Josh Wilding did not break the Clayface review embargo, and here is why

Josh Wilding of ComicBookMovie.com is getting pushback online for publishing his review of Clayface before the official review embargo lifted. Some people are accusing him of breaking the embargo, violating his journalistic ethics, and doing something wrong by sharing his opinion before DC Studios gave critics permission. There's one significant problem with that attack: Josh Wilding was never under an embargo.

I don't know the guy. I've read some of his articles on ComicBookMovie.com, and that's the extent of my knowledge of him. He could be awesome, or he could be anything else. I don't care, because I think this topic is cut and dried, although there are some nuances worth going through.

Josh Wilding bought a ticket and never agreed to any Clayface embargo

Josh didn't attend a press screening where the price of admission was holding his review until a certain date. He also didn't hide the fact that he was press to get into some fan screening that prohibited press. He bought a ticket to a public screening of Clayface, watched the movie, and then wrote about it on ComicBookMovie.com, a popular site.

Some will argue that as a professional entertainment journalist, he should know better. That's not how this works. He wasn't invited by DC's publicity department, and he didn't accept special access in exchange for agreeing to conditions like an embargo. He bought a no questions asked ticket to watch a movie. I think many of the people upset about this fundamentally misunderstand what a review embargo is.

I have honored every embargo and press ban I have been under

I've been doing this for years. I've attended press screenings, I've been under embargoes, and I've honored them. I've never broken an embargo. I've also been aware of events where members of the press were explicitly not allowed to attend, and I've honored that prohibition too.

Years ago, I attended a test screening for an unfinished cut of a movie called Three Billboards. I remember having to sign a piece of paper confirming I was not a member of the press. That's not what we're talking about here. This is someone buying a ticket to a public screening at a movie theater, with no special conditions attached.

A review embargo is a trade for early access, not a law

When a studio invites members of the press to an advance screening, a verbal, ethical, common courtesy agreement comes with the invitation. The studio lets you see the movie before its theatrical release. In exchange, you agree not to publish your review, good or bad, until a specified date and time. Don't like that rule? Don't attend the screening.

The reason it very rarely happens, if at all, that someone breaks an embargo is that if you do, you don't get invited to the next screening. An embargo is a condition of receiving early access through the studio's publicity operation, really its marketing department. It's not some backroom deal like having to give a positive review. It's a request to save your review for the date the marketing department has deemed most beneficial to the movie, and that's a perfectly fine ask, since they're giving you access you aren't entitled to.

But an embargo is not a law. It's a good faith agreement enforced by decency, respect, and the threat of not being invited back. If you haven't agreed to its terms in exchange for seeing a movie, you aren't bound by it simply for being a member of the press. If you didn't attend a press screening, you can't break a press screening embargo.

There are exceptions, but the Scream Unseen screening was not one of them

There is nuance. A public event could show a movie with specific confidentiality conditions attached to admission, or even a good faith disclaimer asking members of the press not to attend. If a journalist attends one of those events anyway, and especially if they then talk about the movie on their website or to a big following, that would be a poor move. But being a professional film critic doesn't make you party to an agreement you never entered, one where you never got your end of the bargain.

Josh attended a Scream Unseen screening in the United Kingdom. In that program, moviegoers buy tickets to see a mystery horror movie before it's officially released, without necessarily knowing what they'll watch. I don't know this, but I'm assuming Josh knew or heard the movie was likely going to be Clayface. Still, there was no disclaimer asking members of the press not to buy a ticket, and many other people attended the same screening.

So what exactly was he supposed to do? Sit in silence about a movie he had no obligation to be silent about? We aren't even talking about some official badge here. This is because he writes for a website with a big following. Is there an imaginary rule that once you're a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic, you surrender your ability to talk about movies you pay to see before an embargo lifts?

DC Studios and Rotten Tomatoes deserve the blame here

If Rotten Tomatoes does have some reminder telling critics to wait until the embargo lifts even when they didn't see the movie under one, then it should build that into its system. It should prevent certified critics from posting a review until the date and time the studio sets.

That's where Rotten Tomatoes and DC Studios, a studio I adore, deserve the blame. If DC didn't want Clayface reviews coming out early, maybe it shouldn't have allowed public screenings before the embargo lifted. And maybe Rotten Tomatoes, at DC's request, should have blocked reviews until then. If Josh had posted only on his website and not on Rotten Tomatoes, people would probably still have a problem with it. Even so, he's breaking no embargo. You can't make a movie available to paying customers and expect everyone to behave like they're at an exclusive embargoed press event because they have a big following.

Professional courtesy is a fair debate, but unwise is not unethical

I get the other side. He's a member of the press with many eyes on his website. Should he perhaps have waited as a simple courtesy? You can make that argument, but he doesn't owe them that, and he certainly didn't break any embargo. It's factually incorrect to say he did. You can say what he did was poor form if that's how you feel, but you can't say he broke an embargo.

If a studio shows its movie publicly in certain regions before the embargo, with no disclaimer and no conditions beyond paying for a ticket, and one attendee runs a popular movie site, that person now has a chance to review it before the journalists who agreed to the embargo. That is the situation the studio created, not the person who bought the ticket.

I do think there's a conversation worth having about professional courtesy. I'm attending a press screening of Clayface, specifically arranged for members of the press, and as I write this I have yet to see the movie. As part of that agreement, I won't publish my review until the embargo lifts, and I'm going to honor it. But if I had attended a public screening the night before, my review would probably already be out. Being potentially unwise about your own career moves is not the same as being unethical, and I think it's important we don't conflate the two. Just because it's something you wouldn't do doesn't make it wrong.

I have a feeling the Clayface outrage would be quieter with a glowing review

Josh didn't give Clayface a glowing review. He gave it two and a half out of five stars and compared it to Morbius. I do wonder whether some of this outrage would exist if he had given it five stars and called it the greatest DC movie ever. I have a feeling many of the people upset about the embargo would suddenly be much less concerned about journalistic ethics.

I disagree with Josh Wilding on Lanterns, and that does not make him a DC hater

I've never met Josh, never spoken to him, and never had any correspondence with him. For all I know, we might disagree on just about everything. I already know we disagree vehemently on Lanterns. I love that show, except for the finale, and he loathed it. But disagreeing with him doesn't mean I think he's a DC hater with an agenda against James Gunn or the DCU, or that he's unethical.

This is the same critic who adored Superman and gave it five out of five. He also loved Creature Commandos, calling it an instant classic. Clearly he's not waiting for the next DC project so he can tear it apart. I might walk out of my Clayface screening thinking his review is ridiculous. I might love the movie and think he's wrong about every criticism, but I won't share that until the embargo lifts.

This isn't about whether Josh Wilding is a good critic, or whether I agree with him. It's about whether someone who bought a ticket to a public screening, with no request that press stay away, has the right to share an opinion without being accused of violating an agreement they never made. If a studio puts its movie in front of paying customers before the embargo lifts, it has to accept that those customers might post on Reddit, make TikToks, tweet, post reviews on YouTube, or happen to write for ComicBookMovie.com.