What if the heartbreak that stayed with you long after the credits rolled was suddenly erased? What if the tragic ending of a film you once loved, flaws and all, was swapped for something shinier, happier?
Not sure how it feels yet, but Raanjhanaa director Aanand L Rai is ‘heartbroken’. The 2013 cult classic romantic drama, titled Ambikapathy in its Tamil dubbed version, is now gearing up for a theatrical comeback in Tamil Nadu. Starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, the film is set to re-release on August 1, 2025, but not quite as you remember it. This time, the heartbreak at the centre of the story has been reimagined with a “happy” ending, generated using artificial intelligence. Yes, you read it right. The news has sent shockwaves through the industry, not just for the use of AI to alter a decade-old film, but for doing it allegedly without the involvement of its original director, Aanand L Rai.
At the centre of the controversy is a clash between a heartbroken director, who calls this change a “dystopian experiment,” and the production house, which calls it a “creative reimagining.” This isn’t just about one film’s ending being changed. It raises bigger questions about who truly owns a story, how far we can go with creative changes, and what this means for future re-releases using new technology.
Filmmakers react to Raanjhanaa Re-Release controversy
In an exclusive conversation with Zoom, filmmakers have come out in support of the director Aanand and reacted to the controversy. Gadar 2 director Anil Sharma said, “These days, you can do anything with AI, and that’s probably what they’ve done. But they definitely should have involved the director. The market has its own logic, and creativity has its own value too. It’s about finding a balance between both. Secondly, AI is a challenge. It’s here now. A new world is coming, and we can’t fight it. We need to step on it and go in the right direction, find ways to move forward with it, and learn how to use it in creative ways.”
Calling AI both “a challenge and an opportunity,” Sharma added, “The world is changing. First we had stage plays, then silent films, talkies, colour, videos, CDs, TV, OTT-and now, AI. We have to go with the flow. The world won’t stop for us.”
But he didn’t hold back his criticism: “If they did this without telling the director, it’s wrong. Ultimately, the creativity was his. And if someone wants to make their own version, at the very least, they should involve the original director. That’s only right. No one has the right to mess with someone else’s creation. I believe that when a creator makes something, no one else has the right to change it, unless the creator permits it.”
On where the industry goes from here, the director talked about how blurred the boundaries have become: “Earlier, the media was in the hands of journalists and broadcasters. Now, it’s in everyone’s hands. Everyone is making reels. No one is drawing any lines anymore, and that’s the sad reality. People now say 90 per cent of entertainment comes from reels. We’re just watching 3-minute, 2-minute-even 90-second clips. So, reels have become the main form of entertainment. Where do you even draw the line? Maybe in a few years, we won’t even need a director, photographer, writer, actor, or cinematographer. We’ll just imagine a film, and AI will create it. Do we have a choice? No, we don’t. I personally don’t want that future. I want it to be real. But we have no choice. This is how the world works now, and it’s moving forward.”
We have also reached out to Sonam Kapoor’s team for a comment, but there was no response.
Filmmaker Indira Dhar, who garnered attention with her Bengali debut Putul, which was in the race for the Oscars, also weighed in on the controversy. “The original version of a film can never be replaced by any technology because human performances cannot be replaced. Definitely. It depends from scripts to scripts.”
She continued, “It’s not at all fair to the director. The director is the captain of the ship, like the entire circus, and without informing the director, hindering his or her creativity, and re-releasing a film without the knowledge of changing the climax is not fair. There’s no problem in using AI. The future is yet to be seen. But a film is made by the director, not by the producer. The producer only gives the money. So, if the subject is demanding AI intervention, then that’s fine. If not, it’s not required forcefully. Even when it was released 12 years back, one song was very famous. And I’m sure the director had a lot to do in the film. I stick to the point that, without the director’s knowledge, doing something like this is not fun.”
Reacting to Eros’ “creative reimagining, not a replacement” statement, she added, “I feel if they have the director in place to agree with that, then that’s okay. But if the director is not informed and hindered in their creativity, then I don’t think it is a very fair thing to do.”
She illustrated her point with a simple analogy: “I will explain this to you with a very small example. VFX was something which was introduced about 30 years ago. But yet, we enjoy films which are in their original versions, films made 70 or 80 years ago. So there’s your answer. Originality will never change. Like people imagined having a film made totally by VFX. There are such films, but we don’t enjoy them much. It is okay for animation, but not much otherwise. Maybe one or two magnum opuses, but not always. Where a film or script demands performances, where is the place for VFX?”
As Raanjhanaa returns to theatres with a new ending, it leaves us with a question: In our rush to update stories for modern audiences, are we erasing the very soul that made them timeless in the first place?