[Winston1986]

Eddie Murphy was who they originally wanted for the role of Winston. But Eddie Murphy refused to accept the role because he was doing Beverley Hills Cop. And from what I have heard he would have been a main character. I'm thankul though it didn't happen as Eddie Murphy probably would have gotten a lot of the focus and screentime to the point where all the other characters including Bill Murray's Peter Vekmann would have felt like supporting characters. I'm also doubtful Eddie Murphy would have done Ghostbusters 2. I admit though this is only going by Eddie Murphy's later film roles so maybe I am absolutely wrong. What do you all think?

[Threadender]

I haven't seen Trading Places in FOREVER, so I can't fully say with confidence that Eddie would have stolen the show.

But I can't see Eddie simply being regulated to damn-near the background like they did Ernie.

I only wish Ernie was able to shine more in his performance.

[One time]

As much as I love Ernie I think it would have made for a much better movie with Eddie Murphy.

This is why:

Hudson was simply a classically trained actor, not a comedian. Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis would have needed to elevate their game to a +1 dimension to incorporate the delivery and timing of Eddie Murphy.

Reitman would have been able to do it. The script would have been a back and forth between Murray and Murphy. Like the Paranormal and the Mundane. I think it would have added a level of veracity to the movie when a completely down to Earth, relatable, hilarious guy would have slowly come on board with the premise as the movie progressed.

Murphy would have had some killer comedic addons to the script too.

Thinking a bit deeper, Murphy may have made the movie a harder sell as in our timeline the movie paranormal angle overrules the unbelieving angle. Murphy being a non believer at the start would have audiences accepting of the paranormal be a slower burn. But I think Reitman would have been able to make it amazing.

[mrmichaelt]

4 comedic actors as the 4 GB's wouldn't worked as well imo. Too many comedic actors can also kill a script. The movie worked because it had a good mix of comedic and classically trained actors. Ernie Hudson could have used one more feature at least but we know Fort Detmerring got cut and repurposed and the history of how much they cut down on Winston's role for story reasons.

The non believer angle was done enough with Peter and the electric shock scene leading straight into him seeing a ghost and the gears start turning in his brain but I admit it was a pity we never saw that moment for Winston (although we have 2 different takes on that with comics) but equally him being an advocate telling the Mayor what he's seen was one of the most memorable and favorite moments of the movie for me.

[RioHastings]

Totally valid take! Eddie Murphy would've brought major star power, but might've shifted the group dynamic too much.

[Winston1986]

I was just looking at Eddie Murphy's Filmography and in 1989 when Ghostbusters 2 came out he was in a movie called Harlem Nights. So either he would have done that instead of Ghostbusters 2 or he would have done Ghostbusters 2 instead of Harlem Nights. I have not seen Harlem Nights but it looks like a fun movie.

[Threadender]

I was just looking at Eddie Murphy's Filmography and in 1989 when Ghostbusters 2 came out he was in a movie called Harlem Nights. So either he would have done that instead of Ghostbusters 2 or he would have done Ghostbusters 2 instead of Harlem Nights. I have not seen Harlem Nights but it looks like a fun movie.

Harlem Nights is definitely worth a watch. But I don't know if it would have been a thing, or one to include Eddie, if he did GB1 instead. I believe he made the right career choices.

[Hairy Biker]

4 comedic actors as the 4 GB's wouldn't worked as well imo. Too many comedic actors can also kill a script. The movie worked because it had a good mix of comedic and classically trained actors. Ernie Hudson could have used one more feature at least but we know Fort Detmerring got cut and repurposed and the history of how much they cut down on Winston's role for story reasons.

The non believer angle was done enough with Peter and the electric shock scene leading straight into him seeing a ghost and the gears start turning in his brain but I admit it was a pity we never saw that moment for Winston (although we have 2 different takes on that with comics) but equally him being an advocate telling the Mayor what he's seen was one of the most memorable and favorite moments of the movie for me.

This is one of the aspects that let the remake down too, way too many comedic actors trying for their funny moment, they even had Charles Dance trying for comedy. You need someone to ground the film. You need those actor actors like Hudson, Potts, Atherton etc to ground the film and act.
Its the classic straight man/ funny man bit perfected on the old vaudeville stage.

[Winston Smith]

I agree that the 2016 movie's biggest flaw was the lack of a straight man. I don't agree that Eddie Murphy would have created this problem for 1984, though. I think there's a strong case that the cast actually has two and a half straight men: Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson all take the role at times. I have no doubt Murphy would have found a good balance with the others, so the real question is how he would have changed their characterizations to find equilibrium.

I think he would have ended up playing Winston off Dan Aykroyd more, and would probably have resulted in a more eccentric Ray and a less clearly-defined Egon.