The Devil Wears Prada 2 returned promising a sharper vision of fashion’s body politics, but early reactions suggest the film still reaches for the same old cheap laugh.
According to the news signal, the sequel’s global press tour leaned hard on the idea that the film would push back against the industry’s fixation on extreme thinness. Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway reportedly said they were struck during Milan fashion week by how alarmingly thin many models looked, and they framed the film as a response. Hathaway also suggested she wanted audiences to see a wider range of bodies onscreen. That set a clear expectation: this sequel would update its worldview, not just its wardrobe.
The problem is not simply what the film includes, but the distance between what it appeared to promise and what it reportedly delivers.
But that promise appears to unravel fast. The source says a weight gag lands within the film’s first 15 minutes, undercutting the inclusive messaging before it can take hold. Reports indicate the movie offers only limited visible size diversity, including one plus-size actor in a notable supporting role and brief catwalk shots featuring plus-size models such as Ashley Graham. That may give the production enough material to signal awareness, but critics argue it does not amount to a meaningful shift in perspective.
Key Facts
- Press tour comments suggested the sequel would emphasize broader body diversity.
- Reports say a weight joke appears early in the film, despite that messaging.
- The source points to limited plus-size representation, including one supporting actor and brief runway glimpses.
- Criticism centers on a gap between inclusive promotion and the film’s actual approach.
The tension here reaches beyond one movie. Fashion and entertainment both market inclusivity as a modern value, but audiences now expect more than symbolic casting and a few updated talking points. When a major franchise appears to advertise progress while still mining body size for humor, it risks looking less self-aware than out of touch. That is especially striking for a sequel arriving nearly two decades after the original, at a moment when conversations about representation, health, and image carry more weight than ever.
What happens next will depend on whether the backlash sticks and whether studios treat it as more than a publicity problem. If the criticism grows, it could force a broader reckoning over how films sell inclusivity versus how they actually write it. For viewers, the issue matters because culture often reveals its real values not in press-tour promises, but in the jokes it still thinks deserve a laugh.