I agree that diversity in shows/movies in general is a good thing to strive for, but there are places where it's minor but just feels forced, which is like "slight eye roll" - contributes nothing to the story, doesn't detract from it, but was clearly included just to check a diversity box. But then there are extreme cases where it feels like diversity is more important than telling a good story. It can often hinder telling a good story even. When inclusion takes precedence over a good plot, interesting characters, realistic dialogue, story consistency (meaning plot holes), world-building, lore, history, stuff like that, it's just kinda... obvious. It stands out. And those types of shows/movies tend to flop hard, because it's obvious even to most progressives that it's simply pandering & checking boxes.
Someone alluded to Velma up above. It's a great example. It's been described as "the show so woke it united the left & right in hatred of it". It was such obvious pandering that everyone on both sides hated it. Yes, it's getting a 2nd season, but I don't think it's from hate-watching - the viewership #'s are dismal. It's just that sometimes terrible shows get renewed.
Another indicator I've noticed is: if two characters engage in a fight, or an argument & you already know who is going to win based solely on their demographics, that's a case where people tend to tune out eventually regardless of political affiliation. Like, if there's a fight between a man & a woman & you already know going in the woman is going to win - only another woman can defeat her. Or if a black gay guy has a verbal dispute over what to do with white straight guy & you already know who is going to be correct down the line. Once or twice isn't what I'm talking about, but if it's always the case, that makes for poor story-telling (this tends to happen more in shows than films).
If the character who checks more diversity boxes always win in a fight or is always be proven right - that's pandering. And also boring. It eventually takes the suspense out of the story. If there's a murder mystery & there's one straight white male present & you kinda know from the start "he's the murderer" you don't really need to watch the rest of the movie. That's the type of stuff I think people object to. Eventually. After having seen it occur multiple times.
The other thing to look for is that if the lead is a woman, she will start the story as perfect - no flaws to overcome, no bad personality traits, no character arc, because she has nowhere to grow as a character. She just starts off as Day 1 Awesome Bad-Ass (or Day 1.5). Flawed characters are relatable, regardless of gender (or race or sexual orientation). People who overcome hardships, who aren't immediately liked by everyone they meet, who aren't always right & don't always win, who fail sometimes & have to rely on, even be rescued/helped by their compatriots, but triumph in the end - that's relatable, & aspirational. But when the female main character just starts at Level 20, that's not relatable (for not just men but I think women viewers as well). People want to their heroes to grow & overcome their flaws. A "hero" who starts out & ends up awesome & better than everyone is boring as a protagonist.
These are not universal of course. Just indications that a film/show might be perceived as "woke". I hate even using the term, but it's literally in the title of the thread, so that's my take on it what it describes when it's used pejoratively towards shows/movies. It's probably trivial to find individual counter-examples to my descriptions, but that's pointless; just as pointless as it would for me to list individual examples of it happening (other than the humorous example of Velma I suppose), which is why I didn't.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject of this stupid term.
If you want to discuss further maybe take it to random thoughts or something
