National Award-winning actor and filmmaker Dhanush has publicly voiced his disappointment and deep concern over the re-release of his 2013 cult film Raanjhanaa, which now features an AI-generated alternate ending. In a strongly-worded statement posted on social media, Dhanush declared that the new version—altered without his consent—has stripped the film of its original soul and compromised the artistic vision he signed up for more than a decade ago.
“The re-release of Raanjhanaa with an AI-altered climax has completely disturbed me,” Dhanush wrote. He explained that he had clearly objected to the new edit, yet the concerned parties proceeded regardless. “This is not the film I committed to 12 years ago,” he emphasized, underscoring the ethical breach in modifying a creator’s work post-release without their permission.
The updated version of the film, which reportedly features a more “feel-good” ending with the protagonist Kundan uniting with his love Zoya, was introduced using artificial intelligence to digitally reimagine the final sequences. While some sections of the audience have expressed appreciation for this alternate conclusion, Dhanush made it clear that tampering with an artist’s vision—especially for commercial or nostalgic purposes—sets a dangerous precedent.
The Rise of AI and the Fall of Consent?
Dhanush’s statement touches upon a larger and more urgent debate sweeping the global film industry: where should the line be drawn when it comes to using artificial intelligence to alter, extend, or repackage existing works? “The use of AI to alter films or content is a deeply concerning precedent for both art and artists,” he wrote, warning that such practices not only blur the lines of creative ownership but also risk commodifying narratives that were painstakingly crafted by human visionaries.
He further argued that this trend threatens the very integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema itself. “What begins as an innocent re-edit could soon evolve into an industry-wide phenomenon where producers rewrite films based on market research, fan feedback, or streaming algorithms—without the participation of those who originally created them,” one industry insider noted. “This isn’t innovation. It’s erasure.”
Legal experts also weighed in, citing violations of moral rights protected under intellectual property frameworks such as the Berne Convention. “AI re-edits without a creator’s consent not only undermine artistic integrity, they also infringe upon the legal rights of the actors, writers, and directors involved,” said a copyright law specialist.
A Divided Audience and a Fractured Industry
The controversy has divided fans and film professionals. While a vocal section supports Dhanush’s stance—arguing that cinematic masterpieces like Raanjhanaa should remain untouched—others see the AI-generated ending as harmless or even exciting. “We already saw the original. That ending will always be there. This is just another version for fans who wished the love story ended differently,” commented one user on X (formerly Twitter).
However, critics argue that such justifications reduce art to a consumer product tailored to audience comfort rather than artistic exploration. “The point of art is not to always cater to public opinion, but to challenge, provoke, and move,” said a filmmaker. “If we keep modifying films to suit what’s palatable, we’ll end up with soulless content crafted by algorithms instead of storytellers.”
Some even drew parallels with other recent AI-driven controversies in literature and music, warning that without regulation, AI could begin rewriting not just stories, but history, identity, and emotion—things that no machine can authentically replicate.
Dhanush Calls for Regulatory Safeguards
Ending his note on a firm yet hopeful tone, Dhanush appealed to industry stakeholders and policymakers to take action. “I sincerely hope that stricter regulations are put in place to prevent such practices in the future,” he wrote. His statement has already sparked conversations in film guilds, actor unions, and writers’ associations across India, many of which are now pushing for legal frameworks that protect performers and creators from unauthorized alterations of their work.
Audience reactions to the AI-altered re-release of Raanjhanaa have been intensely polarized, reflecting a broader clash between nostalgia and novelty. Many cinephiles argued that the original climax, though heartbreaking, was what gave the film its emotional weight and cultural impact, questioning, “Why fix what isn’t broken?” Others stressed that AI can never replicate the depth of human emotion captured in that final act, warning that tampering with such moments risks hollowing out the soul of cinema. At the same time, some viewers welcomed the experiment, seeing alternate endings as a fresh way to explore multiple perspectives and satisfy fan curiosity. While one group defended artistic purity—“Art must remain in the hands of its creators”—another group embraced the potential for narrative plurality, asking, “What’s wrong with offering a different ending for those who wanted closure?” The debate, though divided, was united by passion, signaling that audiences still care deeply about the sanctity and evolution of storytelling.
This episode not only raises questions about the future of cinema in the age of AI but also reaffirms a crucial truth: that the essence of storytelling lies in its intent, not in its manipulation. Raanjhanaa, for all its flaws and complexities, left a lasting impact precisely because of its tragic, unflinching ending. To change that now—without the consent of those who made it—may offer temporary novelty, but risks long-term damage to the sanctity of artistic expression.
As the industry grapples with AI’s growing presence, the message from Dhanush is clear: evolve, but not at the cost of erasure. Innovate, but not without integrity.
