Dhanush has expressed strong disappointment over the AI-altered climax in the re-release of Raanjhanaa. The actor said the new ending changes the soul of the film and went ahead despite his objections.
Calling it a violation of artistic integrity, he urged for stricter regulations on AI use in cinema.
Dhanush Issues Statement On AI-Altered Climax In Raanjhanaa Re-Release
In a statement shared on X (formerly Twitter), he wrote, “The re-release of Raanjhanaa with an AI-altered climax has completely disturbed me. This alternate ending has stripped the film of its very soul, and the concerned parties went ahead with it despite my clear objection. This is not the film I committed to 12 years ago. ”
Dhanush added, “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 Aanand L Rai Expresses Disappointment
The filmmaker has been quite vocal about his stance on the AI version of his much-loved movie. Recently, in a post, he expressed, “The past three weeks have been surreal, and deeply upsetting. To watch Raanjhanaa, a film born out of care, conflict, collaboration, and creative risk, be altered, repackaged, and re-released without my knowledge or consent has been nothing short of devastating. What makes it worse is the complete ease and casualness with which it’s been done.”
He slammed the unauthorised changes, emphasising the emotional and creative significance of the original work. Rai also raised concern about the implications of AI altering artistic creations without consent. On an emotional note, he added, “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 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.”