In what may be the first AI-driven alternate ending for a theatrical re-release, the Bollywood cult classic Raanjhanaa is returning to cinemas under its Tamil dub name Ambikapathy—but with a major change: the tragic climax has been replaced with a “happy” ending created using artificial intelligence. The move has ignited a public backlash, raising deep questions about creative rights, authenticity, and the ethics of altering established narratives.
🔄 What Changed—and Who Was Kept in the Dark
- AI-altered ending: In the new version, the protagonist Kundan (played by Dhanush), who originally dies at the film’s climax, now survives. This reframes the story from tragic to cheerful.
- No consultation: Director–co‑producer Aanand L Rai and actors Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor were not informed. Rai reportedly learned about the change via social media.
- His reaction: Rai called the move a “dystopian experiment” and formally requested that his name be removed from the AI-altered version, saying that intent and authorship have been disregarded.
🏢 What the Studio Says and Industry Implications
- Eros Media Group’s stance: As the sole copyright holder, Eros claims the AI rewrite is a “creative reimagining,” not a replacement. The company compared it to alternate cuts, anniversary editions, or digitally remastered versions released globally.
- Scale of ambition: Eros reportedly manages over 3,000 titles and is exploring similar AI-enhanced reinterpretations of older films.
- Legal and moral conflict: Producers insist they’re within their legal rights under Indian copyright law. Makers emphasize that contracts signed by creators in 2013 waived moral rights over future alterations.
🎭 Creative Rights and Cultural Impact
- Artistic integrity at stake: Rai argues the original tragic ending was central to the emotional and thematic resonance of Raanjhanaa. Changing that fundamentally alters the story’s emotional core.
- Industry precedent: Filmmakers across Bollywood have voiced concerns. If creative works can be retrofitted without creator involvement, they warn that this sets a chilling future where authorship becomes disposable.
- Sensitive context: The film’s interfaith narrative—exploring Hindu-Muslim identity and politics—may be diluted or misrepresented by a sanitized ending.
🍿 Fans, Industry, and Public Reaction
- Mixed audience sentiment: For many fans, the original ending defined the film’s emotional impact—it transformed the misery of love into art.
- Filmmaker solidarity: Critics and peers support Rai’s position, calling for clear protocols around permissions, moral rights, and public labeling of AI edits.
- Cultural reflection: Some commentators argue that India must consider how mass “rebooting” of its film heritage via AI affects collective memory and artistic legacy.
🤔 The Bigger Picture: AI and Ownership in Film
- Rights tussle: In India, producers typically hold exclusive copyright, but directors and writers may still assert moral and artistic claims—especially if alterations misrepresent intent.
- AI as threat or tool? While AI offers post-production and restoration capabilities, its use to alter endings crosses a line for many creatives.
- Future limitations: Without regulation or industry-wide standards, studios could expand AI reinterpretations to other classic titles—raising questions about ownership and authenticity.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can a film’s ending be changed legally without consulting the director?
Yes—if producers own copyright and contracts release moral rights. Indian law generally gives producers control unless overridden by explicit moral rights clauses.
Q: Is this the first time AI has altered a film’s ending?
Possibly globally—it appears to be the first cinematic re-release to employ AI to rewrite a film’s conclusion without creator consent.
Q: What about the actors? Were Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor involved?
No. Both were reportedly unaware of the change.
Q: Why would studios do this?
Producers believe AI versions can revive older titles for new audiences, boost revenue, and experiment with alternate emotional payoffs.
Q: Who decides what counts as the “official” version?
Directors and screenwriters may contest it, but studios owning final copyright can legally enforce versions. The public’s acceptance may depend on transparency and labeling.
✅ Final Thoughts
The AI-altered re-release of Raanjhanaa is more than a nostalgic gimmick—it’s a test case in how stories, authorship, and technology intersect. If classic films can be rewritten without consent, the very meaning of creative legacy is at risk.
The controversy isn’t about a happy or tragic ending—it’s about whether creators and audiences still hold the power over what stories remain timeless.
Sources The Guardian
