AI vs Artistic Integrity? Directors react to AI's role in reimagining films

Time of India

29-07-2025

In what is probably a first for the film industry, Raanjhanaa, the 2013 romantic drama starring
and
, is being re-released in Tamil Nadu — but with a major twist. The film will feature an AI-generated alternate ending, a move that has sparked a debate within the film fraternity.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
While director Aanand L Rai has strongly objected to the use of artificial intelligence to alter his original work, the studio backing the film, Eros International Media Limited, has called it a 'creative reimagining.
'
This instance has opened up a larger conversation around the ethics of using AI in cinema, especially when it comes to modifying creative content without the original filmmaker's approval. Is it innovation or intrusion? A natural evolution of storytelling or a violation of artistic integrity? We spoke to prominent filmmakers to understand where they stand on this contentious issue and how they view the future of AI in cinema.
Changing a film without the writer & director's permission is wrong:
Zoya Akhtar
It is one thing to remake a film and alter its ending, but to digitally change an existing film without the permission or blessings of the writer and director is just wrong. I suppose filmmakers and screenwriters now need to add this to their contracts. And what about the actors? They agreed to another narrative.
Changing the director's vision amounts to rewriting history:
Om Raut
AI is a great tool for artistes to collaborate with.
It finds innovative ways to make our work simpler, but when AI is used to alter a film without the original filmmaker's consent, it raises serious questions. Filmmaking is a collaborative art, but the director's vision is central to this medium. Changing that vision amounts to rewriting history. AI makes it easier, faster, and more tempting than ever, but ease of access doesn't equal moral license.
What will stop studios from modifying performances, dialogues, or even re-casting scenes with AI-generated actors – all without informing the person who made it?
This undermines the integrity of the creative process: Hansal Mehta
I'm not fully aware of the details behind this development.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
But, if the climax has indeed been altered using AI without the consent of its original creators, in my opinion, it amounts to a breach of moral and creative rights. It also sets a troubling precedent: the misuse of a powerful technological tool in a way that disregards artistic intent and undermines the integrity of the creative process.
I wouldn't be okay with any of my work being published without my consent: Siddharth P Malhotra
I don't have a problem with a re-release of a film or altering the edit of a movie and re-releasing it.
In fact, I would love to re-edit We Are Family with the edit I wanted or ideally have Maharaj with the scene that we couldn't put into the film. But the use of AI should be done as a tool to enhance something you can't physically do. Also, a film is purely a director's medium, so there is no way anyone can be or should be allowed without a director's consent to alter a film unless the director is not alive, even then, the family should be asked for permission.
I wouldn't be okay with any of my work being published without my consent.
Nobody should be allowed to touch the film without the filmmaker's consent– R Balki
Under Indian law, the producer is the legal author of a film: Eros
Eros International Media Limited issued their second statement on Tuesday to reiterate that they are 'the sole producer and exclusive copyright holder of Raanjhanaa (released in Tamil as Ambikapathy).' In their statement, they said, 'The re-release of Ambikapathy with an alternate AI-assisted ending is a legally compliant, transparently labelled, and artistically guided creative edition intended for Tamil-speaking audiences.
It does not replace or alter the original Raanjhanaa, which remains untouched and widely available across all platforms. This version is part of a global and longstanding tradition in cinema of offering alternate edits, localised adaptations, and anniversary re-releases. As the sole financier, producer, and rights holder of Raanjhanaa, Eros holds complete ownership and control of all intellectual property, moral rights, and derivative rights under Indian Copyright Law.'
About artistic collaboration and AI innovation, the statement said, 'It is imperative to reinforce that under Indian law, the producer is the legal author of a film. Mr Rai's disassociation from the Tamil alternate version is his personal choice, but his claim to ownership or moral authority over the work is neither contractually supported nor legally enforceable. The alternate ending was crafted under the direction of a human creative team using AI only as an assistive tool — not as an autonomous content generator.
'