Disney has a strange obsession with its own past. You've probably noticed. For a few years now, the studio has been systematically raiding its vault, turning every hand-drawn masterpiece into a high-budget, "photorealistic" spectacle. But when it comes to a sleeping beauty live action adaptation, things get complicated.
It isn't just one movie.
Technically, we’ve already had two. But they weren't about Aurora. They were about the lady with the horns.
Most people forget that Sleeping Beauty is a weirdly thin story. In the 1959 original, the protagonist barely speaks. She’s asleep for the climax. That’s a tough sell for a modern audience that wants "agency" and "character arcs." So, Disney pivoted. They gave us Maleficent in 2014 and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil in 2019. It changed the game, but it also left fans wondering if we’re ever going to get a "straight" adaptation of the 16th-century Perrault tale or if the villain-pov is the new permanent status quo.
The Maleficent Problem and the Future of Aurora
Let’s be real: Angelina Jolie was born to play Maleficent. That casting alone carried two entire films. But by turning the "Mistress of All Evil" into a misunderstood godmother figure, Disney basically erased the possibility of a traditional sleeping beauty live action remake. You can't really go back to a simple "good vs. evil" dynamic once you’ve spent $400 million humanizing the person who cast the curse.
The 2014 film, directed by Robert Stromberg, took a massive gamble. It swapped the "True Love’s Kiss" from a random prince to a motherly bond. It worked. People loved it. It made over $758 million globally. But it created a narrative vacuum. If Maleficent is the hero, then King Stefan has to be the villain. In that version, Sharlto Copley played Stefan as a power-hungry, borderline-deranged king. It’s a far cry from the jolly, bumbling dad in the 1959 animation.
Wait, what about the actual Sleeping Beauty? Elle Fanning’s Aurora is great, but she’s mostly a passenger in her own life.
There are rumors, though. Hollywood insiders and trade publications like The Hollywood Reporter often hint at Disney’s "long-tail" strategy. With the success of The Little Mermaid and Cruella, the studio is constantly re-evaluating which "brands" can withstand a reboot. Some fans are clamoring for a more faithful sleeping beauty live action movie that leans into the gothic, eerie vibes of the original fairy tale rather than the bright, sanitized Disney version.
Why a traditional remake is actually a huge risk
Think about the source material. Giambattista Basile’s Sun, Moon, and Talia (the 1636 version) is horrifying. Like, genuinely disturbing. There is no kiss; the prince is a king who... well, he doesn't wait for consent while she's asleep. Disney would never touch that. Charles Perrault’s 1697 version is the one we know best, but even that has a second half where the Prince's mother is an ogre who tries to eat Aurora and her kids in a vat of vipers.
🔗 Read more: Jack Blocker American Idol Journey: What Most People Get Wrong
Yeah. Not exactly "Magic Kingdom" material.
So, any future sleeping beauty live action has to navigate a minefield:
- It can’t be too dark (Disney brand safety).
- It can’t be too boring (Aurora needs a personality).
- It has to compete with the 1959 visual style, which was inspired by Eyvind Earle’s medieval tapestry aesthetic.
Earle's work is the reason the original looks so sharp and geometric. Recreating that in live action is a nightmare. Cinderella (2015) managed a lush, traditional look, but Sleeping Beauty is stylistically more "pointy." If a director doesn't nail that specific visual language, it just feels like another generic fantasy movie.
What's Actually in the Works for 2026 and Beyond?
As of right now, Disney hasn't officially greenlit a "Sleeping Beauty: The Princess Version" live-action film. They are busy with Snow White (starring Rachel Zegler) and the Lilo & Stitch remake. However, the industry is shifting. We are seeing a move toward "Revisionist Fairy Tales."
Look at what Netflix did with Damsel. They took the "princess in a tower" trope and subverted it. Disney sees this. They know that a girl waiting for a guy to wake her up doesn't play well in 2026.
Honestly, the most likely path for a new sleeping beauty live action isn't a movie at all. It's Disney+. A limited series could explore the three fairies—Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather—in a way a two-hour movie can't. In the 1959 film, those three are actually the main characters. They drive the plot. They have the most dialogue. They provide the stakes. A series focusing on the magical bureaucracy of the Moors could be the "Andor" of the Disney princess world. Okay, maybe not that gritty, but you get the point.
The Casting Speculation is Wild
If they did go for a "faithful" remake, who takes the crown?
Online forums are obsessed with this. For a while, names like Florence Pugh or Saoirse Ronan were tossed around for Aurora, but they’ve mostly moved into more "prestige" roles. Now, the internet is looking at younger talent.
The Prince Phillip role is even harder. In the animation, he’s the first Disney prince to actually have a personality—he argues with his dad, he fights a dragon, he’s charming. Finding an actor who can be "Disney Prince Charming" without being a cardboard cutout is tough.
💡 You might also like: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
The Technical Hurdles of "The Dragon"
Let’s talk about the climax. Maleficent turning into a dragon is arguably the coolest moment in 2D animation history. In the 2014 sleeping beauty live action reimagining, they turned the crow, Diaval, into the dragon. It was... fine. But it lacked the sheer terror of the purple-and-black fire-breather from the original.
If Disney decides to do a straight-up remake, that dragon scene is the "make or break" moment. It needs to be scary. It needs to be massive. If it looks like a generic Game of Thrones dragon, the fans will revolt. We need that specific, angular, demonic look that Eyvind Earle envisioned.
Also, the music. George Bruns took Tchaikovsky’s Sleeping Beauty ballet and turned it into a film score. It’s iconic. "Once Upon a Dream" is a masterpiece of adaptation. Any new sleeping beauty live action project would have to decide: do we use the Tchaikovsky arrangements again, or do we go for a pop-heavy soundtrack like The Little Mermaid (2023)? Most purists would argue that without the ballet score, it isn't Sleeping Beauty.
Is the "Villain Era" Over?
There's a feeling in Hollywood that we might be reaching the end of the "villain origin story" trend. Joker, Cruella, Maleficent—we’ve seen the bad guys' side of things.
What’s next?
The industry is pivoting back toward "sincere" fantasy. People want magic that feels magical again, not just a deconstruction of why magic is actually a metaphor for trauma. A new sleeping beauty live action could be the flagship for this "New Sincerity."
Imagine a film that stays true to the 14th-century roots but gives Aurora a dream-world adventure while she’s asleep. Instead of just lying on a bed, maybe her mind is fighting a spiritual battle. That’s a way to give her agency without changing the core "sleeping" part of the story. It’s a middle ground that could actually satisfy both the old-school fans and the modern critics.
The Impact of the Parks
We also have to consider the Disney Parks. The castle in Disneyland (California) is Sleeping Beauty Castle. It’s the icon of the entire company. Disney uses these live-action remakes to keep their intellectual property "fresh" for new generations of kids who might find 1950s animation too slow.
📖 Related: Why October London Make Me Wanna Is the Soul Revival We Actually Needed
Every time a sleeping beauty live action project is discussed, it’s not just about ticket sales. It’s about merchandise, meet-and-greets, and keeping that castle relevant. If kids stop caring about Aurora, the centerpiece of the world's most famous theme park loses its luster.
Why You Should Care About the Original 1959 Film
If you're waiting for a new live-action version, do yourself a favor and re-watch the original on a big screen. It’s a work of art. It was the most expensive animation ever made at the time. It nearly bankrupted Disney.
The backgrounds were painted on massive canvases that took weeks to complete. The characters were animated using live-action reference footage (Helene Stanley was the model for Aurora, just as she was for Cinderella).
The level of craft in that movie is why we are still talking about a sleeping beauty live action remake 70 years later. It set a bar for "fairy tale aesthetics" that hasn't been topped. Even the Maleficent movies, with all their CGI, couldn't quite capture the "flat-yet-deep" look of the original's forest.
What To Watch While You Wait
Since a new, non-Maleficent sleeping beauty live action isn't hitting theaters tomorrow, you've got some options to scratch that itch:
- The Maleficent Duology: Obviously. Watch them for the costume design alone. The headpieces are incredible.
- The 1959 Original (4K Remaster): It looks stunning on a modern TV. The colors pop in a way they didn't on VHS.
- Cinderella (2015): Directed by Kenneth Branagh, this is the gold standard for "faithful" Disney remakes. It’s sincere and beautiful.
- Pan’s Labyrinth: If you want the dark, twisted "fairy tale for adults" vibe that the original Perrault story had.
The reality of a sleeping beauty live action is that it’s inevitable. Disney doesn't leave money on the table. Whether it’s a prequel about the three fairies, a "dream-world" epic, or a straightforward musical, Aurora will eventually wake up on the big screen again.
Next Steps for Fans
If you want to stay ahead of the curve, keep an eye on Disney’s D23 Expo announcements. That's where the big "live-action" slate is usually revealed. Also, look into the "Twisted Tale" book series by Liz Braswell—specifically A Whole New World and Once Upon a Dream. Disney often uses these YA novels to test out "alternate" plots for their live-action remakes. The Sleeping Beauty installment in that series explores what happens if Aurora never woke up and stayed trapped in a dream world controlled by Maleficent. It's a strong indicator of the creative direction the studio might take for a future film.
Monitor the casting calls for "Untitled Disney Fantasy Project." Often, these use codenames to hide big remakes. For now, we have the 1959 masterpiece and the Angelina Jolie spin-offs to hold us over. But the classic story—the spindle, the thorns, and the 100-year sleep—is too powerful to stay dormant forever.
Practical Takeaway: To truly understand the hype (and the hurdles) of a sleeping beauty live action film, compare the 1959 Eyvind Earle backgrounds with the 2014 Maleficent production design. You'll see exactly why modern directors struggle to capture the same magic. For now, focus on the "Twisted Tale" book series for the most likely "new" version of the story we might see on screen.