Episode Summary
Executive Summary: Kara Swisher interviews Aline Brosh McKenna and David Frankel about The Devil Wears Prada 2, focusing on why the sequel works, how journalism and Hollywood have changed, and why originality still matters in an AI-saturated culture. They discuss Miranda’s vulnerability, the decay of media institutions, fashion as character, billionaire power, and the appeal of sharp, female-led storytelling that feels both nostalgic and contemporary.
Main Topics: Why the sequel exists and how it was developed (Priority: 5/5): The filmmakers explain their long resistance to making a legacy sequel, and how the idea emerged from the changed media landscape and Meryl Streep’s support. They emphasize that the sequel was creatively initiated by the filmmakers rather than demanded by the studio. Journalism’s collapse and media-world realism (Priority: 5/5): A central theme is the sharp decline of journalism and the broader media ecosystem. The sequel intentionally reflects diminished opportunities, fractured authority, and the instability faced by younger workers entering the industry. Miranda Priestley’s power, vulnerability, and feminism (Priority: 5/5): They revisit Miranda as a complex figure: still formidable, but now seen through a more mature lens that reveals weakness, dependence, and the humanity beneath power. They argue the original and sequel challenge gendered expectations of leadership. Originality, audience craving, and resistance to AI-facsimile culture (Priority: 4/5): The conversation explores why audiences are drawn to recognizable, authentic, ‘real’ things rather than synthetic or generic content, tying the film’s success to a broader backlash against AI-like sameness and facsimile culture. Fashion as storytelling and character construction (Priority: 4/5): Costume is treated as narrative language. The filmmakers describe how wardrobe defines Andy, Miranda, Emily, and the world itself, while balancing high fashion, vintage, and high-low styling to make the film visually distinctive. Billionaires, tech power, and media ownership (Priority: 4/5): The sequel incorporates a Bezos/Musk-like tech mogul and broader fears about billionaire ownership of journalism and entertainment. The speakers connect this to real-world instability, political influence, and corporate control. Work, sacrifice, and personal priorities (Priority: 3/5): The discussion closes by revisiting whether professional success is worth personal sacrifice. Both filmmakers say the answer depends on the individual and that people must consciously choose the life structure they want, especially in unstable industries.
Key Arguments: The sequel was not cynically studio-driven; the filmmakers resisted making it for 18 years and returned only when they found a story rooted in real industry change. The media world is more fragmented and less authoritative than in 2006, so a sequel set in the present must reflect the decline of journalism and the rise of niche influence. Miranda is not simply a villain; she is a demanding excellence-driven leader whose toughness has historically been judged more harshly because she is a woman. Audiences enjoy watching powerful, cruel, or highly opinionated figures because it offers a vicarious thrill and a peek behind the curtain. People increasingly want real, tangible, in-person experiences and recognizable characters, which helps explain the appeal of legacy IP done well. AI may handle jokes and surface-level imitation, but the filmmakers believe it will struggle to replicate deep storytelling, taste, and lived experience. Fashion is not decorative in the film; it functions as character psychology, status signaling, and world-building. The film deliberately acknowledges the instability of jobs in journalism, Hollywood, and tech-driven industries rather than romanticizing the past. Young creatives now face a constantly shifting business environment, where ownership changes and monetization pressures are everyday realities. Successful work in these industries still requires standards and ambition, even as workplaces become more sensitive to employee feelings and well-being.
Data Points: Years since original film: 20 years - The sequel is set two decades after Andy left Miranda in the first movie. Time the filmmakers resisted a sequel: 18 years - David Frankel said they resisted making any legacy sequel for nearly two decades. Meryl Streep’s involvement: Central creative support - Both filmmakers said Streep’s interest and blessing were key to moving forward. Global reaction to the sequel: Overwhelmingly positive - Kara cites praise from The New Yorker, The Guardian, and entertainment critics. Potential AI job impact in banking: 100,000 people - Frankel relayed a bank CEO’s estimate of jobs that could be affected by AI. Original film year: 2006 - The transcript contrasts the media world of 2006 with today’s fragmented environment. Podcast’s featured expert questions: 2 expert questions - Questions came from Lindsey Peoples and Amy Laraca.
Pivotal Quotes: "“I think the license for us to pursue it from Meryl was key.”" — David Frankel: On what finally pushed the sequel from idea to reality. "“If it were a man, would we have called her a genius instead of a devil?”" — Kara Swisher: Raised during a discussion of Miranda’s reputation and gendered judgments of power. "“It’s like the lava of Pompeii. You know, it'll just roll over us and we'll be buried in it.”" — David Frankel: On his pessimistic view of AI’s long-term effect on creative industries.
Implications: The episode suggests legacy sequels can succeed when they confront present-day realities, not just nostalgia. It also underscores a broader cultural anxiety: media, Hollywood, and creativity are being reshaped by billionaire ownership, AI, and the collapse of old authority structures.