Dhanush condemns unauthorised Raanjhanaa AI edit: 'Alternate ending has stripped the film of its very soul'

Dhanush has voiced his strong objection to the AI-altered re-release of Raanjhanaa, calling the move disturbing and unacceptable. The 2013 romantic drama, which starred Dhanush, Sonam Kapoor, and Swara Bhasker, was recently re-released online with a modified ending where Kundan, the lead character played by Dhanush, survives. This altered version, created using artificial intelligence, has drawn massive criticism across the film industry.

Dhanush took to social media, stating that the re-edited climax “stripped the film of its very soul” and that the parties involved “went ahead despite my clear objection.” He further added, “This is not the film I committed to 12 years ago.”

The actor urged for immediate attention to how AI is being used in cinema, warning that the misuse of this technology poses a serious threat to storytelling. “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,” Dhanush said, pushing for tighter regulation.

Director Aanand L Rai, who helmed Raanjhanaa, also expressed deep disappointment. In his statement, he called the past few weeks “surreal and deeply upsetting,” revealing that the film was “altered, repackaged, and re-released without my knowledge or consent.” He called the AI-altered version “an abject betrayal” and said the new version strips the original work of its “intent, context, and soul.”

The backlash didn’t stop there. Several industry voices Neeraj Pandey, Kabir Khan, Kanika Dhillon, Varun Grover, Tanuj Garg, and Renuka Shahane condemned the move as unethical. Many underlined that the emotional weight of Kundan’s death was what gave Raanjhanaa its lasting impact.

In the AI-edited climax, Kundan doesn’t die in the hospital. Instead, he opens his eyes and walks, undoing the emotional closure the original story provided. While a few viewers found the clip comforting, many more raised serious questions about altering art without consent.