In brief
\nEros International will release an AI-modified version of its 2013 film Raanjhanaa in Tamil with a new ending, claiming it’s more culturally sensitive for Tamil audiences.
\nOriginal director Aanand L. Rai strongly opposes the release, arguing it violates artistic consent and sets a troubling precedent for AI use in filmmaking without creator approval.
\nCritics dismiss the project as a publicity stunt, citing current AI video generation limitations, while Eros plans to review its 4,000-film library for similar AI modifications.<\/p>\n
Indian production company Eros International is releasing a version of its 2013 film Raanjhanaa with an AI-produced ending\u2014without the original director\u2019s involvement or consent.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Scheduled for release on August 1, the new version of Raanjhanaa will be in Tamil instead of Hindi, and will include an ending which Eros states is more sensitive to the Tamil audience.<\/p>\n
Speaking to Decrypt, Eros CEO Pradeep Dwivedi stressed that only a small portion of the film has been modified, and that the original version will remain available.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe AI-assisted changes in Ambikapathy [the film\u2019s title in Tamil] represent a very small portion,” he said, “well under 5% of the film\u2019s total runtime, limited to the final act of the narrative.”<\/p>\n
The rerelease of the film with an AI-generated ending has attracted strong opposition from original director Aanand L. Rai, who has suggested in an interview<\/a> that it \u201csets a deeply troubling precedent\u201d for the motion picture industry.<\/p>\n Rai\u2019s production company Colour Yellow is currently in the middle of a dispute with Eros over the rerelease, with the director arguing that, while Eros may hold exclusive copyright over Raanjhanaa, the new version \u201cdisregards the fundamental principles of creative intent and artistic consent.\u201d<\/p>\n The release taps into ongoing controversies surrounding the role of AI in the film industry, one stretching at least as far back as the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike<\/a> that immobilized Hollywood for several months.<\/p>\n According to Dwivedi, Eros did not use AI to generate scenes independently or without oversight.<\/p>\n \u201cInstead, we used it as a creative tool under human supervision to generate an alternate emotional resolution that aligns with the cultural tone and audience sensibilities of the Tamil market as an alternate version,” he told Decrypt.<\/p>\n Dwivedi did not provide specific details on how AI was used to modify existing scenes, although he did state that \u201cno part of the original story was erased or replaced,\u201d and that the original film is still available for viewing.<\/p>\n Going forward, Eros plans to continue using AI, with Dwivedi sharing that it\u2019s \u201creviewing\u201d the company\u2019s library of more than 4,000 properties and will consider opportunities on a case-by-case basis, depending on legal rights and cultural and creative relevance.<\/p>\n \u201cWe see AI as one of many tools to enhance, localize, or reimagine existing content, but always with transparency, restraint, and audience respect,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is not about replacing the past\u2014it\u2019s about presenting alternate lenses where appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n \ufeff<\/p>\n Dwivedi describes this approach as a \u201ccurated strategy,\u201d one based around \u201cresponsible innovation.\u201d But director Aanand L. Rai has argued that Eros International\u2019s plans undermine the concept of art as \u201ca reflection of the vision and labour\u201d of artists.<\/p>\n \u201cThe use of AI to retrospectively manipulate narrative, tone, or meaning without the director\u2019s involvement is not only absurd, it is a direct threat to the cultural and creative fabric we work to uphold,\u201d he told Variety. \u201cIf unchecked, this sets a precedent for a future where myopic, tech-aided opportunism can override the human voice and the very idea of artistic consent.\u201d<\/p>\n Similar sentiments are shared by artists and creators in other geographical areas, including the UK-based arts and entertainment trade union Equity, which tells Decrypt that legislation should be introduced to protect creatives from such \u201cunethical applications\u201d of AI.<\/p>\n \u201cArtificial intelligence should never be used to alter or synthesise artistic output without the consent of the creatives involved\u2014whether they be actors, directors, dancers, writers, and so on\u2014and that these creatives should be fairly remunerated for such usage,\u201d a union spokesperson told Decrypt.<\/p>\n Not only do some observers from the arts take issue with Eros International\u2019s actions, but others suspect that the company may be more focused on generating publicity than genuinely innovating.<\/p>\n This is the view of David Gerard of pivot-to-ai.com<\/a>, who tells Decrypt that he believes Eros\u2019 actions are an \u201cobvious\u201d stunt.<\/p>\n \u201cAI video generation from scratch is simply not up to any professional standard,\u201d he said. \u201cIt can’t follow a script or follow direction.\u201d<\/p>\n