The Devil Wears Discourse

The first Devil Wears Prada movie focused on how much Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway’s character) should give up or change about herself to last a year in a demeaning job as assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep’s character), editor of Runway magazine. The sequel asks a bigger, harder question: how much should legacy media change its standards of ethics and quality in order to survive in the new media landscape?

Caster crew members Rachel Bradshaw, Olivia Sellke, and Meghan Glickman gathered around the virtual water cooler to discuss.

Spoilers ahead for The Devil Wears Prada 2.

Were you surprised the sequel turned into a referendum on the state of print journalism?

Olivia: I was surprised it was such a central piece, but it makes total sense. The first movie ends with Andy returning to her roots in print journalism, so of course that’s where they had to start.

Rachel: The movie had to go there. You almost couldn't make a movie about a magazine in 2026 without addressing that elephant in the room.

Meghan: I kind of saw it coming because of how the first movie ended. But more than a twist, it felt like a reflection of where the industry has actually gone. The original showed the power of media; the sequel shows what happens when that power starts to slip. It opens with Andy's entire table getting laid off, and there are cameos throughout the movie (like Giggly Squad) that prove that point. That's not a plot device: that's just something that’s really happening.

What did the movie have to say about the value of Andy's work? Should journalists chase clicks or stick to their values?

Rachel: Andy would say “values,” but the movie says “clicks.” Andy is fired from the newspaper where she works while receiving an award for investigative reporting. Then, at the fashion magazine Runway, no one except “media critics” reads her first few pieces. She finally finds success by landing a celebrity profile full of juicy gossip. Yes, the profile subject only agrees to talk to Runway because of Andy’s more serious work, but that really just seems like a consolation prize.

Meghan: I walked away thinking less "journalism must chase clicks" and more "journalism has to justify itself." When there are layoffs, you have to make the case for your team, your department, your existence. You could feel that tension throughout.

Olivia: And that's not just journalism; it's comms in general. We're all chasing clicks: website traffic, social engagement, all of it. The bar has shifted across the entire communications industry.

What about the scene where Runway placates a major advertiser with a multi-page editorial feature?

Olivia: Spot on. Advertisers absolutely use their power like that. And it's funny: the first movie had to use fake designers because the fashion industry wanted nothing to do with it. This time, Dior and Dolce are front and center. You could see how advertisers influence the creative process right there on screen.

Rachel: It stung to watch Andy argue for editorial independence and then see everyone just... move on. But it was real. A publication like Runway can serve an important cultural role, but it is still beholden to advertisers. I appreciated that Andy still finds a way to do her job as a journalist within those constraints.

Meghan: From a PR standpoint, the crisis communications aspect of that storyline was interesting: Runway’s editorial misstep became a leverage point for all of their advertisers, and they had to take an apology tour offering considerations to all their key stakeholders. They said the quiet part out loud: If you fund it, you influence it.

The McKinsey consultants scene felt painfully recognizable. What was the movie saying there?

Rachel: Any of us could have guessed their recommendations in advance: “Fire everyone who's been there more than five years, slash editorial budgets, cut travel, standardize everything.”

Meghan: That’s the playbook.  But when you optimize everything, you lose the soul, the voice, the differentiation. It becomes a carbon copy of everything else. You’ll lose readers in the end, because there’s no reason to seek you out.

Olivia: And it came out at the end that the new owner wanted to sell the whole Elias Clark publishing group. That's a classic play: optimize to make yourself attractive for acquisition.

In one scene, a prospective buyer of Runway suggests AI could soon create the entire magazine. Did that scene hit home?

Meghan: It felt partly realistic, part like a stretch. AI can absolutely assist with content and design — we're seeing that clearly. But I don't think the soul can be fully replaced. Every creative voice in the publication? I think that's a little over the top.

Rachel: Staging this conversation in front of Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper landed the movie’s message. Human creative achievement is special, regardless of what AI can do. Unfortunately, I also think there are real people like that buyer: AI accelerationists with a lot of money and power who think we should just use AI to do everything, even creative work.

Were there media issues you were surprised the movie left out?

Rachel: New media. Creators like Giggly Squad and Amelia Dimoldenberg appear only in blink-and-miss-it cameos. We don’t really spend time with the people and formats defining the next generation of media.

Meghan: I agree. Magazines aren’t competing against other publications anymore: they’re competing against individuals. I also found myself unexpectedly nostalgic. I used to love a magazine. The movie made me want to go find one and flip through it. Miranda's line, "You could floss your teeth with the September issue," was a good nod to Runway’s changing business model. The print book is now totally out of step with the larger media reality.

In the end, does the movie have a happy ending for the characters and their industry?

Meghan: Happy for the characters, definitely. I loved that movie was honest about how much women like Miranda and Andy give up to build their careers, and how worth it those sacrifices ultimately are to them. But for the state of journalism? No happy bow there.

Rachel: In the Devil Wears Prada 2, billionaires are the problem and the solution. Bad billionaires want to rip out the soul of the magazine, and the only solution is for a good billionaire to float it financially.

Olivia: For the characters, they get their version of a happy ending, and Runway lives to fight another day, but for how long?

Rachel: As legacy sequels go, though, this one is far better, smarter, and funnier than it has any right to be. I went to that movie specifically to not think, and the opposite happened.

Have thoughts on the state of Media and PR – or even Andy’s dress at the Hamptons lunch? Join the conversation by following us on LinkedIn.