Raanjhanaa re-release row: 'Producers, not creators, should have a bigger say' I Interview

It is the age-old clash between creative vision and commercial interest in cinema but the new twist here is the entry of artificial intelligence in celluloid.

Recently, a row broke out when the Aanand L Rai film, Raanjhanaa (and its Tamil version Ambikapathy), were re-released with an altered climax to create a 'happy' ending. This was ostensibly done with the help of artificial intelligence, which seems to be gaining more traction.

However, this 'alternate ending' did not go down well with actor Dhanush and director Aanand L Rai. Both expressed shock over the AI-altered climax in the re-released version of the film.

A 'disturbed' Dhanush said on X that the film had been stripped of its "soul" and said it destroys the "integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema". The actor called for stricter regulations to be put in place to prevent such practices in future.

Also read: 'Disturbed' Dhanush lashes out at AI-altered ending of 'Ambikapathy' re-release

The Federal interviewed film critic Rajasekar, who breaks down the implications for filmmakers, studios, and the evolving role of artificial intelligence in cinema.

What exactly happened with the AI-altered version of 'Raanjhanaa' and its Tamil version, 'Ambikapathy', which were re-released on August 1?

The creators had originally written a tragic ending for Raanjhanaa, with Dhanush’s character Kundan dying. But in the re-released version, he is brought back to life. This altered ending changes the entire perspective of the film and disrupts the creative vision that Aanand L Rai and Dhanush had for the story. The decision to tweak the ending was made by some production and distribution houses, who felt a “happy” ending would please fans.

It’s a tricky situation where business interests have overshadowed the film’s original creative intent.

Dhanush called the change ‘deeply disturbing’, while the production house claimed he didn’t object. How do you see this contradiction?

There’s clearly a lack of transparency. If the production house had openly communicated their plans to Dhanush and Aanand L Rai, such contradictory statements wouldn’t be appearing now. Maybe they mentioned some changes were being made, but didn’t explain the extent.

The creative team wouldn’t have expected such a drastic rewrite. That’s why this whole controversy has blown up, and understandably so — both Dhanush and the director are extremely upset.

Their next film is due for release soon. Could this controversy affect its launch?

I don’t think it will. The shooting is almost done, and the film is scheduled for a September release.

Also read: Babydoll Archi's deepfake case exposes disturbing AI identity theft

Even though the team is upset, I doubt this incident will cause a major delay or derail the release. They’ve voiced their disappointment, but I’m sure things will be resolved internally. The new film will go ahead as planned.

Do you think using AI to change a film’s ending is a creative reimagining or disrespectful to the original creators?

It absolutely affects the creator’s freedom. When a director designs a tragic ending, it’s often to convey a powerful message—like the dangers of toxic love in Raanjhanaa, for example. Changing that to a happy ending takes away the entire point of the film. It affects not just the message, but the actor’s performance too. Dhanush, for example, would’ve played his earlier scenes with the original ending in mind.

If you switch that climax, the rest of the film won’t make emotional or moral sense to him. These kinds of decisions should not be taken without the consent of the actor and director.

Should the industry have clearer rules about AI changes to old films?

Absolutely. The trend of re-releasing old films is growing, and with it, the temptation to give these films alternate endings.

Some fans on platforms like Reddit and X argue that AI can give a fresh perspective to old stories. But creative control should lie with the director and actor. Right now, legal agreements mostly favour producers. That needs to change. Future contracts must ensure that directors and actors have a say in how their work is modified—especially with AI now in the picture. Otherwise, we’ll keep seeing more disputes like this one.

Do you see this as a larger legal issue for the industry?

Definitely. Take Ilaiyaraaja’s case—he never had clear legal agreements back in the day, which is why he’s now going to court to reclaim his music rights. The same principle applies here. Filmmakers need to hire legal experts and ensure their rights are protected in writing. That wasn’t common practice earlier, but it must become standard now.

So, can production houses use AI to alter re-released films without trouble? What’s the way forward legally?

After this controversy, I don’t think directors and actors will allow producers to make changes freely. In existing contracts, producers might still have the legal upper hand. But for future films, creators will be far more cautious. A

Any plan to use AI or alter the content should go through a transparent legal process that includes creator consent.

Some cult films with unconventional endings are being re-released. Could AI rewrites rewrite cinema history itself?

Yes, that’s the danger. For instance, Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa has a bittersweet ending in Tamil, but was changed to a happier one in Telugu to suit the local audience. These decisions are business-driven, not creator-driven.

Directors and actors must have the final say in how their films are presented—regardless of when or where it is re-released. Unfortunately, current agreements often don’t reflect that balance. That’s what needs fixing.

What’s the big takeaway from this controversy?

Every new technology has pros and cons. AI can now dub an actor’s voice into any language or even recreate legendary singers’ voices, like SPB. That’s a useful application. But altering core storylines, like what happened with Raanjhanaa, crosses a line. It disrupts the creative intent and can damage the emotional and artistic integrity of a film. The industry is still in a testing phase with AI.

How it evolves will depend on whether creators are given the legal protection and respect they deserve. Otherwise, we risk losing control over the stories we tell.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.