"What made The Devil Wears Prada so enticing and memorable was the bitchy woman at the top, Miranda Priestly. Her acerbic wit made the character both believable and fun. That is what is missing from this sequel. Miranda is now softened, vulnerable, and often passive."
"You're right, Jan, and we expect consistency of a character in sequels; but this is fundamentally a different movie. The first was about a rat race in a world of demigods; the second is about how women can use brains and style to climb to the top."
"We are really disagreeing on this one-the fashion is the main reason to see this movie on the big screen. Fabulous haute couture with exceptional details; that's what makes this real eye candy. But what we also need to address, Adam, is the important subtext of AI changing our lives."
"Yes, that's why I say this is a different movie. This is a movie about a superheroine taking on this change that is gobbling up journalism and so much more. You mentioned all the changes in broadcasting you saw in your time. This is no different; it's a technological revolution, and the question this movie poses is: Is there room for human-generated creativity in writing, and, in the future, even art?"
The film’s appeal is tied to a powerful, acerbic character, but the sequel softens that presence and makes it more vulnerable and passive. One viewpoint expects character consistency in sequels, while another sees the story as fundamentally different, moving from a competitive world to a narrative about women using brains and style to rise. Fashion is presented as a major draw, with haute couture details serving as eye candy on a big screen. The central subtext centers on AI transforming journalism and broader creative work, prompting the question of whether human-generated creativity can still exist in writing and art.
Read at San Francisco Bay Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]