Are short males slowly being phased out of hollywood?

Edit Post

Maybe he had "tall-man syndrome"?

Edit Post

Quote from: KiloKAHN on April 06, 2015, 07:48:08 PMMany of the Hollywood role models and sex symbols decades ago were also much taller than average.

As an example:

Clark Gable - 6'1
Burt Lancaster - 6'1
Cary Grant - 6'1.5
Sean Connery - 6'2
Victor Mature - 6'2.5
Johnny Weissmuller - 6'3
Gregory Peck - 6'3
Gary Cooper - 6'3
Charlton Heston - 6'3
Christopher Reeve - 6'4
Clint Eastwood - 6'4
John Wayne - 6'4

There are probably more short males getting leading roles now than there were before.

I think you also have to understand that some of it had to do with filming.

You want the leading man to be one of the taller or the tallest people in the shot so that he stands out. It makes filming a lot easier if the lead actor is tall, so that they don't have to worry about the heights of the other actors, and don't have to use weird camera angles to make the lead actor appear taller.

Edit Post

Quote from: NewHeights on April 02, 2015, 11:01:30 AMThere is something going on in Hollywood, I agree. I've noticed that BY FAR the most popular height for male celebrities listen on Bing/Google is 6' (ryan gosling, jake Gyllenhaal, dicaprio, Christian bale, Chris pine are some that come to mind).

6' is the benchmark for height in Hollywood today, and if your under 6', you have a harder chance of being a male sxx symbol in Hollywood. There has always been a mystique about the height of "6 foot", but it's now more prevalent than ever.
 
As for 6' 5", there are not many of those guys in Hollywood. Joey Maggs is the only famous one who comes to mind, but there are many actors in the 6' 1" to 6' 4" range.

In terms of women's preferences, most women (probably 70-80%) do not prefer a giant man, but since <1% of men are >6' 5", and there is a significant niche of women for these men, these men are the most desired. 6' 4" to 6' 5" is "Gods among men status" because of their rarity, imposing stature, and huge size. Women will always flock to them. 6' 6" and up is probably too tall

Chris Humphres is a tard
It's the 666 rule: 6 figure income, 6 feet tall, 6 inches dck length, sixpack 

Edit Post

Quote from: NewHeights on April 02, 2015, 11:30:30 AM

Why them and not me? all I ever wanted was to be a white alpha male 

Nature chooses who becomes alpha, beta or omega.

Edit Post

Quote from: NewHeights on April 02, 2015, 11:49:36 AMIt's Channing Tatum who's 6' 1"
What a dumb name.

Edit Post

And coincidentally Hollywood Movies and Series are getting  tier from year to year... basically remake after remake. Lot's of Marvel- and DC-Comics-Crap for not grown up men.

Edit Post

Quote from: NewHeights on April 02, 2015, 05:07:53 PM
Even though your extreme generalization is dead wrong, your general premise is wrong as well. 5' 11" to 6' 2" is considered the ideal height range for physical attractiveness according to women's preferences.

If you were correct that 185 CM is the height you have to be to look good, than 10% of men just make it to the party. Then you have to consider physique, facial aesthetics, and style, and you are left with 2% of men looking good and 98% not looking good.

You are probably using the image of Hollywood good looks as a utopian ideology and aren't referring to "real life", but even in Hollywood, that number starts at 5' 11" (180 CM), or your brad pitts and George clooneys

According to OKCupid stats this is probably true. Only 20% of men are considered attractive, whereas men assess women according to a symmetrical bell-shaped curve...

Edit Post

Quote from: Bjoern77 on April 16, 2021, 09:41:32 PMAnd coincidentally Hollywood Movies and Series are getting  tier from year to year... basically remake after remake. Lot's of Marvel- and DC-Comics-Crap for not grown up men.

Yep.  They've got nothing to market the movies with except "Look!  The star is tall and handsome!  Buy a ticket!".

Edit Post

Quote from: YellowSpike on April 02, 2015, 05:49:34 PMAgree with w1998. I think in Hollywood, as long a guy is 5'7", if he's very good looking, you don't hear too much about his height. Tom Cruise is the exception to this (I think he's like between 5'7-5'8"), because he always dates women a lot taller than him. But we hardly hear about how Usher, Zac Efron, Robert Downey Jr and Mark Wahlberg are short (even if it is mentioned from time to time).

Guys that are under 5'6" like Daniel Radcliffe, Josh Hutcherson, Kevin Hart, the guy from Hawaii Five-0 (and more recently, Dave Franco)...you almost always hear about how short they are.
Radcliffe is a poor soul. He has a nice looking face, but height has ruined his career...

Edit Post

Quote from: hadrian on April 02, 2015, 10:29:20 AMThe Tom Cruises, Depp's and Damon's of yesteryear are slowly being phased out by the 6'0"+ Tatums, Dicaprios, Smiths, etc of today, let alone the surge in popularity of legitimately tall actors like the Hemsworth brothers, The Rock, Affleck, etc. The sxx symbols of today are both taller and bigger than their counterparts of a nearly bygone era. Tall males have always been in Hollywood, but most of the ones I remember usually played action movie roles and weren't placed in romance rolls to be swooned over. Now it seems like these roles are being flooded with taller guys, and the dream guy for many girls are one of the Hemsworths. Take the show True Blood for example. Just a cheesy(yet popular) show about vampires meant to tickle a woman's loins and nothing more. Two of the 3 main actors are over 6'5".




 It used to be easy to hide the weak height of popular actors with camera angles, lifts, careful choice of cast, and even cleverly-placed platforms, but with the introduction of legitimately tall actors this it's going to be difficult to continue this charade.

On a semi-related note, now we're even seeing giant athletes propelled into sxx symbol status one way or another, like Kris Humphries. I don't remember hearing any giants being considered sxx symbols years ago, but now that day is upon us.

Movies are getting  ter and  ter.