“Go woke, go broke” is a phrase that has been frequently uttered in recent years. But is it true?
The answer is: it depends.
A study by film data analyst Stephen Follows, titled Is “Go Woke, Go Broke” True for Movies?, was unveiled at the 2025 Zurich Film Summit last month.
Follows consults for Guinness World Records, is the author of The Horror Movie Report, and his work has been featured in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times, and Newsweek. He has taught at the National Film & Television School, NYU, and Met Film School, and was both a consultant and on-air contributor for BBC Radio 4’s The Business of Film.
Follows examined more than 10,000 films, 4 million audience reviews, and detailed profitability estimates to determine whether representation, diversity, or progressive themes correlate with commercial failure. The conclusion? Inclusive or identity-driven storytelling doesn’t make films unprofitable. Rather, poor execution does.
This aligns with my own observation that it’s not so much that films in the past didn’t moralize to audiences, or weren’t “woke,” but rather that this was skillfully executed in the subtext. The films had a point of view, and often a message. There are many great examples of such films. But the audience went on a journey of discovery with the characters rather than be hit over the head.
Many films of the past, like 12 Angry Men, The Grapes of Wrath, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, 9 to 5, A League of Their Own, The Color Purple, The Bicycle Thieves, The Birdcage, Philadelphia, The Children’s Hour have explored themes like the effects of racism and discrimination, what it’s like to be gay in a restricted society, the role of women, class and economic disparity, and so on—without the backlash of the audience. In fact, they were revered.
In his study, Follows found that across genres and budgets, there was no consistent link between inclusivity and box office losses. Films that integrated identity or social themes naturally into story and character performed just as well—and often better—than those that avoided them altogether.
However, the data also shows that audiences punish films that feel forced or inauthentic. Heavy-handed political messaging, rewriting classic characters, or using modern slang in period settings were all associated with weaker performance.
The study observed that when it comes to some genres “woke-adjacent” storytelling actually benefits the performance of films in the box offices—such as with films like Candyman (2021) and Evil Dead Rise (2023), which integrated themes around race, gender, or identity. Horror audiences, typically younger and more open to reinvention, rewarded these risks.
Likewise with sports and music films, where audiences respond positively when identity is tied somehow to competition or creative performance, providing a stronger emotional payoff. The study cites films like Creed III, Dangal, and CODA, which found success because their inclusion themes were embedded in story, not layered on top of it.
By contrast, large-scale blockbusters and historical dramas face greater backlash when audiences perceive overt politics overriding story. The bigger the budget, the greater the commercial risk of overt messaging.
Period pieces and biopics were especially vulnerable to audience criticism.
Follows found that anachronistic dialogue—such as inserting 21st-century slang into a medieval or historical script—was one of the most common audience complaints, correlating strongly with reduced profitability.
Rewriting long-running franchises, like James Bond, was identified as a “massive financial risk.” Follows’ data suggests that altering a character’s gender, race, or nationality in a legacy series can alienate core audiences, especially when several changes happen at once.
Audience sensitivity around “woke” themes has grown more divisive as well. A YouGov poll conducted for the project found that 77% of Democrats said they enjoy films centered on acceptance and inclusivity, compared to 45% of Republicans. Gender differences were visible too: 66% of women versus 54% of men responded positively to such stories.
Another interesting phenomenon that was observed in the study is how sex and romance are fading from cinematic storytelling, with sex scenes in major releases dropping by nearly 40% since 2000, and the share of romance films falling from 35% to under 9% releases—a 74% decline. Modern movies focus more on empowerment, self-discovery, and friendship instead. Which makes one wonder what sort of impact that will have on our romantic inclinations? Or is it merely a reflection of cultural shifts in values as well as global marketability?
Meanwhile, violence and swearing remain stable.
Ultimately, the study concluded that being “woke” is not what hurts movies, but rather faulty storytelling that’s overly preachy and heavy-handed politically, exercises clumsy canon changes, and feels inauthentic to audiences.
Mainstream audiences are willing to embrace woke-adjacent themes and diversity, but it is ultimately how these themes are presented that determines success or failure.
More details on the study, here.
If you found this story useful, please consider supporting my work by sharing, becoming a paid subscriber, or making a one-off donation via Buy Me a Coffee ☕️.
Also, check out my book: No Apologies: How to Flind and Free your Voice in the Age of Outrage!
There is a big difference between movies with empathetic political content, versus movies that adhere to the fundamentalist progressivist doctrine. Woke refers to the latter.
I think you're right that it's how things are worked into the story: it needs to be subtle sub-text and not an explicit focus, which feels like spoon-feeding and sermonizing.
The original show in the US that had a ton of racial and gender diversity before anyone else did is Sesame Street. Sesame Street never made it an explicit topic though, they just showed that everyone is a human regardless of immutable identity groupings. I have been rewatching some of the earliest seasons of it from the early 70s.
It's not unique to our time to bludgeon audiences sometimes with messages like this, either. I recently read a biography of Mark Twain, and while some of his works were masterpieces of subtle messaging, like Huck Finn, other less known works of his that weren't as good had some overt politicizing in them, and this is likely what made these works less successful too.
It's about authenticity, and it's also about preserving the fourth wall: when things are too overt, you can no longer suspend disbelief and remain immersed in a story because you can picture the 30-year-old writer in Burbank who wrote it and is trying to tell you their politics.