Gun and Powder at Paper Mill — Page 7

deankelly87 said: "Having worked with Ciara 10+ years ago (and havinghappily rarely thought about her since), I would have hoped that she'd grown as a human over the last decade, but it sounds like not much has changed. Back then, she was God's gift to the art form and couldn't be told otherwise, no matter how many Tonys or decades of work you had to your name. If she was truly wronged, I hope something good comes out of this debacle for her, but this sounds like a lather/ rinse/ repeat of bad behavior catching up with her to me."



Yeah, I was really taken aback by the outpouring of hate towards Ciara on Reddit from people who have known her for years. There are multiple claims that she has always been extremely difficult, even in her college theater program. It seems that the creative team was looking to get rid of her and go back to Solea, but were stuck with Ciara until Solea was available.

What makes this all so strange is that this kind of thing happens all the time. Just usually, the actor doesn't sue...

EntrActe said: "For those of you with access to and quoting the Equity agreements.

• The LORT agreement (which is public) doesn't seem to have any First Right of Refusal language. (It discusses transfers to other LORT agreements, but that seems like it.) Did anyone find anything else? If so, can you point me to it?"

The LORT as-is does not have specific language around this except in the case of the 5th Avenue Theatre in Seattle. Transfer rights would be handled via rider to allow for flexibility and custom tailoring to the specific circumstances that you can't get with a CBA.

• The Production Contract has "71. Transfer to Production Contract" which does discuss transfers from LORTs(but that is limited to 3 years, so the First Right of Refusals for the Signature production would have expired). COST contracts would fall under "71. F. Other Contracts Covered by Transfer Requirements." It would give the Paper Millcompany a two-year First Right of Refusal, but also limit damages to two weeks of either the original agreement or the Production agreement, whichever is greater? Does that seem like a fair read?

I can't find the Production agreement right now but typically these contracts just set minimums for payouts like that to allow room for members to negotiate higher.

• If she had additional rights from a rider, why wouldn't her lawyer have listed that text or included the rider? Or made stronger reference to it? In the complaint (which has already been posted here), references to where she acquired the right to future negotiations are vague at best.

That is a big question for me as well. There is remarkably little citation of the agreement that is alleged to have been breached.

• How are there damages already?The show doesn't have a theater, it's not selling tickets, it's not rehearsing: someone may have been promised "her" role, but they're not being paid to perform or rehearseit - so neither would she.Nor is there any guarantee that the show would even run six months on Broadway. So, why launch the suit now? I know all we can do is surmise, but did she think if she sued them they'd hire her instead? Is she just trying to bring the show negative press while it's trying to compete for a theater/raise the money? Damages seem unlikely at best.

There do not seem to be damages aside from potential lost future earnings. However, the repeated point in the complaint is not a denied right of first refusal or a buyout- it's a denied negotiation for Renee's future in the show should it continue to Broadway or London- the complaint alleges that the producers, "materially breached the Agreement by failing to negotiate in good faith with plaintiff regarding her employment in the version of the Play to be produced on Broadway". As far as I am aware, no Equity agreement or rider would promise that- just the either/or of a first refusal or a buyout- Equity contracts often leave a good deal of negotiation room by just setting minimum terms. So it would seem that there was another agreement in place that promised a negotiation on the terms of Renee's future involvement, including dismissal, that would determine the amount of the buyout. She would almost certainly be owed something from the terms of the various Equity agreements she participated in but the complaint isn't clear on whether anything was offered. If the producers did not negotiate as per their agreement, and did not offer first refusal or a buyout per the terms of the Equity agreements, then Renee should have a solid case of a breached contract. And this should be a very simple thing to cite in the complaint. But... it's not there. At all.

"
Edit: I know very little about Ciara Renee and have heard nothing about how she is to work with. I'm just focused solely on the substance of the complaint as filed, which I think is exceedingly scant on the contractual details on which the complaint hinges.

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 01:32 PM

I wonder what the communication was like with Solea and producers throughout the years since the Signature run, and especially during the Paper Mill run. The vibe I got was that Solea had peaced and she herself was not interested in moving forward, and then for whatever reason something seems to have shifted...but I'm wondering if the plan was to try to hang on to her the whole time? Maybe she just wasn't available and it came back around to her at the right time.

It’s not a good comparison because How to Dance was truly awful and Gun and Powder is thrilling. At the very least word of mouth will be good, as well as good reviews. And it’s opening in the spring so it’ll most likely get Tony nominations. And it’s also a slow season for musicals, so I’d say it has a lot more going for it than Ohio ever did.

Because they didn’t market the show. And it was also in the spring time when everyone was seeing all the new musicals in New York, no time to trek out to Jersey.

Th score was already stellar. They just need some foxes to the book which were all very easy changes. Nothing drastic was needed, the show was very solid already

Ensemble1711444445 said: "Oh great that explains it. Papermill is mostly NJ ticket buyers. They didn't go. Word of mouth from the workshop isn't as great as you are hearing - probably not as bad as I am hearing. But we need hits on broadway so let's hope. I know they are really trying to fix the book before bringing it in but it is already 23 million so maybe thats an issue financially."

I know it's 20 years later and inflation, obviously, but it's wild to remember when SHREK was the most expensive show on Bway, capitalized at $25 million. And that was Dreamworks money! Wild to think a show like this is already near that mark in this new climate.

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 08:55 PM

Both names seem vague and prosaic to me. Is there anything else in the show that could have inspired a better title? “Sisters!” almost feels like it would be more enticing.

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 09:15 PM

Everyone has loved? Okay.... Have a great night. Hope you are right.

.

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 09:47 PM

Name one fact that you mentioned. Only opinion and a critics pick which means very little to ticket sales....see smash.