The Devil Wears Prada is back, but the sequel’s loudest fashion statement may be how quickly its body-diversity promises unravel.

Reports around the film’s global press tour built a clear expectation: this follow-up would correct some of the original’s crueler assumptions about size and style. Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway said they pushed back after seeing what they described as alarmingly thin models during Milan fashion week, with Hathaway arguing that audiences would respond better to a broader range of bodies on screen. That framed the sequel as a more self-aware return to a franchise long tied to beauty standards and status.

The criticism centers on a familiar complaint: Hollywood sells inclusivity in interviews, then serves up the same old punchlines when the cameras roll.

But the reality, according to the account in the source material, lands very differently. The first weight joke arrives about 15 minutes in, setting the tone for a film that appears to flirt with size inclusivity without committing to it. The examples cited amount to one plus-size actor in a notable supporting role and brief glimpses of plus-size models, including Ashley Graham, in a catwalk montage. Critics argue that this looks less like a meaningful shift and more like a box checked just firmly enough to support the marketing.

Key Facts

  • Press tour comments suggested the sequel would show a wider range of bodies.
  • The source says an early weight gag undercuts those inclusivity claims.
  • Visible size diversity reportedly includes one plus-size supporting actor and brief runway shots.
  • Critics describe the gap between promotion and content as “size-washing.”

That tension matters because The Devil Wears Prada never existed outside the culture that made thinness a credential. A sequel had a chance to update the joke, not just the wardrobe. Instead, the criticism suggests it still mines body size for easy laughs, even as public conversations around representation, disordered eating, and weight-loss drugs have grown sharper. The reported single reference to Ozempic only underlines the point: the film seems aware of the current moment, but not willing to interrogate it.

What happens next will depend on whether audiences treat this as a minor tonal misfire or as another example of studios mistaking visibility for change. If the backlash grows, it could pressure future franchise films to match their promotional language with real choices on screen. That matters well beyond one sequel, because viewers now expect more than a diversity soundbite stitched onto an old script.