Attack on Titan’s creator shares regrets about the anime’s divisive conclusion in recent comments.
Some protagonists remain steadfast in their desires, while others are shaped by their environments. Eren Yeager from Attack on Titan embodies both of these dynamics. His character is a product of both nature and nurture, with his rage against an unjust world driving his tragic path.
Eren’s transformation from a doomed hero to a full-fledged villain is one of the most captivating elements of Hajime Isayama’s Attack on Titan. However, Isayama’s recent comments about the series’ conclusion raise some intriguing questions about his intentions, as highlighted in a block print at the Attack on Titan Museum in Hita City, Oita Prefecture. Here’s what Isayama had to say:
“Eren became a protagonist who committed mass slaughter on a scale rarely seen in other works of fiction. My initial goal was to craft a narrative with a significant twist—where the victim turns into the perpetrator.
A significant part of this was my own immaturity and foolishness during my early twenties. This aspect became central to Eren’s character, leading to a point where he confesses not as someone coerced into wrongdoing by circumstances, but as someone who harbored a desire to inflict harm.
However, Attack on Titan had long ceased to be solely my creation, and Eren evolved into a character beloved by many readers. Ultimately, without fully committing to portraying him as a detestable figure, I found myself depicting him with a degree of closeness and sympathy. Consequently, I feel there’s a lingering sense of insincerity in the story’s conclusion—at least from my perspective.”
Isayama’s reflections may have been partly shaped by the backlash to the original ending of Attack on Titan, which some fans deemed “rushed.” In response, Isayama added eight extra pages to the final chapter to provide additional context, develop character arcs, and deliver a more satisfying conclusion to this epic tale. While this extended ending was generally well-received, it remains a topic of debate. Given the weight of Eren’s actions in this final chapter, it’s understandable for Isayama to reconsider the motivations that shaped such an iconic character.
Despite Isayama’s reservations, Eren stands out as a richly complex villain. The “sympathy” he refers to adds depth to the narrative. Eren didn’t emerge with the intent to annihilate 80% of humanity; rather, this twisted ambition stemmed from trauma-induced radicalization.
The conflict between who Eren might have been and who he ultimately became in Attack on Titan infuses the story with emotional depth. It also solidifies Eren’s status as a well-crafted character. While Isayama’s notion of “insincerity” could have been addressed through a more brutal examination of Eren’s moral decline, such an approach risked reducing a multi-dimensional character to a simplistic archetype.
