Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
After days of silence, actor Dhanush has publicly condemned the re-release of Raanjhanaa (titled Ambikapathy in Tamil) with an AI-generated alternate climax, calling it a “disturbing” move that compromises the integrity of storytelling. The original 2013 film, where Dhanush’s character Kundan dies in the climax, has been re-released in Tamil Nadu with a “happy” ending created using artificial intelligence tools. The AI-modified film released in Tamil Nadu on Friday, August 1.
In a statement issued on Sunday, August 3, Dhanush expressed strong disapproval, revealing that the production house Eros International went ahead with the AI-altered version despite his objections. “This alternate ending has stripped the film of its very soul, and the concerned parties went ahead with it despite my clear objection,” he said.
“This is not the film I committed to 12 years ago. The use of AI to alter films or content is a deeply concerning precedent for both art and artists. It threatens the integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema. I sincerely hope that stricter regulations are put in place to prevent such practices in the future.”
Raanjhanaa director Anand L Rai had earlier voiced his disapproval, calling the AI-modified ending “unauthorised” and that neither he nor the original team was involved. “It is unauthorised. I had no role in it. Neither did the team that made the film. And whatever it claims to be, it is not the film we intended or made,” Anand said in a statement.
“This was never just a film to us. It was shaped by human hands, human flaws, and human feeling. What’s now being circulated is not a tribute. It is a reckless takeover that strips the work of its intent, its context, and its soul.”
The filmmaker strongly criticised the use of artificial intelligence to modify creative work without consent.
“The idea that our work can be taken and modified by a machine, then dressed up as innovation, is deeply disrespectful. To cloak a film’s emotional legacy in a synthetic cape without consent is not a creative act—it’s an abject betrayal of everything we built,” Anand added.
“I’m speaking for everyone who helped bring this film to life—the writer, actors, composer, lyricist, technicians, and the larger crew. None of us were consulted. None of us were heard. If Raanjhanaa meant something to you, as it did to us, please know that this AI-altered version does not reflect who we were. Nor does it carry the spirit of the film we made.”
In response, Eros International defended the re-release. The company claimed the alternate AI-assisted ending was legal, creative, and aligned with global industry norms.
“This is a creative reimagining, not a replacement, and is consistent with global industry practices including anniversary editions, alternate cuts, and modernised remasters,” said Pradeep Dwivedi, Group CEO of Eros International.
“We categorically reject Mr Rai’s allegations, which are not only factually incorrect but also legally unfounded. The re-release is a respectful reinterpretation and not a ‘tampering’ of the original. It is clearly positioned as an alternate, AI-enhanced version—akin to classic cuts or re-edits seen globally.”
The Raanjhanaa controversy comes on the heels of a similar debate involving Oscar-winning composer AR Rahman, who used AI to recreate the voices of deceased singers Bamba Bakya and Shahul Hameed for the song “Thimiri Yezhuda” in the film Lal Salaam. The move sparked a public outcry, with critics raising legal and ethical concerns about digitally reviving dead artists. While some saw the gesture as a tribute, others warned it could set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining human talent and manipulating emotional authenticity in art.
Rahman later clarified that he had obtained consent from the singers’ families and compensated them fairly, insisting that technology “is not a threat if we use it right.” Legal experts echoed this view, stating that in the absence of copyright protection for voices in India, such recreations—when backed by family approval—may not violate any laws. However, both artists and lawyers agreed that AI’s use in entertainment needs clearer ethical boundaries and stronger regulations to prevent misuse, especially as filmmakers and studios increasingly explore its creative and commercial potential.