{"id":618615,"date":"2026-04-21T10:37:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T10:37:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/618615\/"},"modified":"2026-04-21T10:37:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T10:37:08","slug":"java-script-error-why-the-devil-wears-prada-2s-starbucks-tie-in-leaves-a-strange-taste-the-devil-wears-prada-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/618615\/","title":{"rendered":"Java script error: why The Devil Wears Prada 2\u2019s Starbucks tie-in leaves a strange taste | The Devil Wears Prada 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

It might, of course, turn out to be a masterpiece. Yet there has been something intangibly depressing about The Devil Wears Prada 2<\/a> ever since it was first announced. Somehow, the timing of the film and its subject matter have combined in such a way that you can\u2019t help but feel bummed out to the point of exhaustion just to think of it.<\/p>\n

The Devil Wears Prada 2 is, of course, a theatrically released movie about glossy magazines, released at a time when nobody goes to see theatrically released movies or buys glossy magazines. And just to really sell the point that the film exists in a vacuum of unrealistic nostalgia, it has just announced a brand partnership with Starbucks<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As of yesterday, Starbucks customers are able to order from a secret menu of drinks inspired by characters from The Devil Wears Prada. These run the gamut from Miranda\u2019s Signature Order (\u201ca no foam, extra shot, extra hot caffe latte with non-fat milk,\u201d) to Andy\u2019s Cappuccino (\u201can oatmilk cappuccino with caramel and cinnamon: simple, elevated, and ready to walk the line between who she was and who she\u2019s becoming.\u201d) There are others, but I won\u2019t bore you with those because I\u2019m fairly certain you don\u2019t often visit Starbucks voluntarily any more.<\/p>\n

A time before Brexit and Trump \u2026 Anne Hathaway and Stanley Tucci in The Devil Wears Prada, 2006. Photograph: Everett Collection Inc\/Alamy<\/p>\n

Because, in a franchise full of outdated throwbacks, the Starbucks tie-in has to be the most awkward. Yes, the film industry is so unstable that nobody is able to predict which films will flop any more. Yes, the magazine industry is in the toilet, thanks to the internet and the collapse in the advertising market and the sense that glossy magazines might have been slightly too pleased with themselves in the glory days. But trying to convince people that there is anything even remotely aspirational about Starbucks in the year of our lord 2026? That\u2019s a step too far.<\/p>\n

Again, you might be able to frame this as a cute throwback to 20 years ago, back when Starbucks carried some prestige. To drink a Starbucks coffee meant that you not only cared about the quality of your product, but you liked to immerse yourself in an elevated third space. And Starbucks knew it. For a while it published its own magazine. It started selling CDs with such success that it launched its own record label, releasing albums by Ray Charles and Paul McCartney.<\/p>\n

Which seems incredible today, given the speed at which Starbucks overexpanded and cheapened itself. Somewhere along the way, Starbucks tried to turn itself into McDonald\u2019s and failed. Coffee<\/a> lovers avoid it, because the whole operation now feels like a front for the syrup industry. Hungry people avoid it because they don\u2019t want to subject their mouths to the screaming agony of a nuclear-heated panini. And everyone else avoids it because, at least anecdotally, there is approximately a one in four chance that you\u2019ll encounter the words \u201cToilets not working\u201d on a scrap of A4 inside a transparent punched pocket sellotaped to a door.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a TikTok doing the rounds<\/a> that illustrates this perfectly. It cuts between a Starbucks customer in the 1990s saying things like \u201cIt\u2019s not just a cup of java, it\u2019s a lifestyle,\u201d and his harried 2026 counterpart yelping \u201cThere\u2019s poop. There\u2019s poop everywhere in here.\u201d<\/p>\n

Going up? Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada 2. Photograph: BFA\/Alamy<\/p>\n

And this is where The Devil Wears Prada 2 wants to align itself. On the surface it might seem like a huge error \u2013 it\u2019s a product of a dying industry about a dead industry, partnering with a company that feels like it has gone from being a destination to a last resort \u2013 but I wonder if something smarter isn\u2019t going on here.<\/p>\n

Perhaps The Devil Wears Prada 2 isn\u2019t so much a film as an elaborate piece of mid-noughties nostalgia cosplay. Perhaps there is a huge market for people who desperately wish that it was 20 years ago, back when financial growth seemed assured and stability felt like the norm. A time before Brexit and Trump, when you could sit down in a comfy armchair and order a grande latte while leafing through an inch-thick copy of Vogue, before heading out to a packed screening of a mid-budget romcom in a cinema that didn\u2019t carry the vague smell of disinfected vomit.<\/p>\n

Obviously it\u2019s easy to get nostalgic about the past. Maybe 20 years from now, when we\u2019re all covered in dirt and hiding from the robots who gained sentience and went berserk, we\u2019ll look back on the partnership between Starbucks and The Devil Wears Prada 2 as a golden age of human-led decision making. Still, would it have killed The Devil Wears Prada 2 to move with the times a little and announced a tie-in with Greggs?<\/p>\n