The original 2013 Hindi-language film featured a tragic romance between a Hindu man and a Muslim woman, and its director, along with the writer and even the lead actor were reportedly unaware of the AI-driven alteration.
The new version, which significantly deviates from the original film’s climax, screened at cinemas in Tamil Nadu, a southern Indian state, on August 01. At the end of the original movie, the lead male character, Kundan (played by Dhanush), lies dead, covered in bruises from his injuries, in a hospital with his lover, Zoya (played by Sonam Kapoor), sitting by his side, crying. In the AI-altered ending, however, Kundan does not die. Instead, he opens his eyes and starts to stand up.
The altered ending involves bringing the deceased protagonist back to life using AI. This has been labeled a "creepy and frankly cynical rewrite" by some commentators, who point out that the film's creators, including the director, writer, and even the lead actor, opposed the change.
Dhanush, the Tamil actor who played the deceased character, issued a statement noting that “this alternate ending stripped the film of its soul” and that the re-release had “completely disturbed” him.
With its changed ending, Ranjhaanna is “not the film I committed to 12 years ago”, he said. The actor added that the use of AI to alter films “is a deeply concerning precedent for both art and artists [that] threatens the integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema”.
Aanans L Rai, the director, shared a detailed note on Instagram condemning the move. “Let me say this as clearly as I can: I do not support or endorse the AI-altered version... It is unauthorised. And whatever it claims to be, it is not the film we intended, or made”.
He added: “This was never just a film to us. It was shaped by human hands, human flaws, and human feeling. To cloak a film’s emotional legacy in a synthetic cape without consent is not a creative act. It’s an abject betrayal of everything we built”.
Rai has said that he is investigating legal options to challenge the re-release of this movie.
Eros International, one of India's largest production houses, insist that their actions are perfectly legal, however, and have refused to retract the re-release.
“This re-release is not a replacement – it is a creative reinterpretation, clearly labelled and transparently positioned,” said Pradeep Dwivedi, chief executive of Eros International Media.
Dwivedi noted that under Indian copyright law, the producers of a film (in this case, Eros International) are deemed its author and primary rights-holder, meaning that the production house is the first owner of copyright for the film.
The studio, which have released more than 4,000 movies globally, will “embrace generative AI as the next frontier in responsible storytelling”, Dwivedi reiterated, adding that Eros International are “uniquely positioned to bridge cinematic legacy with future-ready formats”.
In fact, he insisted that reimagining the movie’s ending was not “artificial storytelling”, but “augmented storytelling, a wave of the future”.
Richard Allen, professor of film and media art at City University of Hong Kong, said it seems inevitable that AI-altering will become a mainstream method of filmmaking in global film industries.
“If producers think they can make more money out of old content by using AI, they will do so”, Allen told Al Jazeera.
The move is seen as a potentially problematic precedent for the use of AI in filmmaking, particularly when it alters creative works without the original creators' input. This is the first time a film studio has re-released a movie with AI alterations, anywhere in the world, and it has also caused much criticism among critics, filmmakers and film lovers.
No comments:
Post a Comment