Eros International unilaterally modified the ending with AI, sparking outrage from the original director over a breach of creative ethics.
Indian production company Eros International plans to re-release the 2013 film (Raanjhanaa) on August 1, but this Tamil version will feature a brand-new AI-generated ending, completely without the original director's consent. The company's CEO Pradeep Dwivedi told (Decrypt) that the AI-assisted modifications account for less than 5% of the total run time of the film, limited to the final part of the narrative, and emphasized that the original version remains available for viewing.
Original director Aanand L. Rai strongly opposes this, believing it 'sets a troubling precedent for the film industry.' Rai's production company Colour Yellow is currently in dispute with Eros over this matter, with the director arguing that while Eros may own the exclusive rights to (Raanjhanaa), the new version 'disregards the fundamental principles of creative intent and artistic consent.'
Pradeep Dwivedi explained that the company does not independently use AI to generate scenes, but rather 'under human supervision as a creative tool to generate alternative emotional solutions that align with the cultural tone and audience sensitivity of the Tamil market.' He emphasized that no part of the original story has been deleted or replaced, it is merely an alternative version.
The industry is concerned about AI abuse, threatening creators' rights.
Rai expressed strong dissatisfaction to the media (Variety), believing that 'using AI to retroactively manipulate narrative, tone, or meaning without the director's involvement is not only absurd but poses a direct threat to the cultural and creative structures we strive to maintain.' He warned that if not curtailed, this would set a precedent for the future, allowing 'short-sighted technological opportunism to override the concepts of human voice and artistic consent.'
The UK arts and entertainment union Equity also expressed similar concerns to (Decrypt), calling for legislation to protect creators from the 'immoral applications' of AI.
A union spokesperson emphasized: 'Artificial intelligence should never be used to alter or synthesize artistic works without the consent of the relevant creators, whether they are actors, directors, dancers, writers, etc., all of whom deserve fair compensation.'
This controversy reflects the ongoing debate in the film industry regarding the role of AI, with similar issues dating back to the SAG-AFTRA strike that paralyzed Hollywood for months in 2023. Creators are generally concerned that AI technology could be abused, infringing on artists' creative rights and the integrity of their works.
Experts question the promotional gimmick, criticizing AI film generation technology.
David Gerard of Pivot-to-ai.com expressed skepticism about Eros's actions, viewing it as 'blatantly' a promotional gimmick.
He pointed out: 'AI-generated films from scratch fail to meet any professional standards and cannot follow a script or accept direction.'
Gerard and collaborator Amy Castor conducted long-term experiments on Google's Veo 3, resulting in 'extremely bizarre' outcomes that have been uploaded to YouTube.
He explained: 'We thoroughly demonstrated that Veo is completely unmanageable, unable to follow a script or let the right characters say their lines.' He added that the performance of other film generators isn't much better, with hallucinations and errors being an 'inherent characteristic' of how these models operate.
As Eros has not detailed how it uses AI and the specifics of the scenes created by AI, Gerard reiterated that the company's re-release of (Raanjhanaa) 'exudes' the scent of a promotional gimmick. He pointed out: 'Every so-called impressive demonstration from the film generator is at best generated from a vast amount of failed material, often requiring post-production Photoshop work on almost every frame.'
The company denies the hype allegations and plans to expand the application of AI.
In response to criticism, Dwivedi denied to (Variety) that the re-release was intended to distract from the legal dispute with Colour Yellow. He stated: 'We reject any suggestion that this creative project is meant to divert attention from regulatory matters. The reinterpretation of (Raanjhanaa) has been in development well before the recent legal proceedings or regulatory reviews.'
Looking ahead, Eros plans to continue using AI technology. Dwivedi revealed that the company is 'reviewing' its database of over 4,000 works, considering opportunities on a case-by-case basis based on legal rights, cultural, and creative relevance. He described this approach as a 'curated strategy' based on 'responsible innovation,' emphasizing that 'we view AI as one of many tools to enhance, localize, or reimagine existing content, always maintaining transparency, restraint, and respect for the audience.'
As AI technology continues to advance, finding a way to effectively leverage technological advantages while protecting creators' rights will become an important issue for the global entertainment industry.
'Indian producer re-releases film, unilaterally changing the ending with AI! Original director: a breach of creative ethics.' This article was first published in 'Decrypt City.'