Cheyenne Jackson's legs and butt

[+ friendofsheila]

http://www.broadway.com/site_images/509251.jpg

 

Cheyenne Jackson is playing the lead temporarily in XANADU on Broadway and says below that he's going to be wearing the short-shorts that were fashionable then and were designed for the show. Now, if the pictures I'm seeing are current, he's not.

 

 

http://www.courant.com/media/photo/2007-07/31088599.jpg

 

 

And I think that's just not right.

 

Where do you stand on this important, important issue?

 

from http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=550178&pn=2

 

We have to talk about this costume. Those are some shorts!

[Laughs.] We're getting there. I have not worn the short shorts yet. I'm working my way up. I wear the cut-offs that he wears for the whole thing but as I get more comfortable, I'll tell them, "Get rid of an inch."

 

You're not self-conscious…

No, I am! It's a lot of flesh to be showing. I mean, I've done nudity on stage before so that's not the thing. It's almost like you feel more naked when you have such a skimpy little thing on. I have big legs and a big butt and I just…you know…I'll get there. I told the producers before critics come I'll put on the booty shorts.

[Rick Munroe]

I wear my cutoffs much shorter than that (mid-thigh...not Daisy Duke high). I am trying to singlehandedly bring back a hot look from the 70's, as well as rebel against the ever-lengthening cargo shorts that everyone and his grandfather are wearing. And now I have Xanadu to help me. :7

[Guest showme43]

they made a b'way show of that lame-assed movie? x(

[edjames]

Yes, the B'way version of the film is underway and it opened to very good reviews, including a rave from the NY Times! Adapted by the wonderfully brilliant gay playwright, Douglas Carter Beane (The Little Dog Laughed), the show may just become the surprise hit of the summer. I am told that it is a hoot and a new favortite for the gay audience. I will be seeing it shortly!

 

AND, YES! Cheyenne Jackson, who stepped into the lead role after James Carpinello broke his ankle in rehersals, is a hunk-a-licious musical comedy star. He first found fame as the lead in the Elvis musical "All Shook Up."

 

In other Broadway news. Patti Lupone is stunning as Mama Rose in the limited-run City Center Encores! version of "Gypsy." I saw the show the other night and it was fantastic. This is the ultimate classic Broadway show and a must for all lovers of the Broadway musical. It's only running until July 29, so get over to the box office and pick up a ticket.

 

ED

[ted]

Just returned from "Xanadu" matinee. The show is really a hoot and will be around for awhile. And looking at the above photo and what I just saw I think he has gone up a inch. He is in gym shorts for the finale so there is plenty of thigh visible.

Show is at the Helen Hayes which is a very small theatre for a Broadway musical, so even the last row isn't that far away.

Guy next to me was laughing so loud and often he was almost obnoxious, but it is a funny show. Just would like to hear the actors most of the time.

[JT Brooklyn]

Rick..JT has a VHS Copy of XANADU! IF anyone would like to purchase it..I also throw in a BRIDGE FREE of charge! LOL :P

[hiJinX]

With all the affection I have for the movie, I may have to give up my ny theater virginity to this one. (I got talked out of Chicago after loving the movie version)

 

I've heard it doesnt aim for excellence but does what it does VERY well.

 

And I love me some big thigh and ass.:-)

[raulgmanzo]

Rick writes:

>I am trying to singlehandedly bring back a hot look from the 70's,

>as well as rebel against the ever-lengthening cargo shorts [...]

 

Are these short enough to join your rebellion?

 

http://geocities.com/raulgmanzo/shortshorts.jpg

[+ deej]

Those shorts could incite some amazing activity at the Belmont rocks.

 

But something tells me you've done your share of inciting, there and elsewhere. ;-)

[jackhammer91406]

I saw the Show last Wednesday night. The guy your are all talking about was not in the show the night I saw it. I can't remember the the name of the guy I saw, but he was very good, and also had a very sexy pair of legs and a nice butt.

I hear the the movie is some kind of gay iconic experience and so at the risk of losing my GAY card, I never saw the movie. The show playing on Broadway apoofs the movie. It is a total send-up. I enjoyed it and thought it was pretty funny. The performances are all evenly BROAD!. If you like subtle, this isn't your show.

 

The show is also (as mentioned in an earlier post) very intimate. It is a small cast (I mean FANTASTIKS size small). It also runs without intermission at about 90 minutes. Several people I have talked to (who REVERE the movie) all said that they thought the show belonged off broadway and complained that they expected bigger, Bigger, BIGGER production numbers. My feeling bottom line is that since I wasn't hampered by a preconceived impression, I was better able to enjoy the show for what it was. After all, even though the FANTASTIKS had a small cast and band, the RAPE number seemed big as did several others. IT's all about letting go and taking the ride.

[a_nice_guy]

>Rick writes:

>>I am trying to singlehandedly bring back a hot look from the

>70's,

>>as well as rebel against the ever-lengthening cargo shorts

>[...]

>

>Are these short enough to join your rebellion?

>

WOW, Raul--you are sizzlin' in that picture! Thanks for sharing. If memory serves me well, we used to call those "Hot pants" or "hot shorts," when I was a teen in the 70's.

 

Rick, you have a great butt--would love to see a pic in your short shorts...

[+ Oliver]

>Are these short enough to join your rebellion?

 

Why haven't I seen those???;( And here I thought I had seen it all! (I do recognize the boots, among other things :9 )

[+ Gar1eth]

>I saw the Show last Wednesday night. The guy your are all

>talking about was not in the show the night I saw it. I can't

>remember the the name of the guy I saw, but he was very good,

>and also had a very sexy pair of legs and a nice butt.

> I hear the the movie is some kind of gay iconic experience

>and so at the risk of losing my GAY card, I never saw the

>movie. The show playing on Broadway apoofs the movie. It is a

>total send-up. I enjoyed it and thought it was pretty funny.

>The performances are all evenly BROAD!. If you like subtle,

>this isn't your show.

>

>The show is also (as mentioned in an earlier post) very

>intimate. It is a small cast (I mean FANTASTIKS size small).

>It also runs without intermission at about 90 minutes.

>Several people I have talked to (who REVERE the movie) all

>said that they thought the show belonged off broadway and

>complained that they expected bigger, Bigger, BIGGER

>production numbers. My feeling bottom line is that since I

>wasn't hampered by a preconceived impression, I was better

>able to enjoy the show for what it was. After all, even

>though the FANTASTIKS had a small cast and band, the RAPE

>number seemed big as did several others. IT's all about

>letting go and taking the ride.

 

 

While I don't revere the movie, I liked it at the time--while recognizing that it wasn't another "To Kill A Mocking Bird".

 

 

I am still interested in seeing the play. I am going to apologize in advance for saying that I don't think you supported your point very well that smaller plays/casts can have as big an impact as traditional/usual sized plays. You used Fantasticks as comparison--specifically the "Rape Scene". But the original production was in a small intimate theatre-the Sullivan Street Playhouse--and I understand the current production is in the Snapple Theatre--a theatre that while considered to be "Broadway" but is small and whose purpose--at least one of them-- is to bring the off-Broadway experience to Broadway.

 

Now I have to admit--I am not the most knowledgable about Broadway. So I probably shouldn't have chimed in on this. I don't mind if any of the NYC mavens need to correct anything. I have only been to Broadway twice (although I am a fan--when I've had the money-I haven't had the time to go, and when I've had the time I haven't had the money) --but I did see The Fantasticks in New York when I was 16--I was at camp in a city about 30 minutes outside NYC (Warwick)--and we had one field trip day in to see NYC--that was my 1st and last visit to NYC excepting the flights to and from until I was 42. My remembrance of the Sullivan Street Playhouse was that it was small and intimate.

 

Gman

 

 

PS Wow--my only experience at sleep away camp was 30 years ago this summer--where does the time go?

[ted]

The major artistic successes of this year and last have been the small shows, several transferring from Off Broadway to on-Grey Gardens, Spring Awakening. They are also playing in some of the smaller Broadway houses which often do plays vs musicals. We do have some big shows coming this fall-Young Frankenstein at the Hilton probably being the most anticipated.

Broadway, off Broadway, and off off are defined more by contracts than either size or actual location. Lunt Fontanne(Beauty and the Beast) is on 46th and is a Broadway theatre, the old Duffy(Perfect Crime, which was right around the corner and actually on Broadway was not)

The Helen Hayes theatre is extremely small for both Broadway and especially for a musical-seats 500 something I think, for comparison the Gershwin where Wicked is playing seats 1600. The size of the theatre in many ways dictates the size of the show, physically you just can't put that many people on stage, but also small audiences mean you can only pay so many cast members and still have a chance of making money. But I really don't think you can equate physical size with impact. Yes, you can't do the huge production number with a cast of thousands tapping up a storm- but nobody does that anymore anyway. I think this production does quite a good job of maximizing its impact with what its got to work with. Anyway, it really doesn't aspire to be "great art", its a spoof and done very tongue in cheek.

Oh for those who are Cheyenne Jackson fans-he's out thru the end of July due to prior commitments or something or other, but due back Aug 1.

[poiuyt]

>they made a b'way show of that lame-assed movie? x(

 

In case anyone's interested they're having a sing-along showing of the movie at midnight tonight at San Francisco's Bridge Theater.

[hiJinX]

He didn't seem to be so shy when he was in Rocky Horror

 

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/Luciusbucket/rhs3.jpg

 

(ANOTHER show I wish I had made it to see!)

 

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/Luciusbucket/rhs1.jpg

[jackhammer91406]

I probably didn't make my point very well so you don't have to apologize.

While I haven't seen the revival of THE FANTASTIKS, I have done the show in many different venues (almost always small intimate theaters) and what I was trying to say is that large casts and spectacular sets aren't always necessary to make a number have the "feel" of a big production number.

 

One of the things that made the FANTASTIKS so special is that it was able to plug into the audience's imagination and allow the audience to "provide" the lavish sets, costumes, orchestra, and large chorus of a major Broadway production number.

 

Bottom line is I liked the show I saw the other night, but tried to point out that those of my friends who had seen the movie, went in expecting something else and left disappointed.

 

The other post regarding the difference in broadways theater sizes is very correct. IT is more about size and equity contract, than location.

Producers (with the possible exception of the producers of GREY GARDENS) are not dilletantes. They are in this business to make money first and art second. I don't know if the producers picked the Hayes theater by choice or whether it was what was available. But the show playing there now "fits" that theater size. And since it is about the money, it's unlikely they could afford many more cast members from what the gate would provide. In fact there is a line towards the end of the show that references the fact that a character would be present during that scene were it not for the constraints of double casting.

At the time this line is uttered, the cast member playing the missing character is onstage playing a second character.

 

The show does not take itself too seriously and from the start makes it clear that the audience shouldn't either.

 

Anyway, hope this post better explains my view.

[+ purplekow]

>He didn't seem to be so shy when he was in Rocky Horror

>

>http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/Luciusbucket/rhs3.jpg

>

>(ANOTHER show I wish I had made it to see!)

>

>http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/Luciusbucket/rhs1.jpg

 

Finally in this thread discussing Cheyenne's ass and thighs we get a picture of his very hot beefy thighs nearly unfettered by clothing. Now if someone could supply a similar picture of his ass, I for one would be ever so grateful.

 

 

I have never seen a purplekow;

I never hope to see one;

I can tell you anyhow;

I'd rather see than be one

 

Help there is a purplekow in my mirror

[ted]

I'm not sure he's quite as buff these days as he was for those pics from Rocky Horror. He stepped into Xanadu at the last minute when the "star" was injured during rehearsal, so really didn't have any prep time. Wondered how I missed him as I saw Rocky on Broadway twice, and he wasn't there either time, but see from his bio that this was in Seattle.

[JT Brooklyn]

Purple..IF he looks this Hunky from the Front, you know he looks "Real Sweet" from the Back! LOL

 

But more "Visuals" would be nice! :9 :9 :9

[Guest carter07]

Saw The Fantastiks at the Sullivan Street Theatre in 1970. It was about the size of a generous basement and just that intimate. And I agree that big production numbers aren't necessary for big effect. The Fantastiks I saw then was wonderful.

[Rick Munroe]

>Are these short enough to join your rebellion?

 

Yes, and I think you are the new leader of the cause, 'cause mine don't go that high (then again, I don't cuff 'em, which I think brings them from a 70's look into an 80's look, but I'm no fashion expert).

[Rick Munroe]

>Are these short enough to join your rebellion?

 

Yes, and I think you are the new leader of the cause, 'cause mine don't go that high (then again, I don't cuff 'em, which I think brings them from a 70's look into an 80's look, but I'm no fashion expert).

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick, you have a great butt--would love to see a pic in your

>short shorts...

 

I have passed on your request to my official photographer (Derek), who promises to get right on it (the pic and my butt).

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick, you have a great butt--would love to see a pic in your

>short shorts...

 

I have passed on your request to my official photographer (Derek), who promises to get right on it (the pic and my butt).