mean, when you look at photos like this: Click Here and Rupert is 3" shorter than Matt, then you have to wonder. I realize Rupert is standing in front, but when you take away the .75 advantage with shoe, you can say that the 3" is pretty legit. As I said, Matt is a legit 6' and I think it's possible for 6'1" considering that photo with the twins. Which does put Rupert in the 5'8" to 5'9" range. As I said, I think it's 5'9". It may not be strong, but it's there.
6'3.5'' JK said on 2/Oct/07
I definetley agree with Hugo, for Rupert to be 5'9'' Matt has gotta be 6'1'' to 6'1.5'' which complete BS because the fact he is 4 - 5 inches taller. and Rupert just does not look a legit 173cms, i honestly thought Matt was 5'10'' first but then next to the twins he looked 4 inches shorter so he was about 5'11'' and he looked a legit 4 inches taller than Rupert so that makes Rupert again around that 5'7'' mark (180cm - 4 inches = 170cm), and he said he was around 5'7'' yeah so i believe him, but he could be 171cm tops though, and as for Dan i think he hasn't gained a cm since 2005 because he looked really really mature, so Dan has got to be 5'4'' as Glenn saw him and that makes Rupert 3 inches taller at 5'7''
Hugo said on 1/Oct/07
umad80, let me get this straight....when you say "2 inches" you don't "really mean 2 inches." So, when you call out Emma's footwear as "at least 3 inches," you don't really mean 3 inches. That's what you're saying. You said it, not I. And then, you say "if" Rupert is 5'7"(which I believe), then that would put Emma at 5'4". But I believe Emma IS a little over 5'4", perhaps 5'4.25" - 5'4.5" When I first saw Rupert, I thought 5'6", but probably is a solid 5'7" barefoot / 5'8" in shoe. And yes, that WOULD put Dan at 5'3" range--as he looks it. It is a FACT that Dan wears lifts, has military posture like The Nutcracker, and is STILL shorter. (Except for maybe a few people). So, when you say you use "a couple" for "everything", you CANNOT be totally sure. You came up with Rupert for 5'9" in person AND in photos, so it doesn't matter what year it was.
umad80 said on 1/Oct/07
Emma isn't 5'6" either, so get over it. It wouldn't make sense if when they're barefoot that Emma and Dan are the same height and Rupert is clearly 4 inches taller. Click Here , Click Here , Click Here , and Click Here - and don't give me rubbish about "You can't see their feet!" because if you were willing to post that picture of Rupert and Emma as proof of Emma being over 5'6" and Rupert being 5'8" "or lower" because Emma was taller, then you have to take those into consideration. It's clear that Rupert has around 4 inches on Dan and Emma and so the only way he can be 5'7" is if they were 5'3". The only way he could be 5'8" is if they are 5'4". But like I said, based on my own judgement and all, they seem to be a solid 5'5" and Rupert borders on 5'9". Even Rob admitted that the one photo that I posted like this showed Rupert to be 4" taller even though he said "that moment in time" but this is a series of pics and they stood like that for awhile. Different angles and such too. So I don't think it was just "that moment in time." When standing on the cement in shoes he clearly had 3" on Dan. Without shoes he gets practically a whole inch. And I think we can ALL agree that it's best to look at them without shoes on then with since we can't be certain who might wear lifts or what their actual shoe might give them.
Anna said on 1/Oct/07
umad80, rupert is not taller than emma when she is wearing 2.5"-3" heels, get over it. many photos prove this fact and if you watch the video where hse actually stands up properly, she is about an inch or 2 inches taller, which makes me think rupert is 5'8" tops. emma being 5'6"ish.
umad80 said on 1/Oct/07
Hugo, that was in 2005. LOL Oh, and when I say "a couple" I say it for everything. Doesn't mean I mean 2 inches taller. Which is why I say he was closer to 5'8" in 2005 and grown since then. Also Hugo, did you see the heels Emma was wearing? They were three inches at least. I don't see how with Rupert being taller than her, by a half inch to an inch, means that he is 5'7". That would put Emma at 5'4" and again I have to say that neither Dan nor Emma look 5'4". Again in 2005 Emma and I were about the same height. I may have had a slight advantage with shoes, but were pretty much the same height.

JK, even if you are correct, Dan would still be 5'5" in dress shoes and have at least .75 advantage in shoe over Rupert. Thus meaning that Rupert would be 5'8". But Rupert said 5'7" but he also said about 5'8". He changed it a month later (from the about 5'8" thing to 5'7"). He doesn't know. Also when he said 5'7" the interviewer said, "Really? You look taller." And Dan is 5'5". Trust me. You can sit there and look at your videos and your photos, but I have seen them in person. There is a huge difference. I also was looking at pics of Dominic Monaghan on Fuse with the Fuse background, with two inch heels he came up to a certain area. Rupert in his chucks was just a bit below that. Trouble is none of the pictures are the exact same angle and whatnot so it's hard to make a comparison. But it is food for thought. Since we know Dom is definitely 5'7", but closer to 5'9" with those heels, Rupert is at least 5'9"...

Evanna, I wanted to do that but was unable to. *sigh* But to be honest, I don't see how he can have 4 inches on Dan at the ceremony in barefeet and not be close to 5'9". Like I said, that'd put 5'4" for Dan, and I just don't see it... he and Emma are definitely 5'5". I did have someone take a picture with him... she said she is 5'5" wearing the exact same shoes and he was definitely about 3.5" taller. This was during Driving Lessons time. I showed it once, but I guess because it was only the top of their heads, no one wanted to hear it. :
Evanna said on 1/Oct/07
Congratulations JK, you are 6'3.5" now! Is everybody in your family that tall?
umad80, I have to say that Grint really doesn't look 5'9". I'd still say that he is 5'8", because I'm pretty sure that Lewis is a legit 6ft. guy, but I really don't want you to turn into another Anna and start advocating stubbornly unrealistic heights.
6'3.5'' JK said on 30/Sep/07
I really don't think Dan has grown since Glenn met him, he looks exact same height as when he was 16 years old when he appeared on Jonathan Ross for the first time, he looked extremely mature back then. So this what i think in conclusion...... yes Rupert does have 3 inches on him, but Dan looks exact same height as he looked back in 2005 when Glenn met him and said he was 5'4'', so if Dan is still 5'4'' Then Rupert is 5'7'' as he said he is HIMSELF, but he could be 5'7.5'' tops (I thought there was a slight chance of Rupert being 5'8'' but after seeing pics of him next 5'11'' Matt No waaaaaay!), now it is all starting to make sense.
Hugo said on 30/Sep/07
umad80, you've written that when you saw Rupert in person you were 5'6" in shoe and Rupert was a couple of inches taller than you. A couple of inches would mean 5'8" in shoe for Rupert--which means he's 5'7". Then you wrote you didn't think 5'8" was right for him and you think 5'9" is. In order for Rupert to be 5'9", he would have to have been a FEW inches taller than you, NOT a COUPLE of inches taller than you. A few=3 and a couple=2. But you also wrote Rupert was SEVERAL inches taller than you. Several=7. So Rupert was seven inches taller than you? You also said you can't really tell about the HP actors height unless you see them in person, but you still come up with 5'9" for Rupert(seeing him in photos or in person). I stand by Rupert being 5'7".
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
umad80, next time you meet the trio make sure you get photographed with them...
umad80 said on 30/Sep/07
I don't know if these pictures are the best guage, but screencaps of everyone on stage accepting their award for HP... nothing with Emma, but with Dan: Click Here and Click Here so unless Dan is only 5'3" I think it's safe to say that Rupert isn't just 5'7". If Dan is 5'4" - which imo he is not having seen him in person several times - then 5'5" if he's not wearing any lifts. But that would still make Rupert 5'8". But Dan imo is 5'5" thus being 5'6" in dress shoes and I think Rupert is a legit 5'9". It may not be strong, I don't know, but I think he is definitely 5'9".
Nora said on 30/Sep/07
Evanna: Well said!!!!! :D
Anna said on 30/Sep/07
Okay, so the heels are 2" to 3" (that must put Bonnie's at over 4") and Emma looks about 1 inch taller if she stood up properly (look at the Harry Potter acceptance speech. When Emma stands up like Rupert, she has AT LEAST an inch on Rupert and the amount she has on Dan is just too embarrassing to sepak of), so, once again, Emma would be 5'6" to 5'6.5". I'll stop with the 5'7", although I was not really advocating it, 5'6.5" is indeed different than 5'7", but come on, it's hard to see her as anything less than 5'6" if he's 5'7.7.5". Very hard and quite unreasonable. She also looks this range whilst standing next to Heyman. And how tall is Matt? Does anyone know? He looks taller than 5'11"/6'?
JK said on 30/Sep/07
The twins had Matt by 4 inches making him 180cm
umad80 said on 30/Sep/07
Yeah, Matt is in the 6' range. In fact, I think you can make an argument that he is over 6' because the twins looked to only have a couple of inches on him and they were closer to the camera.

Rupert had a solid three inches on Dan. The hair is always hard to tell with him because he wears it in such a way that you can't tell where the top of his head truly is. And Emma had 3" heels on and Rupert was still at least an inch taller. I don't think 5'8" is right. I think 5'9" is right. I don't see how he could be anything below it when he was three inches taller than Matt, who while yes in back still had the shoe advantage and would *probably* even it out.

As I said, I've seen Rupert in person several times and he is not under 5'8". He is several inches taller than me. In 2005 he was over 5'7" because I was 5'6" in shoes and he still was a couple inches taller than me. In 2007 we had on the same shoes and he looked to have grown an inch or two. He is over 5'8", nothing under! And at the ceremony he had four inches on Dan in many shots.
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
Oh and Anna if you think that this photo is good for judging height Click Here then this one is even better Click Here See what I mean?! I thought so. :) The angle is everything.
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
Chris that's rubbish. Matt Lewis is in the 6 ft. range, wearing dress shoes at the ceremony, and Grint looks only about 4 in. shorter (in cons), which means he's around 5'8" barefoot. But all the girls are wearing pretty big heels/wedges there, and Radcliffe is probably wearing lifts.
JK said on 30/Sep/07
I agree chris, Definetley no more excuses! he is 5'7'' and there is nothing wrong with the angles or anything, 5'11'' Matthew Lewis has 4 inches on Rupert Click Here Therefore making Rupert 5'7'' Maximum
chris said on 29/Sep/07
5'9?!?! you guys must be dreaming. he's 5'6.
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
He is taller. There are too many pictures of him being taller and less pictures of her being taller. And the ones of her being taller? The camera is focused on her. And a lot of times when it IS focused on her, they are the same height. And yes, Rupert is at least an inch taller than her in those heels. And stop with with "Emma is bending and slouching." BS. Rupert is not standing at attention. He may not be leaning in like he normally does, but he isn't exactly standing straight as a pole. He's standing like most people would. Very loose. Just like Emma is. She has a few pictures with one bent knee, but a lot of them she isn't and they both have very similiar postures and Rupert is still taller. And if you look at this video: Click Here you can clearly tell that Rupert is taller.

And newsflash "mate" if Emma was the 5'7" you're advocating, in those heels she'd be 5'10". And even at the sudden 5'6.5" you put her at would make her 5'9.5". If Emma is taller than Rupert in the heels, it is not by much at all. Even Hugo is saying that Emma is 5'7" in heels and puts Rupert at that mark saying they are the same height when she's in heels. But as it stands, Rupert is taller than Emma and Emma is wearing 3 inch heels putting her in the 5'8" range and putting Rupert anywhere from 5'8.5" to 5'9.5".
Hugo said on 29/Sep/07
umad80, in the photo, file 33/50, Emma's left leg is bent, but if she were to stand up straight, she would beat Rupert just a little bit in height. His shoes don't look like they'd give him much--at all. Again, the photo you posted doesn't prove anything because once again Emma is slightly bent at the knee.
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
umad80! Come on! haha. You have got to, absolutely have got to be kidding me! Firstly, Emma's heels give her, at the most 2.5", but more likely 2 inches like you said and she looks just as tall as Rupert when she has a bloody BENT KNEE and is slouching. Nobody but you is going to deny that. I know the heels to be in that range because I've seen many photos of them from the side and they look exactly like 2-inch heels I have got. Go to danielemmaradson.blogspot.com to see the photos. How can you not see this? And Rupert is clearly, clearly, clearly, standing up straightly and Emma is bending and slouching and she still looks taller than him, this is just obvious. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think he is taller than her when she is in those heels. And I know the photo I posted was odd, but there are plenty group photos of Emma looking easily as tall if not 1/2" taller than Rupert, which would mean she is probably close to an inch taller whilst standing up properly. And, my God, I just read a bit of your comment and you are actually advocating that Rupert is "an inch and a half to two inches taller" than Emma when she is in heels? Honestly mate, what are you smoking? That just proves that you are in a state of utter denial. My goodness. That's ridiculous. If anything, she has got 1 inch on Rupert when she's in those 2 inch heels, he is not taller than her when she's in heels. Get over it. When Emma actually stands up straight, the difference is qutie noticeable and you can't deny that.
Dan: 5'5"
Rupert: 5'8"
Emma: 5'6.5"
And that's giving Rupert the benefit of the doubt and downplaying the possibilty of what Emma could gain from standing up straightly. Wow.
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Sorry for the double posting, but I hadn't seen this... Hugo, you might want to re-think your 5'7" position again. Click Here - those are massive heels. Those definitely aren't giving her only 2 inches!
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Hugo, you got to be kidding me. Sure Emma is bending her knees in some, but it's not like Rupert is standing so totally straight... and he's still got a couple of inches on her. And what about pics like this? Click Here - Emma isn't bending her knee and both she and Rupert have relaxed postures. I realize he's more in front, but it's about a 3 inch difference. Which you could argue that he's closer to two inches taller than Emma. Or this one? Click Here - Emma is slightly more forward than Rupert and he's still at least a half inch taller.

Here Rupert has a very relaxed posture and Emma has her head cocked to the side, so the difference is around three inches. Click Here So I think both standing straight the difference would be closer to two inches.

Here is another one where Emma and Rupert are both standing the same way. Very loose posture, but nothing really favoring the other: Click Here As you can see, Rupert is an inch and a half to two inches taller.

So, even Rob thinks Emma is probably just a little over 5'5". So with heels she'd probably be 5'7.5". (Her heels look to be the kind that would give 2.3"!) Thus making Rupert anywhere from 5'8.5" to 5'9.5". Because I think it's clear that Rupert is at least an inch or so taller than Emma in heels and you could argue that he could be more if they both stood better.

One thing is for certain is that Emma is nowhere near 5'6" or 5'7". Otherwise that would put Rupert at 5'10" to 5'11". (See now, if Anna was smart, she'd start advocating for Rupert to be 5'10" because that would put her correct for Emma to be 5'7". lol) But I think slightly over 5'5" for Emma is true. Then you put her in 2.3" heels and that would make her 5'7.5" in heels. And that would make Rupert anywhere from 5'8.5" to 5'9.5". Though I still think he's bordering on 5'9".
Hugo said on 29/Sep/07
umad80, the link you posted is very iffy. Most of the photos have Emma bent at the knee and that's the only reason Rupert is taller than her. Also, I know some of it is camera angles, but when Emma finally stands up straight, she is taller than Rupert. And as for Dan, man he gets dwarfed by everyone except for Evanna. I'm now reverting back to Rupert being 5'7".
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Anna! I knew you'd do that! That was CLEARLY focused on Emma. Rupert is in the back. Oh God. I knew you'd try that. I knew it! Just look at every single photo here: Click Here - you can clearly see that Emma is not taller than Rupert in heels! God. You talk about my bad camera angles. You're as bad as JK with that crap.

JK, you totally missed the part where he said, "About 5'8"." and then went down to 5'7". He doesn't even know was the point.
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
hahaa all right.
JK said on 29/Sep/07
What did i tell you all along about Rupert being 5'7''????!??????
Evanna said on 28/Sep/07
Well Anna then I guess it must be Rob who has poor judgement skills, it can't possibly be me! :) I was rather surprised by Kate's height, and she's not just short (at least for a model) but also rather ugly. I guess make up and photoshop do wonders...
I'm aware that I do swallow a word here and there, and it's got nothing to do with Mancunian accent, but usually with the fact that I try to do two things at the time, like post comments and pay attention to what my mischievous two year old son is doing at the moment. Having a toddler also determines my musical taste at the moment, as we mostly listen to nursery rhymes. :)
JK said on 28/Sep/07
A 5'5'' person like Dan or Emma can claim 5'6'', but if they were both a legit 5'6'' they could have claimed 5'7''
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
He said 5'7"? Wow, that's interesting. And, I am of course not going to argue that he cares about his height because he clearly doesn't, but I just really don't think he is 5'9". 5'8.5" at the most. However, bolloks witht the Emma bit! :) She didn't look surprised, she was laughing at him, as was Rupert. That's what I drew from it at least. And as for umad's crusade of telling people Emma is shorter than Rupert in heels, I just tell her look at this photo. Click Here Emma is wearing honestly quite small heels, they look 2 inches at the most Click Here (by the way, she looks hugely tall in that photo, not huge in regards to weight, but...you get what i'm saying. Because she is standing up straigly, could be?). I know in the Rupert photo we can't see the angle or anything, but I can just say it would have to be a quite huge angle disadvantage for Rupert to make up for that gap, would it not have to be?
umad80 said on 28/Sep/07
Heh. Any ways, I don't think Emma is lying about the 5'6" per se. I think she just thinks she is because of Dan going around saying he was 5'6". That video of Dan admitting to being 5'5" seemed to surprise Emma a bit.

Rupert however is clearly disinterested in how tall he is. Saying he doesn't know and then guessing at around 5'8" and then a month later saying he was only 5'7". He truly doesn't care. I wouldn't be surprised if the last time he measured him self was back during PoA where he did look closer to 5'7".
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
And in regards to the typos, spell check, et cetera, I was just kind of joking. I just thought you would know the saying is take the piss out, but there is a good chance that the saying is slightly different in Manchester? And I am quite sure spell check and such would not correct his.
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
JK, that is true and I am sure many celebrities exaggerate a bit, but I really do not think that is true for all celebrities, especially females. So, it leads one to make a decision as to who is lying and who is telling the truth. That's essentially what this site is for. And I'm not going to say anything of the Heyman photos because I can't see feet in any of them, thus I don't know what the angle is like. And as for Kate Moss, I was simply using her as an example because she is listed on this site as 5'5.75", nearly 5'6", so either you or Rob have poor judgement skills. And as for the sarcasm bit, I'm English as well. I actually am from London, not the North, but have respect for you nevertheless. And surely not only we English are sarcastic, I was just recognising your quick wit and unfailing sense of humour. Your spelling also pointed me in that direction. Anyway, are you a fan of Oasis? What kind of music do you listen to?
JK said on 28/Sep/07
a 5'5'' person can claim 5'6'' but that doesn't mean they really are 5'6'', plus Emma and Dan look more in the 5'5'' range
umad80 said on 27/Sep/07
I said that she was no way 5'7" because I could tell that. 5'6" would be harder to tell but seeing her next to Dan and Rupert doesn't make me believe she's anywhere near 5'6". I think Rob is correct in that she must've thought 5'6" because she's around the same height as Dan and he said he was 5'6" for the longest time until recently.

Rupert is still the hardest person to figure out. I do still believe a strong 5'9" is correct, but his frame and posture makes it harder to judge.
Evanna said on 27/Sep/07
Anna are you suggesting that only English people are sarcastic? How rude... :) Btw I'm from Manchester. And I don't have time to read my comments before posting them, search for typos, run the spellcheck etc. If that makes me illiterate, so be it.
Back to height business, how can the angle favour both Radcliffe and Grint at the same time? The angle favours Radcliffe only, and Emma looks 4 in. shorter than Grint simply because she is. And she never looks taller than 5'5" in any of her LA pics next to David Heyman. I chose this one Click Here simply because it's a straight shot, but she looked good 6-7 in. shorter than Heyman in all LA pics. Even if he's around 5'11" in dress shoes, she wouldn't look so small if she indeed was 5'6" or taller. For comparison, here's what Grint looks like next to the very same Heyman: Click Here Click Here Grint is a strong 5'8" or a very weak 5'9", Watson only about 5'5" at best.
And just so you know, saying that "Emma is easily as tall as Kate Moss" is actually true. I saw Kate Moss in person couple of months ago, right here in Manchester, and she's only about 5'5" herself. Sorry to disappoint you.
Anna said on 27/Sep/07
5'6" then for Emma, whatever, just an upgrade. And a 5'6" person would be one inch taller than you umad80, if you are indeed 5'5", so from an onlookers point of view, one may not even be able to judge it really.
umad80 said on 26/Sep/07
Oh, you know, I think the different color carpet threw me... I thought they were standing at a higher level! So, yeah, there is a possibility of lifts. And of course he's definitely closer to the camera!

But god Anna, I'm not trying to be mean, but you might need some glasses. Like Evanna said, if you drew a line, you can clearly see that Emma is in the middle of Rupert's eyes. Well, actually just below that. And if you counted her hair, she's right at his eyebrows. I think it's quite obvious that with the same type of shoes (well, the advantage they'd give) he's got a good 4 inches on her.

And sorry, but there is no two inches in height for Dan's hair. All I said was that it's more flattering. And why do you always add things I never said? lol Rupert's head tilt is definitely something to consider because he is obviously losing some height. But I don't think I said, "It's exactly 2 inches!" LOL And I never said that he didn't look 5'9" next to Craig. In fact, I said he did. And I also said we can't tell what kind of shoes Tom might have to give him the advantage.

I'm sorry, but Emma is nowhere near 5'7". I've said that 5'5.5" is definitely possible, but not 5'7". I've seen her in person... she is NOT two inches taller than me.
Anna said on 26/Sep/07
Take the piss out of me. i take it you are English given your sarcastic tone, but come on, you must get the phrase right. But they are on a higher level in my opinon. That's all I'm saying and even umad80, who NEVER takes a word against Rupert in regards to height, says this. It's the angle. There is no possible way that Rueprt could be that much taller without an angle advantage. And I love Rupert's shirts. Did anyone see his "Harry" shirt at the LA premiere? that was hilarious. However, i really wish he would pick up his clothing choices for premieres, he looks ridiculous next to Dan, who wears suit and tie.
Evanna said on 26/Sep/07
Anna I've taken into consideration Watson's bent knee in the pic that I posted. If you draw a line between the top of her head minus the hair, she barely reaches Grint's eyes - and do bear in mind that she's in front of him. So if you credit her for losing some height by slouching, if she stood straight next to Grint she'd be just around his eyebrows. Unlike Radcliffe, Grint doesn't have a very big head, so top of the head to eyebrows would be around 3.5 to 4 in. for him, and there you go.
And umad, Watson and Grint aren't on a higher level, they're all standing on a carpet, thus Radcliffe gets the advantage of being the closest to the camera. But I still think that he's wearing lifts, even with the angle advantage he couldn't be so much taller that Watson without lifts involved.
As for their t-shirts, Dan is wearing "The Flying Circus" one, possibly an homage to Monty Python, while Rupert's shirt says: "God Save the Dean, But Don't Forget the Dan!"
And Anna, once and for all, I'm not here to humiliate you, we are here to discuss heights and have fun. I just want to warn others that you change identities every other month, and everything you say has to be taken with a grain of salt. Fro what we know, you might well be 50 years old. And I'm not buying your claim that you're here for a reason other than being Emma obsessed. Or... hey, wait... Editor Rob is paying you to keep discussions going, to claim that Emma is 5'7", so that we can all take the piss of you... Oh no, I see it now, you are actually Editor Rob himself!...
Anna said on 26/Sep/07
Emma is at the middle or Rupert's forehead in my opinon with Dan being just above Rupert's eyebrows. umad, how can you say Rupert is 5'9"? He looked about 5'8" or 5'8.5" at the most in the photo with Tom Felton and he definitely did not look a strong 5'9" next to Craig Ferguson, which I believe you have also said before. And I'm sorry, but those barefoot photos are acceptable for comparing Dan and rupert, but honestly, give Emma a break she is bending her legs and most likely slouching in other ways. I just don't see why you don't give her credit for this whilst, even when rupert tilts his head slightly, you say he is losing about 2 inches. Come on man, what's the deal? And Dan's hairstyle. YOu say it could add height, well then why are you not looking at Emma's and Dan's eyes rather tahn their hair? It's quite obvoius that she has the advantage and it's more than a 1/2".
Anna said on 25/Sep/07
I can't really see what the t-shirts say Evanna, but would really like to...would you care to fill me in? "God save the dean...." is all I can make out on Rupert's.
umad80 said on 25/Sep/07
Rupert's clearly got 4 inches on the both of them. lol I mean, when they're barefoot you can clearly see both of them are at Rupert's eyebrows. And the only time you really don't see that is if Rupert isn't standing all that straight or Dan's hair is making it impossible to see. He has a flattering hairstyle that isn't really noticable imo.

Evanna, I don't know if Dan is wearing lifts there... it's possible. But he's definitely closer to the camera. But my God, both Emma and Rupert are on a higher level and Dan is still taller. So maybe you do have to wonder about what he's wearing in those shoes!
Anna said on 25/Sep/07
Evanna, are you joking? How can you even post that photo in regards to comparing heights? Emma is bending her legs and all over Dan, which means she is losing height. You must understand this?
Evanna said on 25/Sep/07
I'd still say that the difference between Grint and Watson is closer to 4 inches Click Here If we disregard Emma's puffed up hair and compare their eye levels, she's clearly a lot shorter, the top of her head is where his eyebrows are. And Radcliffe is obviously wearing lifts - he's got himself a pair of very stallonesque sneakers... By the way, has anyone noticed what's written on the boys' t-shirts? They are hilarious, both of them.
Anna said on 24/Sep/07
I think Rupert should be upgraded to at least 5'8", but absolutely nothing over 5'8.25". He really does not look close to 5'9" like you say next to Dan or other actors and actresses.
umad80 said on 23/Sep/07
Emma is definitely nowhere near 5'7". I've seen her in person and she was not almost two inches taller than me. lol I think Rob has it... Emma might deserve a quater inch upgrade (even up to a half inch), but nothing else.

The pics there, that I posted, I was standing right in front of Rupert. Well, back some... but I was right in front and in direct line with everyone. These aren't angled pics. These are straight off the video camera. Here is where I took some of the pics. You can see the video here: Click Here - I posted it last time, but you can see I was right in front of Rupert and I ended up moving the camera a little and got Dan in there so you can see that the caps I posted are pretty legit in camera angle imo.

Oh, I think it's James that is taller than Oliver. So if Oliver is definitely 6'3", then James might be 6'3.5" or somewhere around there. But fans of the Phelps twins have told me it's James that is taller and I think on your page for the twins you've said that one said he was taller than the other... :)

You're willing to upgrade Emma, so are you willing to upgrade Rupert?
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Okay. That slight amount ought to be at least 3/4", correct? ;) Come on man, she is easily as tall as people like Kate Moss and Claire Danes. Easily. She actually looks closer to 5'6.75" in my opinion. Anything is good though.
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
All right, it just seems a bit weird, but I totally get what you are saying. He is laid back and seems like a nice guy, it just seems like he is a bit boring in interviews. Nevertheless, I see why you would be a fan of his. And Rob, so you are saying that Rupert can look close to 4 inches taller than Dan in some shots, but often times in those shots the angle is favouring Rupert? And then with the Emma thing, are you saying you would upgrade her?

[Editor Rob: there is more chance I'd upgrade watson by a slight amount than radcliffe.]
JK said on 23/Sep/07
Emma is absolutley 5'5'' Maximum and nothing over that
umad80 said on 23/Sep/07
Wow. Rob agrees on the 4 inch thing? Mircles never cease. LOL Like I said, he's 5'9" and I've proven it with my pictures and a lot of fans have said 5'9". And his posture is always pretty laid back, so who knows, he could be taller.

Anna, I hate to break this to you, but Rupert has a strong adult fanbase. A good portion of it is in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s. And it's because of how he is. Very laid back, very mature, very calm. Adults can get into that more than say Dan who while is very mature and all, is more hyper. I also love Rupert as an actor. I think he's absolutely brilliant. And he's an awesome person. I'll never forget the GoF premiere... his grandfather just died and he still flew to the US, signed every autograph he could there and even made a special effort to sign for the special needs kids. So yeah, there are plenty of reasons why someone close to 30 would like Rupert.

So back to height discussion, Rob since you see the 4 inches now, do you think that maybe the twins are taller than 6'3" or that Emma and Dan are shorter than 5'5"? I can't say anything on the twins, but seeing Emma and Dan several times in person I think they are both 5'5" with maybe Emma being 5'5.5".

[Editor Rob: the twins really don't look over 6ft 3 no. I can see the almost 4 inches in some shots from that event yes, but I think in some shots the angle is favouring either. dan/emma are close enough, but it is more likely she would get a 1/4 inch added than radcliffe say.]
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Oh yes, must be it Evanna. But the funny thing is I don't even like EW terribly much and in no way am I obsessed. I appreciate her natural beauty and intelligence oppossed to many of the suicide blondes and ditzes of young Hollywood today and I also think she could do well in upcoming projects if she learns to control her eyebrows, but other than that she is nothing special and, again, in no way am I bloody obsessed with her. The one that I could be declared obsessed with is Daniel Radcliffe and, just to inform you, fans often times do not care about the height of the actor. For example, I really do not care if Dan is only 5'5" because I quite like short guys (seeing as I am only about 5'3") and I actually do not care how tall a person is. I am not heightist. And in regards to Emma, the only reason I am advocating an upgrade is because she really does seem to be taller than 5'5". I mean, it's quite obvous if you've seen the movie, behind-the-scenes footage, and photos. There may be some extra incentive for me, but we will not speak of it becasue the truth lies in saying that EW is nothing under 5'6". And your photos are comletey unfair. In the barefoot one, Emma is obvoiusly bending her knees and still looking just as tall as Dan and in the Paris photo, we cannot even see how they are standing. That factors in a bit, does it not? Apparently with you it doesn't because Rupert actually looks somewhat tall in it. So, I guess I question whether it's worth it to discuss heights with you because you seem extremely biased in the favour of Rupert Grint. And I said I got quite angry, but I didn't say anything completely demoralising like you.
Evanna said on 23/Sep/07
Anna, it is you who got "so bloody angry man" yesterday, not me! So it's you who needs to calm down...
I am 29 and I don't hate you, I just think you are an obsessed Emma Watson fan, therefore all you opinions on trio's heights are biased and your perception distorted. Which means that discussing heights with you is pointless. That's all.
Evanna said on 23/Sep/07
Excellent Rob, now how about this moment in time: Click Here or this Click Here or this Click Here etc. Isn't that a clear 4 in. difference? Or maybe I'm just picking photos which favour Grint... yeah, must be that...
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Honestly, I'm not lying, your previous photos did not load for me. Your last picture did and Rupert does indeed look close to 4 inches taller than Dan, but the problem is we cannot see their feet and thus how the shot is angled. I'm sorry, but look at the poster in the background, it clearly shows that the shot may not be straight on. Rob, back me up here, is this stuff not important? I'm guessing that's why you said "AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME" because there are certainly other photos where the gap does not look that large. Interestingly, in some cement photos with Rupert bending and leaning, Dan actually looks taller than Rueprt and this can be attributed to the ANGLES of the shots, right? Thus proving how important they are. And evanna, I know you hate me extremely, but really do not get fussed. I may have the integrity of "a three week old vomit", but come on, we're talking about an actor's height. It is not necessary to say such things in my opinion. Just calm down. You are the 30 something year old, are you not?
Evanna said on 22/Sep/07
So, Rob, this is umad's last pic, Click Here is this like almost four inches difference or not?!
Anna/john link/karee/andrew/whatever your name is, my pictures are not uploading for you because you're a liar. You've got about as much integrity as a three week old vomit.

[Editor Rob: at that moment in time yeah the difference looks close to 4.]
Anna said on 22/Sep/07
Okay, person who saw trio in person says Emma is 5'5.5", why is she still listed at 5'5" then? And, I'm sorry, but I still don't think you can know how each paparrazi angled their camera and such, do you know what I'm on about? Thus, your screencap is a bit unbelieveable as well. And your statements that "she wasn't losing anything" and that Emma and Rupert looked to have the same shoe advantage prove that you really only think of height losing in terms of Rupert. It's okay, but just know that that is what it seems like to people or at least to me. And, additionally with the shoes, although Converse are supposedly "height-destroying" you must remember that they do give a 1/2" or slightly more of height. NOw, look at 1/2" on a ruler and then look at a sideways taken shot of Emma's shoes. Those give her essentially no height, which means that they were not the same height as Rupert's Converse. It does not take any sense to figure that out. And, I just have a general question umad, why are you so infatuated with Rupert? I'm not trying to offend in anyway, but it just seems a bit odd for a nearly 30-year old to be so intensely into Rupert Grint....what do I know though.....
umad80 said on 22/Sep/07
Actually I could tell you where every camera was because I was there. Paparrazi was right in front of me. Some stood up, some were sitting down. There were people with video cameras and regular cameras slightly elevated behind where I was standing. Nothing dramatic. More like a stage.

Evanna, Dan and Emma both looked like a legit 5'5" to me. Emma might be 5'5.5" but nothing over that. Emma and Rupert looked to have the same shoe advantage (about a half inch) at the ceremony. And look: Click Here I know you can't see their feet, as that will be Anna's first response. But trust me, Emma was just standing as loosely as Rupert was, but she wasn't losing anything.

And remember how some pictures made it look like there was virtually no height difference between them when they were with their plaques? The caps from my video shows otherwise. Click Here (not the best pic, but you can see a difference that isn't in other photos), Click Here Click Here (Emma and Rupert both have their head down, but you can see a difference.)

And of course, barefoot: Click Here and Click Here

Unfortunately because my camera was mostly focused on Rupert, I didn't get anything with the wands. I mean, with all three of them. lol
Evanna said on 22/Sep/07
umad80, I agree on the 4 in. difference, but I also believe that Radcliffe and Watson are a bit shorter than 5'5". And Grint never looks a full 5'9" next to the Phelps bros. I'd say that Watson and Radcliffe are somewhere between 5'4" and 5'5", and Grint somewhere between 5'8" and 5'9". And all three are probably done growing. Which means that none of them is going to be a tall person, but it doesn't really matter - just because you have small feet doesn't mean you can't have the whole world under them!
Anna said on 22/Sep/07
I'm so bloody angry man, this is getting ridiculous. Firstly, JK, I am glad to see that you are becoming more reasonable, but honestly, what is with the photo you posted? One can clearly see that it is a titled angle and thus favouring Rupert instead of Dan and EMma. And, that is what I'm talking about umad80. I do know and respect that you saw the trio in person, but you are not going to be able to tell what every angle from ever camera was at the event. So, I respect that the ground was quite level, but what people are forgetting is the angle that the shot was taken at. It really affects things greatly, I believe you have even said that yourself. And Evanna, your photos are not uploading for me, I dunno why. And umad80, just another thing that I find quite curious....you say that you can add another 1/2" for Rupert because of his shoes being 1/2" lower than Dan's in your last post. In an earlier post you said something like you think Emma could have been 1/2"-3/4" taller than dan at the ceremony. So, we know that Emmma's shoes were essentially flat, they may have given 1/8" an inch, but I highly doubt that, so we are going to say that Dan had nearly an inch advantage over her and, concluding from your comment, that would make Emma at the very least one inch taller than Dan and, more likely, 1.5"-1.75" taller. Would it not? I don't see any flaws in my calculations, do tell if you do. And, yeah, we can say your argument got heated, whatever, but a strong 5'9" for Rupert is not reasonable and you are absolutely NOT going to get Rob to upgrade Rupert to that, no chance mate. 5'8" or 5'8.25" is the highest for a Rupert listing is my guess. And 5'9" for Rupert is not even reasonable seeing as when Emma stands up straight, she is barely 2 inches shorter than him and that is with a footwear disadvantage for her. If he's 5'9", then she is over 5'7", and you are not going to believe that, so I think 5'8.25" and 5'6.25" are reasonable listings for the said.
Fleur, clearly said on 22/Sep/07
Discussions on the heights of the actors in Harry Potter: the most heated kind there is.
umad80 said on 21/Sep/07
Anna, I didn't say that it didn't get heated, but I never got out of control. It was JK who went off the deep end, but I stayed calm and he eventually got control again. So all was good.

I'm glad you're starting to see the three inches JK. I still say a strong 5'9" for him. Because there are a lot of photos of them barefoot at the ceremony that he's got 4 inches at least. I know Rob doesn't believe it, and I know Anna doesn't like the pics because you can't see feet, but seeing how I was there and we know what the ground was like, there is really no reason to go there. Plus Dan wears a really flattering hairstyle that adds height without being obvious.

Also if you look at that pic of them standing in the cement, he's kinda leaning to the side. So you can probably put a quater of an inch to a half inch on it with shoes. Dan looked like he probably had a half inch advantage with his shoes.
Evanna said on 21/Sep/07
... or four inches :) Click Here Click Here
JK said on 21/Sep/07
I changed my opinion because sometimes he does look like he has 3 inches on Emma and Dan Click Here
JK said on 21/Sep/07
Rob, again this persons comments are not on height and just on stupid little arguments, you should do something about this man?!? after all didn't you say that if peoples comments drift away from height their posts will be deleted?
Anna said on 20/Sep/07
No, I can indeed tell you I am nearly 18 and I can only hope that JK is in his young teens because he knows of young stars that older teenagers should not know about, especially males. But anyway, Jk, what are you talking about? Why are you suddenly saying that he is 5'8" now? You were heavily advocating that he was barely 5'7", 5'7.5" at the most and I do remember you calling us a bunch of wankers or something fo the sort. I am just curious as to why you have changed your mind so suddenly and just to let you know, I'm not trying to start anything, just asking curiously. And umad80, do not even say that you and JK have never argued heatedly. Do you not remember how you and he wrote about 15 comments in a row on this page and he was calling you some absurdly immature names? I do understand that neither of you are fighting anymore, but you cannont deny that at one point things got pretty intense. I even think Rob made comment.
JK said on 20/Sep/07
Thanks Evanna, and yeah Rupert does seem 5'8'' when he stands straight in photos
umad80 said on 20/Sep/07
I've never had an argument with JK. I think even he will tell you that. We just don't agree on the height and have (for the most part) calmly discussed it. We'll just never see eye to eye on it. (Apparently literally on that front since he's almost a foot taller than me. LOL)

An actor should be listed at their normal height. Because in the morning your spine contracts and you're taller, so it isn't the right height. When I first wake up, I'm closer to 5'6", but after awhile I consistantly stay at 5'5" (well, unless you count shoes then I'm consistantly around 5'6" but that doesn't work. LOL) even before bed. I've never shrunk below 5'5" at any point.

You know, to get back to some height discussion... I know on Dan's page there is talk about a mother's height and a father's height. Dan blames his shortness on his mother's height because his dad is 5'9". I think it's a bit funny because my mom is 5'5.5", my dad is 5'10" (this is unless they shrunk any) and I'm 5'5". My whole family is actually pretty short. They're all pretty much 5'10" and under. My brother ended up 6'4" and only my great grandfather was apparently tall. (I never met him.) So it just goes to show you it doesn't matter. It got me to thinking about how Rupert's dad seems pretty tall, as does Rupert's brother James. (You can see them in a picture that Evanna posted earlier. Not hard to miss, James has jet black hair vs. Rupert's extremely red hair.) But Rupert seems anywhere between 5'8" to 5'10" to people, but he does definitely look shorter than his father and brother.
Evanna said on 20/Sep/07
Anna I did a little research, here's what I found, in your own words, on Watson's page:

Anna says on 30/Jul/07
"I'm still growing a little. My doctor says I have an inch or maybe two inches to go now I'm 5'5" or 5'6" " As stated by Lindsay Lohan....what was her doctor smoking? What 17 year-old female grows one to two inches? I'm 16 and I've been the height I am since I was 13.

Wow Anna, you've been aging one year a month?! If you keep going like that, you'll be 29 like me in no time. :)
Sorry Rob, I can't help being sarcastic, it's just that this "Anna" has been around this site for more than a year now, changing his/her names, ages, sexes and heights all the time. The only thing that's remained constant throughout is his/her begging for Emma Watson to get upgraded. Heh.
By the way Anna, JK is 16 I believe, and he is cool, he's really into discussing heights. We may disagree sometimes, but he's OK.
JK said on 20/Sep/07
Rupert does look 5'8'' when he does stand straight though
Anna said on 20/Sep/07
Well, everyone somehow finds a way to interpret everything I say completely wrongly. umad, I've indeed said that Emma sometimes barely looks an inch shorter than Rupert, especially when she stands up straightly as he does, but did I not just say in my last comment that he could have up to 2 inches on her, thus she would be 5'6" and he would be 5'8"? It's hilarious because you don't even read what I am saying, but that decision could have reputable backing up. And, just to get something straight, you have said that Dan is probably around 5'5" during the day and 5'5.5" in the morning and then you've said that when you saw them in person, Emma looked like she was slightly taller than Dan, so I think you said Emma could be around 5'5.5" or 5'5.75" (correct me if I'm wrong). So, that would put her at about 5'6.25" or 5'6" in the morning. So, the question is, what should the actor be listed at - morning or evening? The supposed answer would be evening, but I still am not really sure what people are looking for and the whole loss of height thing really confuses everything a lot. So, I would say Emma is close to 5'7" in the morning, Rupert is close to 5'8.5" or 5'9" in the morning, and Dan is close to 5'6" in the morning (or a little under). And with the age limit, I was really not meaning to cause all this fuss. I was simply surprised, like you, that I was speaking to people whom I believed to be my age or younger. And, by the way, I am nearly 18, so in no way am I a 13 year old. Just to put that out there. And, by the way umad80, what I find quite a laugh is your little argument with JK. I am quite certain he is about 13 years of age.
Evanna said on 20/Sep/07
Luckily for us "adults", umad, there's no age limit here. But it does get a bit weird when you realise that you've been trying to seriously discuss an actor's height with 13-year olds.

[Editor Rob: umad80...obviously is near 27 ;) Anna is basically, well I don't really know...]
umad80 said on 19/Sep/07
Anna, that isn't my problem. My problem is you say that Emma is like an inch shorter than Rupert in all the pictures. Which would put Rupert more of a 5'6" then a 5'8" because Emma is not that tall. Oh, and Dan said again in an interview for his new movie that he was only 5'5". So the 5'6" comment was prior to the photocall.

Evanna, I didn't see that pic before... of him walking next to Yates. It goes with some of the behind-the-scenes stuff we've seen where he does not look that much shorter next to Yates. I really do think it's just Rupert. As I said, judging him in person is the best way to go. And teenagers only? Oh Gosh, I better get out of here... I'm pushing 30! LOL
Anna said on 19/Sep/07
Yeha, don't get me wrong, I think Rupert should be upgraded to 5'8", it's just if Rob does that he'd have to upgrade Emma to because there is no way she is a full three inches shorter than Rupert. No way in hell. If Emma remains at 5'5" on this site, then Rupert should be downgraded to 5'7" because there is absolutely no way that Emma is anything mroe than 2 inches shorter than him. However, seeing as neither of the said listings are true, both should be upgraded to the heights they have actually said. And come on, Evanna is quite correct, I really don't think either of these actors care how tall they are and would definitely not upgrade their height.
Anna said on 18/Sep/07
I was saying almost precisely what you were saying umad, that Rupert must be around 5'8" or 5'8.5". And I was thinking that Dan could be closer to 5'6" because of new photos I've seen of him and new interviews with Rachel Ray and Rove, but seeing as I did post that video I do not think Rob will ever upgrade him. And, honestly, do you know how small of incrimants I'm taling of here? I went from 5'5.25" to like 5'5.75" for Dan and you automatically think that my height judgement is total rubbish. lol, I fall into the trap to, but come on now. Think before you say things like that, right? And with the characters, that could be true, but Ron has always been considered tall. And I'm guessing 5'4" for a 16-year-old would not be considered tall in any part of the world. And, to be honest, I was the only one who said 6'4" for Ron, but I'm elated to discover that you think I am everyone.
Evanna said on 18/Sep/07
One more post here, and I promise I won't be visiting these forums "for teenagers only" anymore. :) umad80 and TJ, your theory is correct, it is only the angles and terrible posture that often make Grint look shorter than he is. For example, there is a bunch of Paris photos in which the boy looks really short compared to David Yates (such as Click Here etc.) But then the pictures taken from different angles reveal that Grint is actually leaning towards Watson Click Here Click Here Click Here and that he's only about 2 inches shorter than Yates Click Here
I believe that Grint deserves to be upgraded to 5'8" flat at least because, unlike most celebrities, he doesn't give a phuck about his height.
umad80 said on 18/Sep/07
Because of your how many inches seperate them comment. It just made me realize that you're not a good judge of height because everyone (except one other person) was seeing at least three inches on his co-stars.

I don't know what you're talking about with the 5'6" and 5'5" on Dan. WTH? You're the one that gave the video! Dan said, "Everyone always says 'Oh my, how you have grown.' But I haven't. I just got measured this morning and I'm only 5'5". It's quite depressing, actually." (Er, I think I got that right.) It was when they were doing press junkets (different day!) that he kept saying 5'6". My guess is the press junkets were done before the photocall.

AES, but we're never given the actual heights of the characters. So Ron could've been like 5'4" and then grew to 5'8" between that time. I'm just saying that everyone thinks that the word 'tall' means that Ron has to be 6'4". The only thing we do know is that Ron should be taller than the twins and not the other way around. :)

Well, it will be interesting come the end of the month when they go to that award ceremony. Rupert will undoubtly wear his 'height destroying' converse and Dan and Emma will dress up, so we'll be unable to get a good accurate height. Heh!
Anna said on 18/Sep/07
Yeah, you are right AES, I was sorting of joking around with the height thing, but I think some viewers took it too seriously. It was a joke. Not the height, but the acting of the actor is what matters. Did you guys not see the comments I posted in response to '3'?
Anna said on 17/Sep/07
umad, just curious, why were you freaking out so much and at a lack of what to say to my previous comment? Did I not say in the comment that Rupert could be 5'8.5" at a maximum? lol, it's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. And, yeah, I really don't know. I think that Dan can look 5'6" quite easily at times, but if he really was 5'6" I don't know why he'd say 5'5". Maybe he was just caught off guard or something, I don't know. And with the Harry thing, you are quite correct, she never says Ron's height, but one can presume that he is quite tall seeing as his height is talked about frequently.
AES said on 17/Sep/07
umad80, we never know exactly how tall Ron is, but we know that he indeed has grown several inches between the OOTP and HBP, since in HBP, Molly Weasley says that Ron has grown about 4 inches since the last time she bought him a new gown (paraphrased).

And we do know for sure, from DH, that Ron is supposedly taller than Harry, who is taller than Hermione (which means that Ron is quite a bit taller than Hermione), and that Harry is supposedly quite tall as well because he's as tall as the adult James in DH, who is described as a 'tall man' in the mirror of Erised (IIRC, this happens in PS).

Ah well, it's not like the movies ever get the height right anyway, and quite frankly, I don't think it matters that much for me, as it is their act, and not their height that should matter.
umad80 said on 16/Sep/07
Heh. JKR never said how tall Ron is. She only said, through the eyes of Harry, that "Ron had grown several inches" which is just what Harry had thought.

Also, Dan's "I'm 5'6" and can blend in a crowd" was from a press junket which I'm assuming was done *before* the photocall where he admitted to being 5'5".

TJ, that is quite true. I've seen them all in person and Rupert definitely is quite a bit taller than his castmates. But he's not the type to really stand up. When he does, you can see a noticable difference in height. Heck, he was a good 3 inches taller than Dan at the OotP UK premiere and Dan had dress shoes on.
Anna said on 16/Sep/07
And I was saying 8 inches presuming that Ron is 6'4", which is probably overestimating, but, nevertheless, if Rupert were 5'8" he would be 8 inches below 6'4".
Anna said on 16/Sep/07
Actually, Dan has said 5'6". He said something like, "one of the few nice things about being short is how you can disappear in a crowd...'cause I'm only 5'5" or 5'6", well, let's get this on tape, I'm 5'6"." So, I think you could go as far as 5'6" in the morning and down to a little over 5'5" or even 5'5.5" in the evening. And, I'm sorry, but I think you just terribly mis-interpreted my comment or just got totally blown away by me saying that Rupert barely looks taller than Dan. Firstly, Rupert, like TJ actually just said, can sometimes barely look taller than Dan and that is indeed because of his posture. But then, if you would have read the rest of my comment, I said that the maximum Rupert could be is 5'8.5", not bloody 5'7". How did you draw that from me saying that Rupert could be 5'8.5"? And I was essentially saying that Emma could be close to 5'7" in the morning and just over 5'6" in the evening, which indeed is the height she has listed on her official site. And, if one does the math, that's basically a 2 inch advantage to Rupert, so I really don't understand why everyone was so fussed. It's basically what I've been saying all along and it's what many on this page are saying as well. And I was being sarcastic with the replacing Emma thing, are you serious? They would not replace her, they would be shot. Honestly, I really don't understand how someone could take that seriously, from the US of A I presume? It wasn't funny obviously, but have you really got to freak out like that? Can you not tell that is a joke?
JK said on 16/Sep/07
Yeah Evanna i agree
Evanna said on 16/Sep/07
As I said folks, just ignore Anna.
JK said on 16/Sep/07
Whats up with this claim for Emma being 5'7''? I mean she is clearly not taller than 5'5''
TJ said on 16/Sep/07
What newly found information that Dan is 5'5.5 - 5'6? There's nothing solid about that - just speculation. Dan has called himself 5'5.5 and 5'5 (recently), so I think we can decide on a peak (probably morning height) of 5'5.5 for him. No short guy is going to shave height off, even if only half an inch. The one with the terrible posture is Rupert. He has appalling posture, which means even at the same photo shoots he can go from looking about the same height as Dan to about 3 inches taller. The guy is a major sloucher.
umad80 said on 15/Sep/07
No they don't Anna. Seriously, what? Okay, seriously. I can't even talk to you. I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously... I don't even have words for this.

Evanna, you have to remember the shoes Rupert wears too and what others wear. I think it's his build too that makes him appear shorter. But seriously, tell me can you honestly look at the pictures I posted and see what Anna is seeing? Because I obviously need to go back to the eye doctor if I can see Rupert is clearer taller than Emma and Dan and not the 5'7" that Anna sees.
umad80 said on 15/Sep/07
No they don't Anna. Seriously, what? Okay, seriously. I can't even talk to you. I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously... I don't even have words for this.

Evanna, you have to remember the shoes Rupert wears too and what others wear. I think it's his build too that makes him appear shorter. But seriously, tell me can you honestly look at the pictures I posted and see what Anna is seeing? Because I obviously need to go back to the eye doctor if I can see Rupert is clearer taller than Emma and Dan and not the 5'7" that Anna sees.
Evanna said on 15/Sep/07
umad80 and everyone else, just ignore this "Anna", (s)he is loco.
Anna said on 15/Sep/07
Wow, he looks really short in those photos umad80, barley taller than Dan actually. And Emma is just annoying us all with her terrible posture, she is bending her bloody knees. However, I understand why she would do this, it would be kind of weird to be taller than Dan, but, luckily I would not have to worry about such things because Dan easily has a few inches on me, so I'm doing quite well in that department. I should take her position, some of my mates think i look like her and I certainly can act better than her and her bloody eyebrows (has anyone else noticed those things? They crack me up whenever I see a Harry Potter movie). But anyway, those photos prove that Rupert probably isn't over 5'8.5" and that's with the newly found information that Dan is 5'5.5" to 5'6" and Emma 5'6.5" to 5'7". God, I think the height "delema" in the casting is Rupert, not Dan. I mean, he's only a few inches under his mark, but Rupert is nealry 8. Let's just hope that he grows and Emma shrinks.
Evanna said on 15/Sep/07
Yeah, the weird thing about Grint is that he can look kinda short in the crowds of people, at the premieres and such, so 5'10" is absolutely out of question for him. Maybe someday, but unlikely. However, there IS something seriously wrong with Grint's listing versus Radcliffe & Watson. In all of the Paris pics taken from normal angles, Grint looks much bigger than Hermione, although she has thicker shoes - if this is not almost 4 in. difference I'll be damned. Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here
I don't gettit. There's a possibility Watson is shorter than 5'5", but still that puts Grint firmly into the 5'8" range, innit?!
hello said on 15/Sep/07
hey uman80, here's a pic of the trio barefoot and you can see their feet: Click Here
it's the last photo on that page of photos
umad80 said on 14/Sep/07
Oh, probably. But I was still curious nonetheless!

I was also searching everywhere for pics of the trio barefoot and you can see their feet, since Anna is so insistant on that. Any ways, I came across this one with their feet in the cement: Click Here I would think this is a pretty standard angle. Rupert is in a lean, and he's still around four inches taller than his co-stars.

Then this one without shoes. Click Here I realize Emma doesn't have the best posture, but the angle does favor her the most. But clearly Rupert is about 2 or so inches taller than his costars and he's in the back. And as you can see, this is how the flooring and such would look in other photos where you see them arm and arm and whatnot.

Although for the life of me I'll never figure out why in some pictures he looks pretty short. So I've come to the conclusion, since I know he's not just two inches taller than his co-stars, that it's just the angle, shoes, posture, etc.
Evanna said on 14/Sep/07
No need to write to The Times Online, umad80, they probably just picked these heights from you-know-where...
umad80 said on 13/Sep/07
You know though? There was an article that came out back in July that listed Rupert as 5'10" and Dan is 5'5.5". Of course, the only problem is Dan recently admitted he was only 5'5". Click Here - But you have to wonder about The Times Online. I've been meaning to contact them about that. I just think that Rupert is not the type to stand up straight so his height gets obsecured quite easily.

You know though, if you look at a lot of pictures from Rome, Rupert looks about the same with Oliver. Around nose level. Click Here - I know they're not *the best* pictures in the world since you can't see their feet and none of them are really standing all that straight. But pretty much all show Rupert to be around nose level if not higher.
Evanna said on 13/Sep/07
umad80 I know you'll like this, it's from Ice Cube's page:

Viper says on 7/Sep/07
Cube looks 5-8 next to 6-4 measured Johnnie Morant of the Oakland Raiders. Click Here

So, if that's what a legit 5'8" looks like next to a legit 6'4", this again proves you point that Grint looks taller than 5'8" in his recent photo with Oliver Phelps, not to mention Grunberg pics. I'm really puzzled now why Rob won't upgrade him. *shrug*
Anna said on 12/Sep/07
Evanna, the funny thing is, I'm not denying that Rupert is 5'8", I'm quite supporting it. Rob should indeed upgrade. hahaha, sorry.
umad80 said on 12/Sep/07
Hehe. Okay, so why are they in cement, and Rupert has several inches on both Dan and Emma? He's got like 4 inches. Even 4.5 inches in reality. Click Here - Oh, I know! Emma is laughing therefore would appear shorter.

And this one? This has to be the angle of the pic. Click Here

Or, this one: Click Here - oh wait, yes, you can't see their feet.

In all seriousness, those pics from VTM aren't that bad. They were on a higher level, but it wasn't that high. And the photo is still a straight shot to everyone. It wasn't like it was taken at an upward/downward angle.

Rob, you should really do a better peice on perspective. LOL I think we're all not exactly sure how it works. But my guess is that it's the angle of the camera rather than where it's taken, right? Like I said, the VTM shots... they were on a higher level. They were standing on a stage thing. But it's not like they were angling down or anything. They had a straight shot like the rest of us, just on a higher level.
Evanna said on 12/Sep/07
Here's an amusing comment from an OotP review: "A quick word on Rupert Grint, who plays Ron: as well as unwaveringly providing comic relief as Rowling's tales get ever darker, he has also enjoyed a growth spurt that puts him roughly a head above poor Radcliffe." Click Here Obviously this is exaggerated, but I'd say that the difference between the boys is no less than 4 inches. Only Radcliffe's choice of footwear sometimes obscures that fact.
Evanna said on 12/Sep/07
Anna the first and the third link that you posted aren't working and the second one only proves that Grint looks like a giant next to his costars. And this pic doesn't prove that Emma is taller than Radcliffe because it is actually him who is slightly behind her. And in my first pic Emma is sporting a Radcliffesque posture, standing as straight as she can. That's called "bending legs" only in your parallel universe.
Rob, you really need to upgrade Grint, if not for any other reason, then to annoy this Anna freak. ;)
Anna said on 12/Sep/07
Ah God, this is too easy. It's quite easy to see that she is a) bending her legs and b) at an angle disadvanatage in both of your photos Evanna. She's obviously doing so to help Dan put his arm around her. My God, you say that my photos are bad, you need to look at the angles. They make a difference. Click Here Click Here Click Here And she's standing in back of Dan in some of those photos, causing her to lose "height".
umad80 said on 12/Sep/07
Heh. Evanna, I like the second one just because if you look, Rupert is standing behind both of them, and he is clearly 4 inches taller. But the angle of the pic might have something to do with that.

I think Anna really believes that if Rupert is taller than her in heels, that somehow makes her short. Which I don't get. It only makes Rupert taller! But heck, she's so into the Paris premiere proving that Emma is taller... let's look at a completely unflatering pic for Rupert (height wise) because he's leaning to the side and behind her, and he's still at least a half inch taller: Click Here - and, oh, look. You can see feet! Now, if he was standing next to her and up straight, Rupert would clearly be an inch or so taller. In contrast, Rupert in front though leaning into Emma, and he's clearly an inch taller: Click Here Here is one that is even worse for Rupert. He is *way* back and the camera angle is more in favor of Emma, plus he's leaning considerably into her and they're pretty much the same height: Click Here Here is another one where the camera angle favors Emma, so she should be taller but Rupert's still got at least a half inch on her: Click Here So, I've looked at a great many of them, and judging from ones where you can see their feet (since you're so into that) none of them put Emma taller. Which pics are you talking about, Anna?

Here is something else to look at. Emma probably had the same shoe advantage that Rupert has at the LA premiere. They were very flat shoes that probably were a half inch or a little more thus giving the same thing to both she and Rupert. Now, there was never any really good pics of the trio at the LA premiere, but here is one where Emma is way closer to the camera and Rupert is leaning considerably: Click Here - it also gives thought about Dan's dodgy shoes because even he's taller by a lot.

Btw, does anyone know how tall David Yates is? Someone said he was 6ft+ but I don't think we ever got an accurate account. He definitely looks like he could be in the 6ft range. But if that's the case, then Rupert clearly cannot be 5'7". Now, if you took this pic at face value, he'd only be about 5'7.5" Click Here however because David is wearing dress shoes, he's got at least .75 inches advantage with shoes. And Rupert is leaning considerably. He'd definitely be around 5'8.5" with just the shoe difference, and the leaning could really put him up over 5'9". And you know he has to be a legitmate 6 footer because of this pic with Imelda: Click Here - Granted that particular floor could give an advantage to either, but Imelda was wearing heels as Umbridge (probably like an inch or so) and she's got hair that would make her appear taller. Just a little food for thought really.
TJ said on 11/Sep/07
Another of those "Emma looked easily 1/2-1" taller in all photos" quotes. Repeating that doesn't make it true. In some they look the same size, in some she looks a little taller and in he looks a little taller. Fact!
umad80 said on 11/Sep/07
LOL Rob. The conspiracy theory thing is just hilarious when you're Dale Jr. fan in the world of Nascar! Have you ever put him up on here? I think you have Micahel Waltrip, but not him. It's funny because I never saw anyone disagree with his 6' listing until one day someone said he was 5'10". heh!

Any ways, Evanna I've said for a long while that Dan has dodgy shoes. You can clearly see that those are huge heels. They look like the two inchers I have on a pair of boots! Possibly more. It was hard to say in the UK OotP Premiere. They looked a bit shorter, but still pretty dodgy. In the 2005 photocall pics, Dan's got almost two inches on Emma to me. There is no way that's .75 inches like Rob figured he would have vs. converse.

I've also wondered about the twins height for awhile now. He wasn't much shorter than Tom Felton who a) could've easily grown since 2005. or b) had more advantage with shoes. Then the Greg pics... there were two of them and they both showed the same. Celmence was in heels at the time, boot heels at that, so I don't know what they'd have given, but she was clearly close to 5'9" at that point. So the shortest Rupert could've been in 2005 was 5'8.5". But back to the the twins, one is taller than the other. I think it's James that is. But easily they could've measured themselves long before Rob asked and figured they'd stay the same. Or it's just taking pics with them. Maybe Rupert feels self concious and puts his body in such a position that he looks shorter? Or maybe it's the twins themselves... maybe they do have longer faces and thus Rupert looks shorter? I don't know. But they are the only ones where Rupert doesn't measure up to. All others he does.

Anna, your little theory would be correct except a few "minor" details. A) We don't know what type of shoes Emma was wearing. They looked similiar to the ones she wore at the Paris photocall to me. But I was never close enough to truly judge and I don't think there were ever good pictures to show. B) She and Dan were continuesly around the same height both with shoes on and shoes off. C) I was there. I know where the snitch was... they were on a higher level (well, just a stage really), yes, but my video showed the exact same thing and I was on level ground with the trio. Part of the video I took: Click Here - you clearly see the same thing between Dan and Rupert. And a few pictures off that video: Click Here Click Here Click Here So your theory might have some legitimacy if it weren't for the fact that I was right there and I have video showing the exact same thing. And unless Rupert was given something to stand on and it was invisible to me, they were on level ground, standing the same way, with no shoes on.

JK, yeah, but remember Emma said she was 5'5". I don't know what year because it's not listed, but Rob put that in 2006 she didn't look much different in height. So it was like 2004/2005 she said it. So if she was 5'5" in 2005 and Rupert was 4 inches taller... But see, I think this is just it. Rupert is not the type to stand straight so when he does, you can see how tall he actually is.
Evanna said on 11/Sep/07
Anna I hate to repeat myself but since you obviously ignore the pics which discredit your beliefs, here are again the two pics I posted couple of days ago Click Here Click Here Emma and Radcliffe are exactly the same height WITHOUT SHOES. Are you blind or what? And for a change it's she who has a better posture in the first pic. She hasn't grown, nor will she.
And I can't believe Rob hasn't upgraded Grint yet.
Anna said on 11/Sep/07
I think you mistook what I was saying umad80. I wanted to see the floor for the angle because it is obviously not a normal angle and obviously favours Rupert. Just look at the poster in the background, right? And honestly, look at the line photo on Emma's page, there is no way Emma is 5'5" and Rupert is 5'9", the difference is 2.5" at the most. And with the bending your head, I was obviously not talking about literally bending forward like Dan in that photo, I meant simply bending your head forward like Rupert was doing in that previous photo that you posted. And, yes, Emma was without a doubt was a little less than 4" shorter than the 5'8" Rupert (I really don't think he's grown much since that photo call) in the GoF photo call, but does that not prove that she's grown nearly if not more than 2 inches since that time? Because in the new photos of them in equal footwear, she comes up to the middle of his forehead if not past that point even when she's not standing up straight. And what I find quite amusing is the fact that people question whether Dan had "extra cushioning" in his shoes at the hand-print ceremony, but don't even think about that affecting Emma's height compared to him. Emma looked easily 1/2"-1" in all of those photos in the concrete and the line photo, so would that not mean she has nothing less than 1" on him whilst barefoot and standing up straight? Just think about it.
Evanna said on 11/Sep/07
Wow Anna I didn't know there was a whole conspiracy theory behind your frequent posts here! How mistaken I was to assume that you were just an odd obsessed fan, when in fact you're on a mission!
Anyway umad's pic proves that Grint has been 4 in. taller than Emma ever since late 2005-early 2006, and it also proves that Radcliffe wears dodgy shoes. In that GOF photocall he had almost 2 in. heels Click Here Click Here And we can also see that Grint in cons was as tall as supposedly 5'7" Clemence Poesy in heels.

[Editor Rob: there's nothing like a good conspiracy...]
Evanna said on 11/Sep/07
Yeah, umad80, that's the pic with Grunberg. Amazing, really. Grint does look 5'9" there. Could it be that Oliver Phelps is actually taller than 6'3"?! Hard to tell with guys as tall and skinny as him.
I saw the video that you posted, and it's amazing how the height gap between Radcliffe and Grint increases by the end of it, when they take their shoes off. Which makes me wonder if Radcliffe is wearing an extra cushion or something in his sneakers!? That would also explain him suddenly looking 2 in. taller than Emma in the press conference Click Here of course, posture+angle do matter, but still his shoes might be stuffed with something :) Anyway, he's confessed himself that he's no taller than 5'5", so he really can't be anything above that.
JK said on 11/Sep/07
Rupert looks about 4 inches taller than Emma in that pic, but then again that picture is kind of old
umad80 said on 10/Sep/07
Bending forward would not give you the impression of being taller. It's holding your head up that does. Like if your chin was pointing more towards the sky (or whatever) bending forward would make you shorter because you'd be bending down. At least that would seem to me because it seems the most logical.

Here is a great picture to prove this. Click Here - look at how much Dan is going forward and how much shorter he looks then he did in other GoF photocall pics. So, yes, bending forward would make you look shorter. It's just logical.

You and the "I can't see their feet!" Of course not, but they're not wearing shoes. So why would that matter? They have lifts in their socks?! The feet thing is to see what type of shoes they are wearing (plus the floor) so you can determine any advantage. But they are in their socks by then. Everyone's seen the videos to know that. And having been there, the floor was solid. It was a friggin' sidewalk. This was pure unadualtrated photo with no footware advantage. Rupert is more than 3 inches taller than his co-stars. And if there was a freakin' picture where you could see their feet it'd STILL be the same thing. And if you watch the freakin' video you can see the same thing. This is just a still from the video.
Anna said on 10/Sep/07
You do realise that you just said "at the very least, Emma is a weak 5'6"" so, according to you, the lowest height Emma could be is a weak 5'6". Interesting that your view has changed that quickly, but without a doubt, I am not complaining. I think that is quite correct. At the very least she is 5'6" and the very most 5'7". Brilliant.
umad80 said on 10/Sep/07
Evanna, you're talking about this, right? Click Here - I posted it before, but it fell on deaf ears. It has to do with the twins being 6'3" and Rupert never quite measuring up. But Rupert is consistantly taller than Dan and Emma. I think it's possible for Emma to be slightly taller than Dan, but they're definitely nothing over 5'5"/5'5.5". At the very least, Emma is a weak 5'6".

But you're right, barefoot makes all the difference. Rupert is a solid 3 inches taller than Dan if 4.5 is middle of the eye and 4 is eyebrow, then just above that would not be only 2 inches. Inches aren't *that* big. He is definitely close to 5'9". Like I've said there are countless eyewitness accounts that put Rupert consistantly in the 5'8" and 5'9" department. Very few people say 5'7" and a few say 5'10". After seeing him in person, I've downgraded to 5'9" but it is hard to tell with him because of his build.
Anna said on 10/Sep/07
Getty is not tricky at all, all you have to do is put the link into tinyurl.com. Anyway, I won't argue with you umad80 because you obviously don't get that it's not so easy to just say that their slouching, leaning, bending, and positioning just even each other out. It's much more difficult than that, thus straight on photos are the best ones to be used. TJ actually drew a line on a photo on Emma's page and it's quite good to see that Emma really is taller than Dan and, interestingly, Rupert is standing in back of Emma (not sure how much) and looks only 1/4" taller, which means that giving him 1-2 inches on her is quite gracious. And I just have to say some things about your screencap umad....firstly, we cannot see their feet and therefore neither their postures, so we can't see if any of them are slouching/bending and thus losing height. Secondly, the angle favours Rupert. This can easily be determined by looking at the backgroud; look how the poster is slanted...and thirdly, bending your head forward (like Dan and Rupert) actually gives the impression of being taller, not shorter. I am 100% positive that it does not cause one to lose height, if anything it causes one to gain height. So, that screencap really is not useful for our purposes. If you can get a fullbody shot, people may look at it, but from what I can see, this shot gives an unfair advantage to Rupert, thus making it very unlikely for him to be anything over 5'8.5" because that's what the other photos clearly show him to be. And with Emma in that photo, you say she does indeed look a 1/2" taller than Dan, so, think about it, if this were a straight on shot, she would easily be 1" taller, do you see what I'm getting at? And, from seeing recent photos of Dan, I really think he could be more like 5'5.5" or close to 5'6", which would undoubtedly boost up Emma's height. And, just to let you know, I have reasons for visiting this site frequently that I cannot post in a comment because editor Rob would use this information against me and thus cause me to lose something I could gain.
Evanna said on 10/Sep/07
JK you are just being a stubborn kid now, it's quite obvious that Grint is more than 2 inches taller than Radcliffe.
If anyone is still in doubt about Grint's height, go to Gettyimages and look for the photos of him with actor Greg Grunberg, who is 6'1.25" (186 cm) according to this site. The pics are from LA premiere of OOTP, Grunberg is in sneakers and Grint in converse, and there's only about 4 in. difference between them (and they are like leaning into each other). I'd post the link here, but Getty is tricky, it's a fair chance it won't work. So just go there and type their names into the search box.
JK said on 10/Sep/07
For Rupert to be 5'8'', Dan has to be a legit 5'6'' which i really really doubt he is
Evanna said on 9/Sep/07
Rob don't you think it's time to upgrade young Mr. Grint to at least 5'8"?! According to trio's current listing, the difference between Grint and Radcliffe is only 2.75" (7 cm) which simply ain't true, the difference is more than 3" Click Here and they're in socks here. And this umad80 lass obviously met them all in person, so why not trust her?!
"Anna" (or should I call you "john"? or "karee"?) I can't believe that you still visit this site every day and nag people about Emma Watson supposedly being 5'7". You say that the ceremony photos are "utter rubbish" only because they prove that Watson and Radcliffe are practically the same height, when barefoot Click Here Neither Emma or Dan has grown in the past two years or so, nor will they grow in the future. And I do remember that last year you repeatedly used the GOF premiere photos to "prove" that Emma was 5'7" or more, but now you do admit that "she was barely past Rupert's eyes when standing straight" at the time. Well, that ratio has not changed...
Btw several weeks ago I met Serbian actor Pedja Bjelac who portrayed Igor Karkaroff in GOF. He actually lives in Prague, Czech Republic, but he was on holiday, so was I. His official height is 6'4.75" (195 cm) and in person he looks every single inch of it - he is indeed very tall, and exceptionally good looking.
Heightwise he wasn't of much help as he didn't have eye-to-eye scenes with kid actors, except Radcliffe, and that was almost 3 years ago. But he did confirm that Radcliffe was very, very short at the time. I guess Radcliffe must have reached his 5'5" peak only in 2005; and he is obviously not going anywhere from there.

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, shoe or bra 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.