Star Trek IV writer reveals how Eddie Murphy lost role in film

The screenwriter of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, says they had originally written a small part for actor Eddie Murphy in the film but when his casting deal fell through

By: PTI | Los Angeles | Published:November 28, 2016 3:58 pm
The screenwriter of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, says they had originally written a small part for actor Eddie Murphy in the film but when his casting deal fell through The screenwriter of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, says they had originally written a small part for actor Eddie Murphy in the film but when his casting deal fell through

Steve Meerson, the screenwriter of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, says they had originally written a small part for actor Eddie Murphy in the film but when his casting deal fell through, they worked on the character of Catherine Hicks.

Meerson worked on the screenplay with his writing partner Peter Krikes. The duo wrote somewhere between seven and 10 outlines, with the final one getting approval. It included a role for Murphy that never would materialize, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“It was always the same story that got approved, but the original draft included a part for Eddie Murphy. Eddie was on the lot at Paramount at the time and arguably was the biggest star in the world. They had told us he was a huge Star Trek fan,” he said.

More from the world of Entertainment:

 

Murphy was going to play an astrophysicist at Berkeley, and the original story did not include Dr Gillian Taylor,
which was played by Hicks.

Eventually, Murphy’s deal got canceled and Gillian Taylor was worked into the script to replace him.

“At the beginning of the process, it was actually a lot of fun. As the process progressed, it became less fun, because it
became more political. And I don’t say that with any bitterness.

Also read: Star Trek Beyond movie review: Nobody is asking important questions

“It’s just the way things work in all businesses. We began to feel like at a certain point that this was going to be taken away from us, which in fact, it was,” Meerson said.

For all the latest Entertainment News, download Indian Express App

  1. J
    Jeff C
    Nov 29, 2016 at 12:51 am
    The other argument that Paramount had against putting Eddie Murphy into STAR TREK: An Eddie Murphy movie would make $100M. A STAR TREK movie would make $100M. Put Eddie Murphy in a STAR TREK movie and it would make.... $100M. But it would tie him up from making ANOTHER movie instead.
    Reply
    1. A
      Alex Diaz-Granados
      Nov 29, 2016 at 12:27 am
      This isn't new information. And the reason Eddie Murphy didn't get the part in Star Trek IV was because he was already one of Paramount Pictures' big "franchise" stars as a result of Beverly Hills Cop. The studio execs didn't want to mix Murphy with the crew of the Enterprise, so they pulled the plug on the Meerson-Krikes script and went ahead with another one by Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett.
      Reply
      1. D
        Dave Luscombe
        Nov 28, 2016 at 10:27 pm
        Glad he wasn't in it. Does anyone remember what happened in Superman III when they added a comedian? Huge bomb. As it was Star Trek IV is still the best of all the 13 movies
        Reply
        1. T
          Tim
          Nov 30, 2016 at 3:51 pm
          That was fifteen seconds of my life I wont get back.
          Reply
          1. F
            Funguseater
            Nov 28, 2016 at 11:36 pm
            Star trek IV is the best trek movie? Man that must be some goooood crack.
            Reply
            1. D
              Duukov Hollow-Shade
              Nov 29, 2016 at 3:12 pm
              Wow...this article sucked major . Thanks for wasting everyone's time with ZERO details as to why he was cancelled.
              Reply
              1. M
                MyNameIsLuca
                Nov 29, 2016 at 1:07 am
                You reality TV nerds take these morons (who act out FAKE scenes) Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.
                Reply
                1. J
                  June Degarmo
                  Nov 29, 2016 at 3:13 am
                  i agree but what does that have to do with this article about Star Trek?
                  Reply
                  1. Load More Comments