Bollywood filmmaker Karan Johar has strongly criticized the re-release of the 2013 film Raanjhanaa with an AI-altered ending, siding with director Aanand L. Rai in the ensuing controversy. The film, which originally starred Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, was brought back to theaters in August 2025 with a new, AI-generated climax, sparking disagreement between the producer, Eros International, and the original creators.
In the original Raanjhanaa, Dhanush's character, Kundan, is shot and dies, with Zoya (Sonam Kapoor) rushing to his side in his final moments. The AI-revised ending, however, depicts Kundan opening his eyes, transforming the tragic conclusion into a more optimistic one. According to reports, the altered ending shows Kundan waking up in the hospital, surrounded by his friends, Bindiya (Swara Bhasker) and Murari (Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub), who are overjoyed.
Johar voiced his disapproval of the alteration during a conversation with Komal Nahta, emphasizing the importance of respecting a director's vision. He argued that while a producer might possess the rights to a film, there exists a moral obligation to consult with the director before making significant changes. Johar stated, "If you don't have morality, if you're changing a director's vision and releasing the film without his/her consent, then that is not right". He further added, "His job is to call Aanand L. Rai, jiski vision thi voh, jiski wajah se aap yeh kar rahe ho aaj, it's your moral responsibility. You should call everybody who made that film special. It's the right thing to do".
Eros International defended its decision, calling the AI-altered ending a "legal reinterpretation". The company also accused Aanand L. Rai of improper use of Raanjhanaa's intellectual property in his upcoming film Tere Ishk Mein. In response, Rai has expressed strong objections to the altered climax, deeming it a betrayal of his artistic vision. He stated that such changes set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining a filmmaker's original intent.
Dhanush, along with Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, also criticized the AI version, asserting that it stripped the film of its emotional core. Dhanush conveyed his disturbance with the altered climax, stating that it stripped the film of its very soul, despite his clear objection. He also expressed concern over the use of AI to alter films, viewing it as a threat to the integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema.
Johar questioned the motive behind the alteration, pointing out that "The AI change did not yield huge box office success," and calling it "inauthentic," suggesting that natural storytelling often resonates better. He rhetorically asked, "What did you achieve by changing [the ending]? It's not as if the film made a lot of money. Because it's inauthentic".
The Raanjhanaa controversy has ignited a broader discussion within the film industry regarding creative control, technological intervention, and artistic integrity. The debate raises fundamental questions about who holds the authority to modify and re-release a film, and whether artistic integrity can survive in the age of AI. While Indian copyright law typically favors the producer, the Raanjhanaa case highlights the ethical considerations that should guide decisions regarding alterations to a director's original vision.
