How tall is Rupert Grint ?

Home :: About  Latest :: Comments :: Top 50 

Rupert Grint's Height is 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".
Comment on the Height of Rupert Grint

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.
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’’
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 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, 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 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 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.
umad80 said on 9/Sep/07
Thank you Hugo! Glad to see you have an open mind about it.

JK, you once said that he was "the smallest 5'7 I've ever seen." You used to say he was 5'6.5" and 5'7" in shoes. Then it was "maybe 5'7.5". And I think you changed it some other time back to 5'7". So excuse me if I can't keep straight everything you say.

Here is something you might want to take a look at! This is at the ceremony when they have their shoes off. I was watching a better video on YouTube from TheSnitch and this you can totally see is more than two inches. It's no less than a strong 3 inches and you have to admit it's bordering on at least 4 inches, and Rupert has his head down! Anyway here is the screencap I took: Click Here And this is the video you can see for yourself: Click Here (It's like the last minute of the video.)

It's quite clear to me that Rupert has a solid 3 inches with his head down, so if he was looking forward, we might see a strong 4 inches. And I think that pic also shows that Emma is a little taller than Dan. It is a bit hard to tell due to hairstyles, but she's definitely got at least a half inch. Something not quite noticable if you're not really staring. And I think this also proves that the latest pic with Oliver might be considered more legit then anyone wants to.

Btw Anna, you do need to read what I've said. I mention that Emma was bending her knees and such, but also mentioned other factors. I was giving it to both. I think what they do in the pictures gives them quite similiar posture. One picture, Rupert is standing quite straight, and Emma isn't, but she's in front so it puts them more on similiar ground. (Don't tell me that standing closer won't do anything, look at Dan!) And in the other, Emma is bending her knees, but Rupert is leaning very forward. So I think these are actually pretty good pics to go off of because they're both doing stuff so it's not like either one has an advantage. That was my point. I don't think you like it because it somehow makes Emma shorter, but no... I think if Emma is 5'5.5" or 5'6", then it makes Rupert taller.
Anna said on 9/Sep/07
umad80, don't get me wrong, I think that Rupert has about 1-2 inches on Emma and is indeed taller, but you are just getting simpley ridiculous. Firstly, in those London photo call pictures you posted, you must know that Rupert is in fact standing up straight, he is not slouching, whereas Emma is totally bending her legs and such to make her look shorter. Without a doubt the photographers most likely asked her to do this. Furthermore, they, unlike what you said, are not on the same level and seeing as the shot is taken from above, Rupert actually has the angle advantage. I feel like you always say "Oh, the angle is not favouring Rupert" or "Rupert is slouching" when in reality, neither are true. This is proved by your photo of Dan and Rupert at the London premiere. It is so obvious that Rupert is standing just as straight as Dan, yet you have to add "though Rupert is still slouching a bit". My God, can you not see that he is standing utterly straight? The one who is slouching is Emma, which indeed says a lot. And I'm not even going to say anything about the hand-print photos because they are utter rubbish. And, just to sum things up, you say that Rupert has bleeding 4 inches on Emma? Well, think of this. In the photo call photos that you posted, she was a shade above his eyebrow when he was standing up straight and she was bending her leg and doing a whole bunch of other awkward stuff. First, let me mention that at the GoF premieres she was barely past Rupert's eyes when standing up straight, which means that she has most likely grown a considerable amount since that time, and secondly, she is not even standing up straight in these photos. I mean, honestly, umad, you must realise that he is nothing more than a strong 5'8", possibly 5'8.5", but by no means does he have even 3 inches on Emma. I believe that, if both stood up straight, Emma would be only 1-2 inches shorter than Rupert thus putting her at 5'6"-5'7" and Rupert at a strong 5'8".
JK said on 9/Sep/07
umad80, I don't think Rupert is a weak 5'7'', he is more of a strong 5'7'' maybe even 5'7.5'' but absolutley nothing over that!
Hugo said on 9/Sep/07
umad80, I've taken a look at the photo's you've posted and I must say Rupert does look a strong 5'8", maybe even 5'9".
umad80 said on 8/Sep/07
There he goes again, Rob. Calling me stupid. When are you going to do something about him? This is the second time he's gotten out of line over silly height estimations. And I think you might want to tell him that because you don't buy it doesn't mean you're not wrong. You might need to explain that you're not God.

Look JK, if Emma is 5'5", then in heels she'd be around 5'7". (More 5'7" because she's got at least 2 inches in heels if not more) Rupert is continuely taller than Emma in heels. He's at least a half inch to an inch taller. The only truth is that Rob's guestimation of 5'7.75" is more right than your weak 5'7". But if Emma is 5'6" like she claims and 5'8" in heels, then Rupert is closer to 5'9". This would make sense since he wasn't much shorter than 5'9" Tom.

And the key phrase here Hugo is "based on photos" meaning that you can guestimate on photos, but there is nothing like seeing them up close and personal. Rupert is a strong 5'8" and definitely borders on 5'9" if not more. He's not the type to stand straight up and, as Rob once put it, "wears height destroying converse." (Of course, he said that for Mr. Radcliffe, but I think the same would apply for Mr. Grint too.) But when Rupert stands straight, there is a lot more height to him then it appears. He's a big guy, so his stockier build tends to lend to his looking shorter. (Just like Tom Felton looks taller because he's thinner.)

I mean, look here: Click Here That's definitely four inches (let's not even talk about Dan because he's so far in front, I doubt we could ever accurately tell) and they're on the same level. We also don't know what she has in shoes here. She probably has the same as Rupert, but might have more. Just hard to tell, but for arguments sake, I say she has the same. Add to the fact that she's in front, but take away from the fact that she's bending more... that still should put her in the same place against Rupert with height.

Here's another one from the same shoot: Click Here - Again, you can't really say much about Dan considering how close to the camera he is, but Rupert and Emma are similiar posture again. Sort of. He's leaning more forward and she's bending her legs, so you can probably take around the same height advantage off of them. Rupert is consistant with the other photo in how much taller he is to Emma.

Here is one of Rupert standing with Dan. They're both standing pretty tall, though Rupert is still slouching a bit. Click Here - And don't forget the advantage that Dan has with wearing dress shoes to Rupert's converse!

This is when they're barefoot: Click Here - it's easier to look at Emma because her hair is styled more like Rupert's in that it's not spiked up any. Dan's hair sort of goes up more. Any ways, the 5'5" Emma is about eyebrow level - give or take. (I know Anna, you can't see their feet, but it is true... they are barefoot at that moment.)

Rob, this is a question for you... look here: Click Here - it's an ariel shot, so does that make Dan or Rupert taller than the other? Because if it won't do much for them, Rupert is clearly way taller than Dan. Or what about a shot like this? Click Here Because again, Rupert is towering over Emma.
Hugo said on 7/Sep/07
umad80, no we are NOT the same person. I'm just stating my opinion and JK keeps agreeing with what I write. The editor KNOWS we are NOT the same person because the editor can see that their are different computer numbers(IP numbers--as you put it) between JK and I. There would be no need for me to complement myself. As for Rupert, I only said 5'7"--based on photo's.
JK said on 7/Sep/07
Rupert no way has Emma by 4 inches!, she is 5'5'' and Rupert is 5'7'', and are you stupid?!? Didn't Rob say that 5'9'' can never be bought for this guy? Rob can you honestly give me your opinion? what height does Grint look to you most of the time when he is standing straight?
umad80 said on 7/Sep/07
Is Hugo and JK the same person? Or friends? I wonder if Rob checked IP numbers... LOL But sorry "both" of you because I've seen Rupert in person and he doesn't look 5'7". You can look at pictures until you're blue in the face, but seeing them in person changes your perspective quite considerably. During GoF he was around 5'8". When I saw him then he was taller than me and I was at least 5'6" in the shoes I was wearing. He was at least an inch or so taller, but definitely taller. Then I saw him up close and personal several times during OotP promotion and he was definitely nothing under 5'8". And as I said, there are many eyewitness accounts that put him on average of 5'9". And to be honest JK, I don't care if you change your mind. But it's sad that you would rather change another person's height to suit your own needs is all I'm saying. You even proved Tom was 5'9" by putting him with taller people, but the minute Rupert looks closer to Tom's height you decided Tom was shorter. That just makes it look bad is all.

Anna, they're usually just a tad over 2 inches... regular women heels. I mean, what they give. If you go to the 'heel height truth' on here, you can see different shoes. But women shoes are all sorts of heights. Emma's definitely look like they're in the 3 inch range, but probably would give less depending on the type of shoe I guess. I'm going with 2.5" for good measure. Thus meaning that she has at least two inches advantage on Rupert with shoes. If she's 5'5" and Rupert has over a half inch on her in height with the shoes, that would mean Rob's pretty accurate with his listing. If she is 5'6" that would make her 5'8" meaning that Rupert is around 5'8.5" or so. If she's 5'7" like you think that would mean Rupert is 5'9.5" or so. So I'm back to my original thought. Emma is 5'5.5" and Rupert is around 5'9". And you can argue all you want, but with similiar posture, Rupert is consistantly a half inch or so taller than Emma in a couple of inch heels. And he wasn't much shorter than the 5'9" Tom who also might've had shoe advantage. (I just can't figure out those shoes he's wearing.)

I continuelly disagree about Emma being taller there. Here is one where Emma isn't bending her knees. They both seem to have similiar posture though and Rupert clearly has at least a half inch or more on her. Click Here And I know you can't see their feet on this one, but it's pretty obvious that there are no bent knees and they're both standing pretty straight. Click Here

And I was curious about our argument over bent knees vs. slouching. I think they'd both do the same. However, when you add one bent knee and one straight knee, the dynamic changes. I checked it out. Go and measure yourself. Then measure yourself with one bent knee and one very straight. Now stand on your tiptoes (this gives the illusion you have heels on) and bend a knee. You'll notice that barefoot it changes the dynamic, but when you're giving yourself height already, not much changes.
JK said on 7/Sep/07
Thanks for agreeing Hugo
Hugo said on 7/Sep/07
I would say Rupert is at least 5'7". I've concluded this because he looks it.
Anna said on 6/Sep/07
Exactly uad80, I think that sums it up quite nicely....JK simply wants Rupert to be 5'7" or less and, like you said, that is not very likely at all. I'd personally put him at a strong 5'8" and again Emma at about 5'6"-5'7" (definitely a strong 5'6"). And I am sorry but I truly have to disagree about the bending knee vs. slouching deal. Bending your leg causes you to lose more height, this can be seen in photos are simply just try it in front of a mirror. And neither of those photos with Emma wearing 2 inch heels (those really are not anything over 2 inches) and Rupert converse. It's easy to tell that when Emma stands up straight as well as Rupert, she is about 1/2" to 1.5" taller, thus making her a strong 5'6" and him and strong 5'8". As I said, 5'6.5" is probably her exact height barefoot, which is, like I said, quite tall for females nowadays.
JK said on 6/Sep/07
No way, just because you guys think he is 5'9'' or 5'10'' dosen't mean im gonna change my opinion, in my opinion Rupert looks 5'7'', 5'7.5'' at the absolute most! and you should respect my opinion and if you don't then don't comment on it, i am 16 after all so i grew from 6'0.5'' to 6'3'' im nearly getting to 6'3.5''
umad80 said on 6/Sep/07
Just wanted people to know that you change your mind like the weather.

And you also proved my point. You changed your mind on Tom based soley on the fact that he wasn't much taller than Rupert. Which proves that your goal is to make Rupert 5'7" for whatever reason. You were absolutely adament on Tom's 5'9" height. You even said he was 5'9" because of who he stood next to (Josh and Jamie). But the minute it shows Rupert wasn't that much different in height, you changed your mind on TOM instead of the obvious choice... change your mind on Rupert! Everyone from fans to Rupert himself has said 5'8" and higher. There are several fan encounters from promotion for OotP that put him at the average height of 5'9". It isn't just one or two people, it's several. And that has to account for something!

Instead of changing Tom's height to fit your height OPINION on Rupert, maybe you should think about your opinion on Rupert's height and realize that maybe Rupert is taller than you give him credit for.
JK said on 6/Sep/07
My name changed because i have grown, i was at 6'0.5'' last year when i started visiting the site, you can even ask Rob, yeah i did think Tom was 5'9'' until i saw the picture with Rupert which really surprised me so i don't think Tom is over 5'8''.... btw nice research umad80
umad80 said on 5/Sep/07
This is why JK shouldn't even be paid attention to when it comes to Tom Felton. These are taken directly off Tom's page for height, so you can look it up yourself. The most recent being July... just before the OotP London premiere. Biased are we?

6'3'' JK says on 20/Jul/07
I saw a picture of jamie with Joshua herdman (Goyle) who is a legit 6'1'' and Tom Felton, Jamie dwarfed both of them, so Jamie is 6'3'' Joshua is 6'1'' and Tom is 5'9''. Look how much Jamie has on Tom Even with Huge slouch which makes him lose 3 - 4 inches Click Here

6'3'' JK says on 25/Jun/07
Tom is nothing more than 5'9'', it has been proven time after time again! what other proof you want??!!

6'3'' JK says on 19/Apr/07
No way man! Tom Felton is just a 5'9'' and nothing over it

6'2.5'' JK says on 29/Mar/07
He is 5'9'' Max! and No way near 6'1''!!! Rupert is 5'6'' and Daniel is probably 5'5.5'' At his Max in shoes

6'2'' JK says on 20/Oct/06
5'10'' isn't very tall, its just an inch above average, he looks 5'9'' to me

And that's just some of 'em. At one point he did mention that he thinks Rob was being generous just before he again started insisting the 5'9". It was only one instance though. So, really, you have to laugh at him. Look at how often he changed his name height. 6'2" JK, 6'2.5" JK, 6'3" JK. LOL (I apologize if this was out of line, Rob, but I was tired of him changing Tom's height suddenly to suit his own opinion.)

Anna, you can't pick on my pictures. lol I show feet and even show the ones that aren't always flattering towards Rupert. I do wish however that we had better shots of them all barefoot. Yeah, the one of the wands shows Rupert doesn't look all that tall. But when they're standing barefoot, you can see a great difference. Sometimes when they're standing in the cement you can see more than two inches. As for leg bending vs. slouching, they both do the same. Difference is, it's usually only one leg with Emma and the other is pretty straight. So Emma might lose less height advantage than if she were to bend both knees. (I know that sounds funny, but really it is true because one leg would be helping you gain your height back. heh.) Rupert is such a leaner though. Have you ever noticed how much he'll lean into someone else? Like this: Click Here (Which I didn't pick the first time because of the lean and it is even more unflattering for your argument about how Emma is taller. Her legs aren't even really bent and Rupert's got like an inch. lol) And here is another considerable lean: Click Here - Emma is actually taller here, but then look at it... Rupert is leaning really bad and slouching. Plus Emma is more towards the front.

Also if Emma is 5'6", then she'd be around 5'9" with heels. If she is 5'7" like you think she might be, that would put her closer to 5'10" in heels. This of course all depends on how large her heels are. The photocall and paris premiere... they looked a solid 2.5" to 3" heels. Rupert always looked a half inch to an inch taller than Emma even in heels (depending on the picture). Thus if she is the 5'6" she claims, then Rupert would definitely be 5'9" or taller. If she's 5'7" like you think, then Rupert would be around 5'10". Now if she's 5'5" like Rob thinks, she'd be 5'7.5" to 5'8" in heels then Rupert would definitely be around 5'8" to 5'9". I say she's 5'5" to 5'5.5" thus making Rupert between 5'8" and 5'9.5", though leaning more towards the 5'9" thus putting Emma closer to 5'5.5". And really, you can see that when both Emma and Rupert are standing straighter, Rupert has a solid half inch on Emma in heels. They're just generally harder to tell because she bends her knee(s) and Rupert is a leaner. And I think we can *both* agree on that. hehe
Anna said on 5/Sep/07
JK, neither Rob nor anyone else on this site is going to agree that Rupert is 5'7", that's just ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is because Rob has him at nearly 5'8", he has actually said 5'8", and many fans say he is at least 5'8" if not 5'9" or 5'10". Plus, he looks 5'8"ish not 5'7"ish in photos.
JK said on 5/Sep/07
Tom Felton is nothing more than 5'8'' and he is obviously 3 inches shorter than Jason Isaacs, so that makes Rupert about 5'7'', I really don't think this guy looks 5'8''
Anna said on 5/Sep/07
I tend to agree Anonymous. I realyl don't know why Rob wouldn't upgrade him....
Anonymous said on 5/Sep/07
By the way I've checked the list of 5'8" males in this website, and at least half of them don't look like legit 5'8" guys to me: ex. Steve Buscemi, Cilian Murphy, Billy Crudup, Andy Serkis, Robert Downey Jr, Noel Gallagher etc. If they can be listed 5'8" or more, then Rupert Grint should be given that height as well, he looks taller than all of them.
Anna said on 4/Sep/07
Oh my God, JK, you really expect people to deem that photo as acceptable for judging heights?? We cannot even see their feet. And, although I do agree that Anonymous's photo is not good for judging either because they are not at the same plane, I believe you are just hand-picking rubbish photos that make Rupert look shorter than he really is. And there is absolutely no way Tom Felton is 5'8", that would make Jason Issacs about 5'9" or 5'10" at the most, and he is obviously a strong 5'11. Why do you want so much for Rupert to be 5'7" - he is obviously taller than that....and, just for your information, those of us claiming Rupert to be 5'8" are actually closer to Rob's listing than you are. I am not sure you have been witty enough to figure that...hahaha.
Anonymous said on 4/Sep/07
Yeah JK but in your photo we can't see where and how exactly they are standing.
JK said on 4/Sep/07
Anonymous, the camera angle that i posted is straight and way more precise than the biased one you sent in which only favours Rupert
Anonymous said on 4/Sep/07
JK what about the photo right next to that one that you posted?! Click Here
In your photo Radcliffe could be standing on a higher level or something.
JK said on 3/Sep/07
Pictures like these show that he is not more than 5'7'' Click Here
JK said on 3/Sep/07
Tom Felton looks more 5'8''
Anna said on 3/Sep/07
umad80, I agree that JK tends to post photos with bad angles, but I am beginning to question your pictures as well. My God, you chose basically the worst photos from the photo call and the premiere. I mean it's quite obvious when, in 90% or more of the photos Emma looks barely 1.5" shorter than Rupert (sometimes even when slouching/bending her legs) and then you see one where Rupert is taller like in your first one that he is standing up completely straight and she is slouching and bending her legs, a truly deadly combination in my opinion (as to killing one's height, you get it?) And then your second photo is just utter rubbish, there are plenty of straight on photos where she looks like what I stated before and you cannot deny that she slouches and bends her legs (she does both) whereas Rupert actually stands up striaght for once. You just cannot deny that and it truly proves that she has grown and thank-you for posting that first photo becuase, yes indeed, the gap was around that in GoF, but as can be seen by the other photos, the gap has shrank considerably. And, just to mention it, I never said Emma was taller than Rupert in the Paris photo call picturs - I said she was not 2-3 inches shorter, more like 1-2 shorter, which, believe it or not, is not taller. hhaha, right? And Emma was totally, without a doubt, taller than Rupert at the Paris premiere. It's laugable if one says otherwise. She just bends her ****ing leges whereas Rupert stands up staight. And on that topic, bending one's legs actually enables one to lose more height than if slouching, that's why tall girls do it. I'm by no means saying that Emma is tall, she's just taller than Dan and not much shorter than Rupert therefore she uses that technique which was not necessary before.
umad80 said on 3/Sep/07
Anonymous, you sort of have to not pay attention to JK. They have this terrible habit of finding the absolute worse angles to prove a point. As you said, Generation Fame is a couple of years old and he was never that much shorter than Graham Norton who had dress shoes on. Click Here Click Here - proof that he wasn't more than a half inch shorter than both Johnny Vegas and Graham Norton. Norton with the definite shoe advantage and not sure about Vegas and what he was wearing.

And what about Pride of Britian Awards with Tom Felton? These were December of 2005. Click Here Click Here

Emma's not a sloucher. She's more of a bend-her-knees type. And that's really only when she's on heels. And what do you mean that Emma is taller than him in the Paris photocall? LOL It's really too bad you can't see how they're standing in this picture because Rupert standing straight up really shoes he can be on the tall side: Click Here And another interesting pic: Click Here - and it makes you wonder how that would look at other angles and such.

And Emma being taller than Rupert at the Paris premiere? Not likely. He had about a half inch on her with the heels. Click Here Click Here (that's even with him leaning in) Click Here (He's leaning and she's closer to the camera) Now there are other pics where Emma has got a lot of advantage or they're both leaning considerably or Rupert is leaning so much it gives the illusion that Emma was taller.
Anonymous said on 3/Sep/07
JK that Generation Fame footage is almost 2 years old, and in the screencaps that you posted they are actually leaning down, making some clay cups. Go to youtube and watch the entire clip, Rupert is almost as tall as Norton, and it is very likely that he has grown in the meantime.
JK said on 3/Sep/07
He is 5'7'' to me, maybe 5'7.5'' at the absolute highest
marianonimo said on 2/Sep/07
The type of shoe distorts the height when it’s about a few inches of difference as in the current case between Dan, Emma and Rupert. And without shoes, the only valid reference is a barefoot Dan, because Emma uses to bend her knees, and Rupert slouches a lot or separates the feet but Dan always stands up extremely straight. And Click Here Click Here I see that Rupert is 2''-3'' taller than Dan, so the "about 5ft 8'' is ok for me.
Anna said on 2/Sep/07
Whatevs, she says 5'6", photos show this, thus I believe her. What I don't understand is how you are so open to the fact that Rupert slouches and then you see photos where it's quite obvious that Emma is slouching, but you just say she's "not really slouching". It's ridiculous, I don't know why you want so much for Rupert to be "a few inches taller than her" the Paris photo call and the fact that Emma is TALLER than him in really not that large of heels proves that he doesn't have a few inches on her anymore. He certainly used to, but it's quite obvious that he does not anymore. And with the shoes, I'm not saying I know for sure, but I can just make an educated guess about it because think about it, Ron is supposed to be tall, so to create the illusion the crew could give him lifts and/or shoes with more height. And it's not like that's unheard of in the movie business, guys get lifts and/or shoes like such many times, where have you been? lol, why is that the most hilarious thing? I'm just curious as to how you will respond, so do let me know. Thank-you very much, but, quite honestly, thank-you for agreeing with Emma being taller than Dan, however, think about it, if she is taller by this said 1/2" (note my sarcasm please) whilst slouching and whilst Dan is standing up with military posture (and I do not think this is an exaggeration), would she not easily be 1" or more taller than him if they both stood up straightly? I just don't think it takes much brains to figure that, right?
umad80 said on 1/Sep/07
They put Rupert in special shoes? What? LOL That's the most hilarious thing. Yeah, he doesn't wear the same shoes in the movies as the others, but that has to do with the Weasley thing and you can tell that they're not very large heels. They're regular. They can solve height deals with camera angles if they needed to, because behind-the-scenes footage shows quite a few inches difference between Emma and Rupert.

Dan and Emma are definitely not much difference. I don't think Emma is shorter. I think they're both 5'5" with Emma possibly being 5'5.5" but she is definitely not a strong 5'6" or even 5'7". Not even close.
JK said on 1/Sep/07
Rob you have Rupert seriously wrongly listed here!??, and if you don't think so then you've got other two heights that are definetley wrong!!! I've been saying 5'7'' here for a long time and here is evidence next to 5'7'' Johnny Vegas and 5'8'' Graham Norton Click Here Click Here Here he is looking more shorter than Johnny Vegas imself, Rob please don't ignore to comment on this post? Rupert has to be downgraded the least to 5'7.25''
Anna said on 1/Sep/07
Sorry JK, I didn't think that would create such a blow-up. I was just saying that Dan would most likely not be afraid to say if he were the same height or taller than Emma, he would seize that opportunity because remember he said 5'5.5" because he was a 1/2" taller than Emma. But now he has abndoned ship with that cliam. And I'm sorry, I looked at at your photos with Katie and that's so unfair...firstly, all the angles are quite bad, secondly Katie has larger heels than Emma, and thirdly Katie is standing up straight whereas Emma, as per usual, is slouching. I mean, it's quite obvious that Emma is taller than Katie by 1.5" or more. Firstly, the OotP movie and promotional images. Secondly, the London photo call, in which Emma was wearing 1.5"-2" heels and Katie most likely 3 inch heels (Emma was about a 1/2" taller than Katie when standing up straight). Thirdly, the UK premiere after party. lmbao, that tells it all. Katie was wearing shoes with about one inch of height and Emma was wearing her 2.5"-3" heels (I know they look more from a far distance, but if you look closely they are 2.5"-3" at the most - the heel and shoe are all the same heigth so look closely - and Katie's were easily over 3 inches, probably close to 4 inches, they make heels that are close to 5 or 6 inches you do know) and Emma looks honestly 3"-5" taller, it's quite a laugh. However, there are only a few photos where you can see this because in most Emma is literally bending down to be closer to Katie's height. Look at them, it really demonstrates my point and proves that Emma is really much taller when she stands at her full height. And honestly JK, what are with those photos? To begin with, the LA premiere photos are complete and utter rubbish because Dan was wearing lifts/huge dress shoes (Emma flat sandals), the angles are all terrible, and Emma stands straight in none of them. I honestly don't know why you posted those. And one can reckon that Dan was most likely wearing lifts to the London premiere as well and in all your photos from there, Emma is bending her legs and tilting her head, which makes it sort of hard to compare heights, does it not? Argh, this is so annoying and so obvious, how do people not understand that when Emma stands up straight, she is easily 5'6", verging on 5'7"? She should at least get that 5'6" listing if Dan gets a listing of 5'5". If Rupert and Emma will never be upgraded, then Dan should be downgraded to 5'4", which he most certainly is not because his legitimately taller than katie Leung as is Emma.
JK said on 1/Sep/07
"but if they were the same height or even if Emma were shorter, then wouldn't Dan say that?"

How the heck do i know if he would say that or not? LOL, im not being rude or anything but have some common sense here, for all i know Dan could say he is 5'11'', There are Sooooo many pictures showing Emma is the same height as Dan just look Click Here Click Here Click Here also look at this picture with 5'4'' Katie Leung Click Here are you saying that she is also 5'6.5'' - 5'7'' when she is listed 5'4.5'' on this site Oh, give me a break! for goodness sake she is same height or even taller than Emma! Click Here Click Here I think now everyone knows that Emma is not even a centimeter taller than 5'5''
Anna said on 31/Aug/07
"Its obvious now Maya that Emma is the exact same height as Dan or even possibly shorter" - how can you say that? I'm not trying to be stubborn, but if they were the same height or even if Emma were shorter, then wouldn't Dan say that? He had plenty of in the interview where he said he's still only 5'5", he could have (and most likely would have) slipped in something about being taller than Emma or in the interview with EW he obviously would not have said they're all taller than me now, he would have said something about still being taller than her even if they were the same height. Honestly, if a person is one inch or even two inches taller than another, it's quite easy for that taller person to look the same height as the second by slouching, quite easy indeed, and that is what Emma does. You can easily look inches shorter whilst slouching and I just don't understand how people cannot see this trend with Emma because in posed photos she slouches and looks slightly taller than Dan (still) and then in photos where she is standing up straight she looks easily 1"-2" taller than him. It also helps when the shorter person, in this case Dan, stands up completely straight, which Dan does in nearly every photo, thus adding to the illusion.
Anonymous said on 31/Aug/07
If there were a 3 inch difference between Rupert and Emma, the crew would need not put Rupert in special shoes. Therefore, judging by this, common sense, and photos, Emma must be less than 2 inches shorter than Rupert thus making her 5'6" or more. There is just absolutely no way she is anything less than 5'6", she actually looks tall now, something she has never truly looked previously. And I don't care if you do not respond to me, we have differing opinions and neither of us are going to give in, so I see no point in arguing. I just hope that Emma takes some photos with other celebrities and they prove that she is really no longer 5'5" or even 5'4" like you're saying or that somebody actually asks her in an interview. I just don't see how your claim of her being the same height or shorter than Dan can be true though, seeing as Dan said she was taller. And with the shoes, I'm not talking so much about the school shoes (although we can never know if they are special), but the shoes he wore outside of school. Clearly they didn't much care about Dan and Emma because they stuck them in Converse, but Rupert was in some workboot-esque shoes that obviously give more height than a 1/2". So, what I'm trying to say is that it's quite peculiar that they gave him those shoes instead of just Converse like Dan and Emma, could this have some deeper meaning? Because I am pretty sure he has been in tennis shoes for nearly all of the other films and tennis shoes would have fit the Weasley image perfectly. It's just curious. And plus, Emma had equal footwear (if not at a slight disadvantage) at the Paris photo call and barely looked 2 inches shorter than Rupert whilst she slouched and he stood up straightly. I just don't see how you can then peg him at 3 inches taller than Emma. I agree that he is definitely more like 5'8" or 5'8.5", but you can't put him at that and Emma at 5'4" or 5'5" because that is simply ridiculous...she would come up to just over or under his eyebrows if that were the case and it is quite clear that she comes up to halfway through his forehead. And I am just not sure with the twins photos because none of them are straight on shots. And with the "being taken from above" comment, please do not yell at me, I was only thinking what Rob might have said or been thinking and therefore not upgrading. I'm sorry. Please don't laugh out loud at me.
Maya said on 30/Aug/07
JK we finally agree on something :)
umad80 said on 30/Aug/07
Taken from above? LOL What? The camera is farther away not above! And it is true that there was quite a height difference between the two in behind-the-scenes shots. You can clearly see that in behind-the-scenes stuff: Click Here And don't give me the shoes thing because it's not like they put Rupert in 3 inch platform shoes. lol They're like tiny loafers that might give hime half an inch extra maybe three quaters at most.

That's what I'm saying, Maya. You take all that stuff into consideration Rupert is definitely in the 5'8" range or taller. Also one twin is taller than the other! I can't remember which one, and even if I did, I couldn't tell you which one Rupert was standing with there. So you have to take that into consideration too. (Rob mentions that one said they were taller than the other.) And if you look at this one: Click Here - the twin on the left, I think it's best not to pay attention because he looks a few inches taller than his brother, but the twin on the right... Rupert and he have pretty similiar posture and footware and you can see that he's really around the middle of the nose. And of course there are other pictures that show him at all sorts of different heights. I've said it once and I'll say it again... Rupert's height is best judged in person.
JK said on 30/Aug/07
Its obvious now Maya that Emma is the exact same height as Dan or even possibly shorter
Maya said on 30/Aug/07
umad80, I agree, in that pic the twins have some shoe advantage but are also slouching, and the angle isn't favouring Rupert, quite the contrary. Here's a pic from the same event Click Here one of the twins leaning into Rupert, but shoes+hair+angle favour the brother. If they all stood up straight and barefoot Rupert would easily come to their nostrils. Now, twins seem to have long heads, top of the head to nostrils would probably be around 7 inches for them, and they are 6'3" as confirmed by Rob himself. This equation firmly puts Rupert into 5'8" range. He looks short next to them simply because they are very tall, I mean 6'3" isn't exactly average height! And Rupert obviously can't be bothered to make himself look taller, as he wears converse and slouches all the time.
Also, let's not forget that these pics were taken when he was 17, and he's 19 now, it's possible that he has grown a bit.
I said I won't be answering to Anna anymore, but I can't stop wondering how she came up with that "Emma being barely 1.5" shorter". All the evidence suggests that there's at least 3 in. between them. Click Here barefoot
Click Here barefoot
Click Here Rupert walking thus losing some height
Etc. If anyone can find a clear straight full body shot of the two of them barefoot in which Emma looks almost as tall as Rupert, please enlighten me.
Anna said on 29/Aug/07
That's completely untrue umad80, there is no way Rupert was looking 4 inches taller than Emma in the behind-the-scenes photos, that's completely wrong in my opinion. She looked barely 2 inches shorter and I, like some others, am thinking the crew gave Rupert a little extra height in his footwear (that is how you spell it) and it makes sense because Ron's height is relatively important or mentioned a lot in the books and it would look sort of ridiculous at the current situation - Emma being barely 1.5" shorter than this supposedly "tall" Ron when Hermione is supposed to be of average height. And I remember absolutely no scene in OotP where Dan and Emma were even within a 1/2" of each other. Especially when both were in Converse-type shoes you can definitley tell the crew are trying to make Emma look smaller because she stands in back of Dan. I mean, honestly, the hug at Grimmuald Place? Both are in conversey shoes and Emma is obviously looking down at Dan and if that were a 1/2" or even anything under 1", she would not need to look down that much. When they both stand up straight she is actually noticeably taller than Dan, a few people in the cinema I went to remarked at this. And with GoF, the heights definitely fluctuate, but I still think it's pretty safe to say Emma was 5'4.5"ish and Dan was just under 5'5". Plus, I find this next bit sort of interesting. Around GoF, Dan said he was 5'5.5", the 1/2" being important, because he was a 1/2" taller than Emma Watson, who said she was 5'5". However, now, Dan says he is 5'5" and, this is the interesting part, Emma says she is 5'6", thus a solid inch taller than Dan. On top of this, Dan has said that it's quite depressing because all his castmates have grown taller than him now. He never said that before and I am guessing if he were only 5'3" to 5'4" during GoF he would not be getting away with saying he was 5'5.5" or that he was taller than Emma. Now he has given up because she really is taller. And your twins photo is not good because Rupert is going to look taller because it is taken from above. I'm sorry, that's why Rob disagrees with you.
Chip said on 29/Aug/07
All right, I got a bit carried away. My mom's head isn't right where my neck is, but it's right under my nose. That would still make me 7-8 inches taller, no more or less, I'd say. I'm anywhere from 5'7" to 5'8", because I'm about 5'9" with shoes.
Maya said on 29/Aug/07
umad80, I absolutely agree that Rupert must be 5'8" or more, but it's now up to Rob to decide whether to upgrade him or not.
As for Jason Isaacs, I've seen a lot of his movies, he's one of my favourite actors, and he always seems to be in the taller-average range, so 5'11" seems reasonable. But he can pull a good posture, and as for his shoes... God only knows.
umad80 said on 29/Aug/07
Anna it depended on the scenes. You're absolutely correct about the ending scene, but remember that was filmed early on. But if you look at other scenes, like the Quidditch World Cup scenes, Emma looked taller. Or when Harry and Hermione hugged in the tent, she looked taller. So yeah, it just depended on the scene. But there were times in OotP that Emma seemed the exact same height as Dan in OotP as well. It just depends on the scene and when it was filmed. But that debate will have to wait until the DVD because it's been far too many weeks since I've seen OotP. heh! But I do know there were plenty of behind-the-scenes stuff where Rupert looked around 4 inches taller than both Dan and Emma.

Maya, I often wonder about Jason Isaacs and what he wears. Because at the GoF premiere he never seemed much shorter than the 6'1" Robert Pattison. A solid inch at the most. Both in the same footware it seemed. And then at the Empire Awards (which I still say something weird was going on in those pictures) he seemed more than an inch taller than David Heyman. So I dunno... Maybe it's just me.

And I still say this picture: Click Here proves that Rupert is not under 5'8". The twins are closer to the camera and they all seem to have similiar posture and they're in dress shoes, but the top of Rupert's head still comes up to their nose.
Maya said on 29/Aug/07
umad80 I estimated David Heyman at 5'10" because he is 2 in. taller than 5'8" Chris Columbus, 5-6 in. shorter than huuuuge Mike Newell, just slightly shorter than 5'11" Jason Isaacs (who also has a better posture), and 2 in. shorter than 6 footish David Yates. Rupert next to David Heyman looks between 5'8" and 5'9". Fair enough.
Anna said on 28/Aug/07
Oh no way man, are you serious umad80? I agree with your thoughts on Rupert and sort of Dan (I think he was only slightly under 5'5", maybe 5'4.5"), but there was no way Emma was taller than Dan in GoF. She was always around a 1/2" shorter, which would put her at around 5'4" or 5'4.5". That's what I thought quite surprising in OotP because she looked taller than Dan, whereas in GoF she was always shorter. For example the last scene of the movie, you can totally tell she is shorter. But in OotP she is always, at the very least, one inch taller than Dan and it is quite noticeable. And I am definitely not the only one who noticed this. Plus, the gap between Rupert and Emma was noticeably smaller in OotP (compared to GoF), and if you think he has grown maybe even an inch, then you have to say Emma has grown at least 1.5", maybe even upwards of 2 inches. Plus, like you mentioned with Rupert, in GoF Emma was by no means heavy, but she was sort of stockier and then between GoF and whilst filming OotP she got a lot skinnier, at least in my opinion. I would say she was around 5'4.5" and has now grown 1.5"-2.5" and is now 5'6" or 5'7" and to me, that seems like considerable growth for a 15-17 year old female. As for Dan, I think he was just slightly under 5'5" during most of GoF and has grown about 1/4" to 1/2" since and is now a strong 5'5", although he could be listed as 5'5.25" most likely. He's definitley considerably shorter than Emma though and if, like you said, he grew a "good two inches" since GoF, he would be totally on top of it, but in interviews people ask him something such as "How have you changed since the fourth film?" and he'll respond "Well I haven't really grown much, have I?", so I am guessing he was just under 5'5" and is now just over. And Rupert needs to be listed at 5'8" or more and that is just absolutely hilarious that critics said he looks like a wrestler. haha, I'm sorry, but it is and it is sort of true....
umad80 said on 28/Aug/07
Hey Maya, are we absolutely sure that David Heyman is 5'10"? I always wondered that. It's the second time I've heard it, but I haven't seen his height listed anywhere. There are pictures with Rupert with another WB guy... Jeff something, and he's like two to three inches taller (cause he is leaning into him) but I don't know how tall he is but he was considered "short" next to someone who was like 6'3" or 6'4"... But definitely, Rupert is over 5'8" and definitely at least 5'9" per a lot of fans. And that latest picture with Oliver shows it. You can argue about posture and grass all you want, but Rupert was definitely at the disadvantage being behind so I think it all evened out quite nicely.

Yeah Anna. There were comments like, "Grint looks like a wrestler" and stuff. This is why I think he's grown. My guess is that around GoF this was his height that Rob has him listed at. That was probably the last time he ever got measured. Then he grew a bit because he got skinny (that happens) and now he's growing back out instead of up.

I think Dan grew too since GoF. I think Emma was around 5'5" and Dan was around 5'3"-5'4". Emma grew the least and Dan got a good two inches since. That happens. But either way, Emma always looked considerably taller than Dan in GoF and now the height difference doesn't look that huge any more. If there is any, it's definitely slight. About a half inch to an inch, but nothing more imo.
Anna said on 27/Aug/07
Well, our opinons are becoming more similar about Emma's height umad80 (although I still believe she is a strong 5'6" and nothing under), so i am assuming you are reckoning Emma has grown since GoF? If so, please tell this to Maya, she would love to hear it. And as for Rupert's strange build, I just think it's sort of weird and unexplainable. He was stocky in GoF (critics commented on this?) and then was skinnier whilst filming OotP and such, but then he has definitely been gaining weight recently, can you explain this? Do you think he has grown or what is the deal?
Maya said on 27/Aug/07
JK this is my final post on this page, and I won't be bothered anymore. I was going for the pics of trio barefoot and here's how important angles & posture are:
1) Click Here taken from above, and Rupert looks like a giant next to Dan
2) Click Here taken from an angle which favours Rupert, but if you only compare their shoulders level, you'll see that the height difference is huge
3) Click Here this is almost straight shot, again at least 4 in. difference
4) Click Here this one is a straight shot and Dan is actually stretching to the fullest and pushing the other two down
5) Click Here Rupert is slouching, thus minimizing the height difference
6) Click Here Click Here similar to 3), only the angle here favours Rupert
7) and now the best one, ta-dah!: Click Here Rupert and 5'10" David Heyman, probably in shoes vs. Rupert's converse, the difference is only about an inch!
Honestly, I'm not buying anything under 5'8" for Rupert, and he might well be taller, just as umad80 has said. My final estimation on Dan and Emma is just under 5'5" for both of them. And they are all probably done growing now.
umad80 said on 26/Aug/07
It was an article talking about his birthday on set. She had bought him a shirt and said she had to get a large size because "he's so broad". But that is why I do think he had to have grown some because remember back with GoF how stocky he was? Even critics were commenting on that. Even when he did Driving Lessons he had such broad shoulders... and then he suddenly got thinner and now he's starting to get that weight back in his upper body. You could tell when they did the press conference photos. Rupert is just huge compared to Dan and Emma. (Yeah, Emma is definitely very healthy looking, just skinny compared to Rupert!)

I'm still going to be in a little debate about Emma's height. I agree she bends her knees a lot like Rupert leans to the side and sometimes slouches. (Depends on the pic, lately he's been better about slouching, but definitely does not stand at attention like Dan! And he still leans to the side.) So it can be hard to tell. But I think she's in reality only a half inch taller than Dan. Maybe close to an inch. JMO though having seen them in person it didn't look like a huge difference. And usually two inches taller, you can start to see a difference when you look at them. I know someone who is at least 5'7" and I'm 5'5" and I can see a difference when I look at her.
Anna said on 26/Aug/07
When did Emma say that? lol, that's quite funny, but essentially true, he does have a much different build than Dan and Emma, both of who are on the thinner side, although by no means is Emma annorexic looking. However, a thinner build does make one appear taller than a broader person, such as Rupert. But I really think that Dan is probably exactly 5'5" or 5'5.25" and stands up extremely straight, whereas Emma obviously bends her legs. And, nevertheless, when Emma bends her legs she still looks at least 1/2" to 1" taller than Dan, which converts to 1"-2" taller than Dan whilst standing straight, which would put her at, like I've been saying, 5'6" to 5'7". And just for the record, slouchign does make a huge difference as I'm sure umad80 can agree with. And as for you JK, how was I drifting from height in my last comment? I'm sorry if you hate me, but I just find it extremely odd that you want to downgrade every celebrity's height. I mean, Rob puts them at usually the lowest listing possible, so what i don't understand is why you think everyone is shorter?
6'3'' JK said on 25/Aug/07
Anna im not going to even bother wasting time commenting on usless childish comments which drift away from height all the time (Rob how come your letting her post since her comments are always drifting away from height?) Tom is really thin so he can look 5'9'' but i think now he is 5'8'' but with footwear can look 5'9''
umad80 said on 25/Aug/07
Right... when did I say Rupert is 5'11"? I said 5'10" and I said his brother James said 5'11", but I've established that it's at least 5'9" but he is definitely no shorter than 5'8". But I cannot respect your opinion on Tom when you suddenly change it when Rupert looks close to the same height as Tom who had the shoe advantage! Like it or not, when you do that, you can't expect people to respect your opinions.

Anna, I do think that Emma is a strong 5'5" and probably around 5'5.5". I think it just depends. Dan tends to stand so straight that it's hard to tell at times. But I should know that because of how it is with Rupert. Hah!

I also think that sometimes Rupert looks shorter because of his build. Especially compared to Emma and Dan who are more on the thin side and Rupert is built up more in the chest area. Like Emma said, "He's so broad!" (hehe Sorry, that still makes me giggle.)
Anna said on 25/Aug/07
And Emma's shoes were at the most 2 inches at the photo call, maybe even only 1.5". Katie's were one inch to 1.5" bigger than Emma's, so if Emma's were 1.5'-2" Katie's would be 2.5"-3.5", which is what they genuinely looked like. Emma's were actually quite small for heels in my opinion and if Evanna Lynch is 5'2.25", then Emma has got to be at least 4 inches taller than her.
Anna said on 25/Aug/07
JK, what are you going on about? I mean, honestly, umad80 is not even saying Rupert is around 5'11", she is saying he is at least 5'8" and at the most 5'9" - at least that's what I'm drawing from her posts. And, just to let you know, I have taken her comments quite seriously seeing as she is the one who has seen Rupert in person, which I suppose is more than you can say. However, I still don't understand how she can say Emma was the same height as Dan. Whatever though, there are photos that prove the contrary. And umad80, I know what you are talking about with JK and Tom. I too noticed that he was saying that Tom is "no more or less" than 5'9", but then he starts questioning it once, like you said, Rupert looks 5'8" or 5'8.5" against him. haha, he takes the mickey out of me (for good reason let me add), but I just think that's funny that he changes his opinion like that. And as for angles, I think people should pay attention to them more because they really make a difference. And I think I was right with the Emma looking smaller because she was in front and the lense was above, was I? I still think Rupert should be upgraded to 5'8" and Emma should be upgraded to at the least 5'6" and the most 5'7". Why do people who have met/seen these two consistently think they are taller than the heights they are listed at?
6'3'' JK said on 25/Aug/07
umad80, you should respect my comments on Toms height, I am trying my best to ignore your "crap" comments on Rupert being around 5'11'', Its my own opinion and i think Rupert is 5'7'' although he can look 5'6'' at times, you're "sorry" that no one can take me seriously anymore lol, well when has your comments been taken seriously? if they were taken seriously Rupert would have been listed at 5'9.5'', I don't know about Tom though He looks 5'9'' sometimes because he is really slim but in reality i think he is closer to 5'8''
umad80 said on 24/Aug/07
No, closer to the camera you're taller. Though maybe different angles will play it differently?

But any ways, according to Rob you're 4.5 inches from top of the head to middle of the eyes so depending on what part of the nose you're talking about would determine how much more. Plus yeah you have to think about footware, posture, and how much closer one person is to the camera. But Imelda's shoes are definitely an inch and a half in size... making her 5'1.5" right? Which means she had an inch shoe advantage on Rupert.

I do think Emma was wearing good 3" heels that day at the photocall. She looked pretty tall compared to everyone else though there are plenty of photos where Rupert was just slightly taller, even when standing behind her.

JK, I'm sorry but your opinion on Tom's height now is just crap. When I went to Tom's page you would INSIST that Tom was definitely 5'9". He was no taller, no shorter. And now that the pics with Tom and Rupert are out and it shows that they're not much in height difference - Tom being maybe over just a half inch, you are insistant that Tom is wrong and he is only 5'8.5". I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone can take you seriously now because it just looks like you are more about making Rupert shorter, so you'll make Tom shorter to prove it.

Just another thing to throw out... Chris Rankin, according to this site, is 5'8.5". Now if you look here: Click Here you can see that Chris comes up past that Visa Signature sign... Now take Rupert in front of that same background: Click Here - pretty much the same height. Now, to be fair, I think it depends on the angle and I couldn't find a pic that really went with the one with Chris. Some of them Rupert looked way taller and some of them he looked way shorter. But Chris did have the advantage in shoes (I checked, he was wearing dress shoes - perhaps even cowboy boots), so it looks like Rupert can indeed be above 5'8" and even 5'9" or so.

[Editor Rob: closer to camera can make you appear taller if the lense isn't above the 'closer' person's head, otherwise if the lense is high it might make you appear shorter, see the most bottom image here.]
Maya said on 24/Aug/07
Anna that's not true. Whoever is behind will look smaller because of the perspective.
Anna said on 24/Aug/07
I said Emma looks smaller in the front because the shot is taken from above thus the people standing closer to the camera will look shorter compared to those farther away. I asked Rob this question once and this is essentially what he told me, but I may have something wrong, I dunno.
6'3'' JK said on 24/Aug/07
I still don't think Tom is quite 5'9'', i need to see this guy standing next to people who are 5'10''+ to see if he is 5'9'', Tom i really think is 5'8.5'' and Rupert is like 5'7'' - 5'7.5''
Anonymous no-name said on 24/Aug/07
umad80, ok so maybe I had it wrong on how much taller Rupert is than Imelda, but I thought from the eyes to a little above the centre of his nose would be about 5-5.5" as I didn't reckon his nose would be 4" long if the centre of his nose would be another 2" down from the eys. And I took him as 7" taller in the end btw considering his slouching. Imelda doesn't have a couple of inches of footwear advantage. Click Here Click Here
Yeah I can see now they're more like 1.5" than 1", but if these give her 2"+ then Emma's at the London premiere and photocall were more like 3+", and some people are even saying those only gave her 1.5-2". Anyway, let's say her shoes do give her 2", then he would be about 5'8.5", fine by me. When someone always slouches, it's hard to tell.

Anyway, I'm confused. According to Maya Rupert looks smaller because he's in the back and according to Anna Emma looks smaller in the same pic because she's in front? So which is it?
Anna said on 24/Aug/07
And JK, like I've been saying, you are always cynical - you think every person lies about their height or, even more sceptically, you think that Rob has people listed at too high of a height and, as anyone can conclude, that is scepticism at its finest. haha, what's your deal? That's all I ask.
Anna said on 23/Aug/07
Oh I think the contrary. I think Tom Felton could be more than 5'9" and when you think about it, Rupert had a footwear disadvantage to Tom and yet didn't look much shorter.
umad80 said on 23/Aug/07
I like how JK is now saying that Tom isn't even close to 5'9" when he (?) used to fight with everyone insisting that Tom was taller than 5'9". Now that Rupert has proven to be close to Tom's height (Tom with the shoe advantage in those pics... yes Anna, why is that being ignored?) suddenly Tom is only 5'8.5" and not even close to a solid 5'9". JK, talk like that makes your opinions invalid on every level.

Rupert is at least 5'9". I've seen him in person to judge for myself, and there are too many photos that continuously prove otherwise. The only time it's dodgy is when he's with Dan at a premiere or with the twins and at times it depends on the photo. When in Rome, the top of Rupert's head was almost eye level with them with similiar posture. And Dan does wear dodgy footware. You can clearly see that he does not have normal sized dress shoes. They wouldn't be that obvious if they were. You can tell they're at least two inches, if not more! Here's a good example of how much bigger these shoes are then regular dress shoes: Click Here

Oh, btw, whoever said that Rupert is only 5 inches taller (which is not true if 4.5 inches is middle of the eyey, then that would be at least another two inches I'd think.) than Imelda with her supposed 1 inch heels, then Emma is nowhere near even 5'5" with this pic: Click Here Emma looks maybe a good two inches taller than the 5'0" Imelda. So I think it's more than Imelda has a couple of inches in heels. Not sure of footware, but I think Emma was wearing flats that day. So if that is the case, Imelda would have to have 3" heels... Or Emma is standing in a sinkhole. So most likely Emma is about 5'5"-5'5.5" like I've stated and Imelda is wearing 2 inch+ heels making her 5'2" - 5'3". Which if she is, Rupert has at least 6" on her.

You guys go on about the twins proving Rupert is nowhere near 5'9" or taller, but how is it that when standing in front of Rupert with shoe advantage, Rupert is still at the tip of the nose like he was with the latest pictures? Click Here Or this and Rupert is leaning drastically: Click Here How about this a little later at the Children's BAFTAs Click Here I know Rupert is in front so he'd have the advantage, but that's quite an advantage with not being *that* far out in front, isn't it? And then the NME awards that you're trying to use as proof: Click Here you can tell the twin on the left is taller than the other by a lot, so we can discount him. Rupert is probably standing closer to the front then the twin on the right, but he's definitely not that far in front and they both have similiar posture and similiar footware! You can go to all the Rupert sites and find pictures so you can see that I'm not picking out the best ones. So I think that proves that the grass was not an advantage for either Rupert or Oliver. And that Rupert is definitely around nose area to them... and Rupert is definitely not under 5'8".
6'3'' JK said on 23/Aug/07
I don't think Rupert will ever be upgraded, but there is a chance he can be downgraded to 5'7.25'' (or maybe 5'7'' which i doubt) I am starting to think Tom Felton could be more 5'8.5'' I am not convinced yet that he is a solid 5'9''
Anna said on 23/Aug/07
And I think the LA photos are quite bad to judge Dan and Emma because, firstly like Maya said Dan is obviously wearing some dodgy footwear (how can you be denying this JK?) and secondly Dan is standing with perfect posture whereas Emma is doing her bending knee act again. Right? And plus all of the angles are really weird because they are not standing on the same planes - Emma is standing slightly in front and, seeing as the shot was taken from above, that would make her look shorter. And JK, just to give you some input without sounding terribly rude....I really don't think Rob would ever downgrade Rupert any lower than he is listed because first of all like you've said he's listed at 5'10" or even 5'11" on some sites around the web and many people who have met him say he is at least 5'8" and like umad80 said, some even peg him at 5'9" or more, which makes the 5'7" you are proposing quite unrealistic. And umad80, I don't know if you are still visiting this site, but have you noticed that JK and Rob are not saying anything about the photos with Tom Felton? Do those not prove that he has to be 5'8" at the very least?
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
There is no way he is wearing shoe lifts i don't believe that, he is standing with good posture
Anna said on 22/Aug/07
I once again say that nearly all of those "posed" barefoot photos are not good for evaluating Dan's and Emma's heights because Dan is standing utterly straight whereas Emma is literally bending her knee - it's quite obvious and in the non-posed/relaxed ones, she is obviously at least an inch taller. Plus she looks 5'6"/5'6.5" in all of the concrete photos and she looks that height or even 5'7" whilst she was with Maria M. Rupert looks 5'8" or 5'8.5" at the most compared to t the 5'5" Dan and the 5'6"/5'7" Emma.
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
JK it's got nothing to do with camera angle here, as Dan looks consistently 2 in. taller than Emma in all LA pics, even in those where she's much closer to the camera: Click Here Click Here for example. My point is that Dan is around 5'7" in these shoes, and Rupert still has to slouch and bend towards him. Rupert's posture here resembles question mark, and yet he manages to look at least three in. taller than Emma and more than an inch taller than shoelifted Dan. Do the maths yourself.
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
He is looking 2 inches taller because of the weird camera angle, there is no way that Dan is taller than Emma, they are both 5'5'' and Rupert is like 2 to 2.5 inches taller
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
JK obviously I can't prove that Dan wears lifts, but how come he looks 2 in. taller than Emma in LA?! Click Here and all the other pics from the same event.
Now look at the pic of the three of them in socks, no. 6657055 here Click Here If there wasn't for Dan's big hair, he and Emma would be exactly the same height. It's weird how he "grew up" for the LA premiere. In fact it's not weird, it's called lifts. If you were 5'5" you'd be wearing them too.
Again Editor Rob, do you see a full three in. difference between Rupert and the other two in the picture in socks, or not?
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
It looks more like a solid 2 inch difference Maya and not 3, plus i don't believe that Daniel is wearing lifts, you can't just say that out of the blue unless you can prove it, I think Emma is 5'5'', Dan is 5'5'' and Rupert is 5'7'' - 5'7.25''
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
The url I provided obviously ain't very precise but I had a picture no. 6657055 in mind. Check that one out please.
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
This is the straightest shot I've found of them in socks: click on the picture previewed on the far right to enlarge it Click Here
Dan actually looks taller than Emma because his hair is puffed up, but it is safe to say that they are exactly the same height. If Rupert didn't have that ridiculous hairdo, we'd be able to see that they came up to his eyebrows level. Rob is that a 3 in. difference of have I figured everything wrong?!
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
JK if Dan in dress shoes looks about the same height as Emma in 6cm heels which give her around 2 inches (according to tutorial), that means that he's wearing lifts. LA pics also prove this, because Emma in pumps looks 2 in. shorter than Dan in "standard dress shoes". How come?! Anyway in London pics both Emma and Dan stand at around 5'7" with their heels/lifts on, and Rupert in converse is still taller than them, which puts him in the 5'8" range. I'm not saying he's 5'10" or something, obviously he isn't, but closer to 5'8" yes.
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
"If both Emma and Dan barefoot come up to Rupert's eyebrows, that's approximately 3-4 in. difference" there is no way there will be 3 - 4 inch difference, Radcliffe is just wearing standard dress shoes which give about 3cm so He will only be 2 inches shorter than Rupert and so will Emma
6'3'' JK said on 22/Aug/07
What do you mean definetley not on Emma!????? Look Click Here she is 5'5'' Rupert is looking just about 5'6'' because he is slouching just a little bit and Dan is also looking 5'5''
Maya said on 22/Aug/07
Sorry JK, something's got scr***d up with the website Click Here Hope we'll be able to see that gallery soon. Here are the same pictures with different links Click Here Click Here
Anna said on 21/Aug/07
No, JK, I don't agree with you because if Rupert's 5'7.5" to 5'8" in footwear that would put him at 5'6.5" to 5'7" barefoot, and he has at least an inch on Emma. I'd say he should be listed at 5'8" even seeing as he seems a strong 5'8" and, yes, I would agree he has a nearly 3 inch advantage on Dan, but definitely not on Emma - as I said, it's a two inch difference at the most, although sometimes, when both stand up straight, it looks barely more than one. And as for the posture thing, although I do believe Rupert's posture has gotten better, I have noticed a curious thing - when he takes photos with fans and people other than Dan and Emma he slouches or bends down to be closer to the people whreas with photos taken with Dan and Emma and, namely Emma, he stands up nearly perfectly straight. This was especially seen in the Paris photo call in my opinion (whilst Emma wore 1/4"-1/2" flats and looked 1.5 or fewer inches shorter than Rupert). Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me?
Maya said on 21/Aug/07
JK at London premiere both Emma in heels and Dan in seriously big dress shoes are shorter than Rupert in his dirty old converse: Click Here
Click Here
If you are unsure how to estimate height difference take a look at Rob's "tutorial". If both Emma and Dan barefoot come up to Rupert's eyebrows, that's approximately 3-4 in. difference.
6'3'' JK said on 21/Aug/07
I think there is a 2 inch difference maybe more 2.5 inch
Maya said on 21/Aug/07
anonymous you also have to consider that in the LA pic Rupert is standing the farthest behind. The angle does him least favour compared to everyone else.
You know, Rob, since you have so generously awarded both Dan and Emma with the 5'5" estimation, you could easily put Rupert at 5'8" flat. There has to be at least 3 in. diference between him and the other two - barefoot that is, which is what matters here.

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.