So when you work on a geek themed blog, you have to read a lot of articles. Scratch that, maybe I decided to start work on a geek themed blog because I was already reading a lot of geeky articles. Who knows? The point is I read a lot of the same news spun in different ways either to fit a particular site’s agenda, or to drum up headlines. After reading this latest one, I haven’t quite settled on where I think it falls.Recently Yahoo TV published, “One Ghostbuster didn’t make the cover for the new ‘Ghostbusters’ Blu-ray. “ In which they state “Neither Ernie Hudson’s name nor his picture is on the cover for this new release of the 1984 film. Oh, wait, there he is! Down at the bottom… with the Ghostbusters logo covering up his head. Really?” You’d think Sony would take this opportunity to right a wrong — Winston Zeddemore’s been the marginalized Ghostbuster more than once in the past — but nope, Hudson still didn’t make the cover.Upon further review, they don’t explicitly state race in this article, however race has been mentioned in numerous conversations in the past about how Winston was marginalized. Ernie Hudson has been on record as saying originally his character wassupposed to enter in page 8, but after a re-write didn’t enter until page 68.Quite frankly, I think it’s time to let it go. The new artwork (pictured above) is just a rehash of the original poster in which Hudson wasn’t featured. The subsequent Ghostbusters 2 original artwork AND the re-release artwork does include him. At the time, the main three cast members were a much bigger draw, and even to this day, probably remain a bigger draw. Say what you will, but a character that doesn’t appear until an hour into movie shouldn’t be on the cover. I don’t see anyone putting up a fuss for Rick Moranis! Let’s just let it go.Check out Tony and his friends on the Geek Versus Week podcast.