Nearly two decades after the original’s cultural coronation, The Devil Wears Prada 2 has finally arrived, reuniting Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway in the high-stakes, high-fashion world of Runway magazine. Released on May 1, 2026, the sequel arrives during a transformative era for the fashion industry, where the conversation around body positivity and inclusivity has shifted from the fringes to the forefront.
However, the film’s approach to this evolution has sparked a contentious debate among critics and audiences. While the production was heralded during its press tour as a champion of body diversity, early reactions suggest a disconnect between the promotional narrative and the actual cinematic execution. The tension centers on whether the film genuinely embraces size inclusivity or merely engages in what some are calling “size-washing”—the practice of incorporating a superficial amount of diversity to avoid criticism without challenging the underlying status quo.
The controversy is fueled by the stark contrast between the public advocacy of its lead stars and the presence of weight-based humor within the script. As the fashion world continues to grapple with its legacy of exclusivity, The Devil Wears Prada 2 finds itself at the center of a larger conversation about whether Hollywood is truly ready to decouple fashion from the “skeletal” aesthetic of the early 2000s.
The Push for Inclusivity: Hathaway’s Advocacy
During the lead-up to the film’s release, there was significant buzz regarding the production’s commitment to a wider range of body types. This push was largely driven by Anne Hathaway, who reportedly took an active role in ensuring the film’s visual language reflected modern sensibilities. According to Meryl Streep in a profile for Harper’s Bazaar, Hathaway was deeply affected by the appearance of models during a visit to Milan Fashion Week.
“I was struck by how not only beautiful and young — everyone seems young to me — but alarmingly thin the models were,” Anne Hathaway, via Meryl Streep
Streep revealed that this experience prompted Hathaway to make a beeline to the producers
to ensure that models who appeared skeletal
would not be featured in the film. This intervention was framed as a necessary step to modernize the franchise and make the viewing experience more inclusive for a global audience. At the film’s Fresh York City premiere, Hathaway reiterated this sentiment, telling Canada’s Etalk that we’re all kind of happier when everybody feels included
.
The goal, as stated by the actress, was to showcase a wider range of bodies on display, moving away from the rigid, narrow standards of beauty that defined the original 2006 film. For many, this promised a version of Runway that finally acknowledged the reality of the modern fashion landscape, where plus-size models and diverse silhouettes are increasingly present on actual catwalks.
The “Size-Washing” Debate: Casting vs. Content
Despite the publicized effort to champion diversity, some critics argue that the film’s inclusivity is purely performative. The primary evidence cited is the limited scope of the diverse casting. While the film does include plus-size representation, it is often relegated to the periphery. For instance, the casting of comedian Caleb Hearon as Miranda Priestly’s second assistant provides a visible point of diversity, but critics question if the role is written with the same depth and power as the fashion elite.
the inclusion of plus-size models, including a glimpse of Ashley Graham during a catwalk montage, has been characterized by some as a “tick-box” exercise. The argument is that having a few diverse faces in a montage does not constitute a systemic change in how the film treats body size, especially when the narrative continues to rely on traditional tropes.
The most contentious point is the film’s use of “weight gags.” Reports indicate that within the first 15 minutes of the sequel, the film employs jokes centered on weight, which some viewers locate reminiscent of the early 2000s era the film claimed to be moving past. This perceived contradiction—promoting inclusivity in interviews while utilizing weight-based humor in the script—is what has led to accusations of size-washing.
The Ozempic Era and Modern Satire
One area where the film attempts to be current is its acknowledgment of the modern weight-loss landscape. In an era dominated by the rise of GLP-1 agonists, the film makes a brief reference to the weight-loss drug Ozempic. While some see this as a sharp, timely observation of celebrity culture, others argue that a single reference is insufficient to address the complex relationship between the fashion industry and pharmaceutical weight loss.
This creates a tension in the film’s identity: is it a satire of the fashion industry’s cruelty, or is it accidentally participating in that cruelty? The original film was celebrated for its depiction of the grueling, often dehumanizing nature of high fashion. However, in 2026, the line between satirizing a “thin-at-all-costs” culture and reinforcing it has become much thinner.
Comparing the Two Eras of Runway
To understand the shift, it is helpful to gaze at how the franchise has evolved in its depiction of the fashion world over twenty years.
| Feature | Original Film (2006) | Sequel (2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Model Aesthetic | Strictly traditional “sample size” / skeletal | Intentional push for diversity; inclusive montages |
| Casting Approach | Focus on high-fashion archetypes | Inclusion of diverse actors (e.g., Caleb Hearon) |
| Narrative Tone | Satire of exclusivity and demand | Tension between inclusivity and legacy humor |
| Cultural Context | Pre-social media; industry-controlled beauty | Post-body positivity movement; Ozempic era |
What This Means for the Industry
The backlash to The Devil Wears Prada 2‘s handling of body diversity reflects a broader shift in audience expectations. In 2006, the “Devil” of the title was Miranda Priestly and her impossible standards. In 2026, audiences are increasingly viewing the “Devil” as the systemic pressure to conform to an unrealistic body type.
When a production spends months on a global press tour highlighting its commitment to inclusivity, it sets a high bar for the final product. The gap between the “marketing of diversity” and the “reality of the script” can lead to a loss of credibility. For the film to truly champion body diversity, critics suggest it would need to move beyond “montage representation” and integrate diverse bodies into the core power structures of the story—where the characters are not just present, but are the ones defining what is fashionable.
the film serves as a litmus test for Hollywood’s ability to evolve. The transition from the 00s to the mid-2020s requires more than just adding a few plus-size models to a scene; it requires a fundamental shift in how weight and beauty are used as comedic or dramatic devices.
As the film continues its theatrical run, the conversation is likely to shift toward how other legacy franchises handle the “update” of their social values. Whether The Devil Wears Prada 2 is viewed as a step forward or a missed opportunity will likely depend on whether viewers prioritize the intent of the actors or the execution of the writers.
With the film now in wide release, the industry will be watching to see if the box office numbers reflect a satisfaction with this updated version of Runway or if the audience’s desire for genuine inclusivity outweighs the nostalgia for the original cast.
We invite our readers to share their thoughts: Did the sequel successfully modernize the world of Runway, or did it fall short of its promises of inclusivity? Join the conversation in the comments below.