Meryl Streep recently shared that she was on the verge of rejecting her role as Miranda Priestly in the original “The Devil Wears Prada” if her salary expectations were not met. This candid reflection sheds light on her decision-making process regarding the now-legendary character.

The 76-year-old actress, who has won multiple Oscars, revealed that she demanded a higher paycheck and was nearly ready to step away from acting before agreeing to star in the 2006 hit film.

During a Wednesday appearance on the Today show, Streep reunited with co-stars Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci to discuss the forthcoming sequel.

“When I first read the script, I thought it was fantastic. They made me an offer, but I declined,” Streep recounted.

“I was confident it would be a success, so I decided to double my asking price… and they immediately agreed,” she continued.

Reflecting on her mindset at the time, Streep added, “I was in my 50s or 60s and realized I could negotiate for what I wanted. They truly needed me, I felt. I was on the brink of retirement. That experience taught me a valuable lesson.”

Meryl Streep revealed she was prepared to walk away from the original The Devil Wears Prada if her salary demands weren’t met for the now-iconic role of Miranda Priestly

The 76-year-old Oscar winner said she insisted on a higher fee, admitting she was ‘ready to retire’ before signing on to the 2006 blockbuster

Streep ultimately pocketed a reported $4 million for the role, which earned her a Golden Globe win and an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of the icy editor-in-chief of fictional fashion magazine Runway – loosely inspired by Vogue’s Anna Wintour. 

Meanwhile, Hathaway reportedly earned a $1 million paycheck for the 2006 film – her highest salary at the time.

Blunt is said to have taken home around $800,000, while Tucci’s salary has not been publicly disclosed.

The film went on to become a global smash, grossing more than $325 million worldwide. 

During the Today chat, Streep also revealed that early discussions about a sequel were already being floated as far back as 2009.

‘They started talking about a sequel, but we all waited until we had that good idea,’ she said.

‘I think we all had to do it as well – you got to have all four of us come back,’ added Blunt, who reprises her role as Emily Charlton, Miranda’s first assistant in the original film. 

‘I read the script [for the original], the script was great. They called me up and they made an offer, and I said, “No, not going to do it,”‘ Streep explained, adding, ‘I knew it was going to be a hit, and I wanted to see if I doubled my ask… And they went right away and said, “Sure”‘

‘There were mutterings and rumblings for years.’

‘Lots of ideas,’ Streep continued. ‘But it’s almost like the world had to shift in that way for writer Aline [Brosh McKenna] … to get a new idea that made sense. 

‘These people had to confront what’s going on in the world of journalism and publishing and politics. Everything has kind of flipped. And that’s cool, that that had a story embedded in it.’ 

As for her paycheck for The Devil Wears Prada 2, Streep reportedly pocketed $20 million.  

The star’s salary revelation comes as The Devil Wears Prada 2 is already facing a chilly reception, with early reactions suggesting the long-awaited sequel may be far from runway-ready. 

Several reviews have taken aim at what they describe as a lackluster storyline, arguing the film feels like a watered-down version of its predecessor – even as it’s tipped to dominate the box office with an estimated $80 million domestic debut and $180 million globally. 

Though Streep has earned some praise – with IndieWire critic Kate Erbland describing her as ‘viciously funny’ in her return as Miranda Priestly – the overall verdict was less kind.

Erbland added that the ‘basic plot is pretty thin’ and that the original film’s ‘punch and pop is missing this time around.’

Streep ultimately pocketed a reported $4 million for the role, which earned her a Golden Globe win and an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of the icy editor-in-chief of fictional fashion magazine Runway – loosely inspired by Vogue’s Anna Wintour 

The Seattle Times‘ Moira Macdonald was even more scathing, writing the film ‘lacks the first movie’s playful spark; it feels like fan fiction, with everyone gamely going through the motions without finding anything fresh.’ 

Variety’s Guy Lodge added, ‘It is, by almost any metric, a lesser movie: narratively, emotionally and cinematically flatter, buoyed by game performances that nonetheless steadfastly fail to surprise.’

He went on to say the sequel ‘functions less as a follow-up than as a kind of tribute act.’

Deadline’s Damon Wise was blunt in his assessment, writing that The Devil Wears Prada 2 ‘doesn’t really have a story,’ though he did single out Tucci for praise, noting he’s ‘stealing his scenes with a lot more of what worked so well’ in the original.

Wise also took issue with what he described as the film’s ‘precious little [romantics subplots],’ including storylines involving Kenneth Branagh and Patrick Brammall as love interests for Miranda and Andy.

Over at The Hollywood Reporter, David Rooney struck a slightly softer tone, saying the sequel is ‘best when it sticks to fluffy, fun nostalgia.’

Meanwhile, TheWrap’s William Bibbiani suggested the bar for sequels should be simple – that they ‘justify its own existence’ – but argued this installment falls short.

‘The Devil Wears Prada 2 doesn’t have a coherent theme, so its vibes have nothing to stick to,’ he wrote. 

Several reviews have taken aim at what they describe as a lackluster storyline, arguing the film feels like a watered-down version of its predecessor

The Seattle Times critic wrote that the film ‘lacks the first movie’s playful spark; it feels like fan fiction, with everyone gamely going through the motions without finding anything fresh’

‘It never makes the convincing argument for its own existence, other than saying the journalism business stinks right now, and that there’s no solution that doesn’t involve billionaires who are more likely to ruin the industry than save it. Maybe that’s true but it’s not much of a movie. 

‘At least the gang’s all here, and the gang’s still charming, but the gang would have been better off doing something else.’

Not all the early reaction was scathing, however, with some critics more than happy to take a front-row seat for the sequel’s glossy return.

USA Today’s Brian Truitt highlighted the ‘warm chemistry’ between Hathaway and Tucci, while also praising the dynamic between Blunt’s Emily and Hathaway’s Andy as ‘the real throwback that works best.’

Writing in The New Yorker, Justin Chang struck a similarly upbeat tone, noting that ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2 is, no less than its predecessor, a glossy Manhattan fairy tale, and one so overstuffed with top-of-the-line fabrics that cushy landings are all but certain.’

He added that, in some respects, the sequel even proves ‘savvier than its predecessor.’

Even The Hollywood Reporter’s Rooney found room for praise, writing, ‘If you go into The Devil Wears Prada 2 looking for fierce fashion porn, bitchy put-downs and a fresh dose of Meryl Streep’s iconic performance as imperious Anna Wintour clone Miranda Priestly, you are unlikely to be disappointed.’

Despite the lukewarm critical response, The Devil Wears Prada 2 is still strutting toward a potentially blockbuster opening at the box office.

The Hollywood Reporter struck a slightly softer tone, saying the sequel is ‘best when it sticks to fluffy, fun nostalgia’

According to Variety, the sequel is eyeing a hefty $75 million to $80 million debut across roughly 4,100 North American theaters – with some projections climbing as high as $90 million to $100 million thanks to the original’s enduring appeal.

Internationally, the film is expected to pull in another $100 million, putting its global opening weekend haul in the $175 million to $190 million range.

The big numbers come as 20th Century Studios reportedly splashed out around $100 million on the sequel’s production alone, not including its hefty worldwide marketing spend.

That’s a significant jump from the original 2006 film, which was made for a comparatively modest $40 million.

And while the first movie opened to $27.5 million domestically before going on to earn $125 million in North America and $325 million worldwide, the sequel looks poised to outpace it from day one – even if critics aren’t entirely sold.