Jakku = Tatooine

Either way, whatever role you consider "canon" to play in this, I think Darth Holmes' original point was this:

There is a campaign set specifically on Tatooine in which you are able to witness a Star Destroyer being destroyed and crashing to the surface of the planet.
There is a campaign set specifically on Jakku in which you are able to witness a Star Destroyer being destroyed and crashing to the surface of the planet.

So if part of your "evidence" for Jakku = Tatooine was that, in this game you see a downed Star Destroyer on Tatooine - just like you see one on Jakku in the second teaser trailer - you can now scratch that from your list.
I don't doubt for a second that EA were inspired to include this visually striking game mechanic after seeing the imagery created for TFA. But that's about as deep as it goes if you ask me...

 

Thank you.

 

honestly, i'm surprised this thread has 25 pages. wasn't it put to rest a while ago that Tatooine and Jakku are two separate planets? i don't understand what's fueling the debate at this point; does someone honestly think that Battlefront is pretending to have more levels when really it's all just one planet the whole time? that doesn't seem like smart marketing to this guy...

 

I just don't get why they would create a new planet, a seemingly very important planet, and have it be a desert planet.

Seems unnecessarily confusing.

 

Well its not as unnecessarily confusing as renaming a planet that's for sure.

I suspect the more we see of Jakku, the more it will differentiate itself from Tatooine. We've only seen a few glimpses in the teasers after all. Who knows what the rest of the planet looks like. It may even turn out to have the rumored Savannah environment.

 

As far as the Star Destroyer going down during the BF trailer, the creators of the game said I believe on IGN it has to do with the momentum of the battle. So I guess theoretically it could happen on every planet.

 

Look at the landscape, it's way different.

 

Just messing

 

The argument that having two different planets covered by sand would confuse someone actually cancels itself out.

Anyone casual enough to have knowledge of the Star Wars movies so far but not know the name Tatooine is either going to pick up on the name Jakku when they watch the new movie, or they are not. Either way, it is just going to be "that desert planet out of the Star Wars movies" again for someone that casual. And either way, that is not going to confuse them.
Which is why the argument just loops back on itself down.

Misunderstanding a film is not the same as being confused by it.

Many people enjoy Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy and think it is about Clint Eastwood as "the man with no name" and his continuing adventures in the wild west.
Many people enjoy Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy and know it is three unrelated films with different influences set in different places in different time periods starring Clint Eastwood as three different protagonists.
Neither camp is confused by what they see. One is just misunderstood about it.

So any casual film-goer who might feel genuine confusion when faced with two different desert planets in one sci-fi fantasy film series - to the extent that they will simply reject that they could possibly be two different planets - is going to be equally confused, if not moreso, as to why they have given the same planet two different names anyway.
But "Aha" goes the argument, "but that is because it is a top secret super dooper plot point."
Well, no, because that's just circular logic again. Because you are inventing a perceived confusion, simply to prop up a plot point, the only purpose of which is to resolve the confusion which makes the plot point possible in the first place.
Whereas "Jakku is Jakku" and "Tatooine is Tatooine" is already self-evident.

 

I hoped you were cause the planets were way different, that's that matter put to rest.

 

Anyone even think that Jakku it's a total diferent planet for any reason? like, maybe it has only one Sun, have a even junkier civilization living there, and maybe even have some places with water, like little oasis, or what ever?

 

I just don't think it's unreasonable to think that, if it looks like Tatooine, it could be Tatooine. What JJ says about it doesn't matter. He's a trickster.
I'm in too deep now. I think the only thing that can save me now is if they're on Jakku and then hop in a ship and jump to Tatooine.

Edit: And even then, I'll just say they turned around.

 

Just posted by SWU: http://www.starwarsunderworld.com/2015/06/the-downed-star-destroyer-in.html

So, hopefully this puts to rest the Jakku=Tatooine (at least when it comes to SW:Battlefront that is).

""We have a concept we call Battle Beyond," Bach told IGN, "The cool thing with this is it's actually part of the player feedback. So depending on which side is winning or losing, these events actually change."
The atmosphere around the battle reflects the success of those on the ground. When the Rebel Alliance is dominating on that particular Tatooine map, part of the visual representation of their success is a flaming Star Destroyer sinking into the surface of the planet. Each map will feature appropriate and different means of communicating the state of the battle for each side.
Bach explained, "It's what you usually do in a UI, you make it bluntly obvious. It's slowly hinting at who's winning, and I think it's a brilliant concept to give you the information and emotion you need to understand or change your plans.... You don't need a gauge blinking. It's part of the world.""

 

Good find...but, obviously this is how I'm going to interpret this....Ok, here we go...Why is Tatooine the only planet to get a crashed Star Destroyer? eh? eh?

"When the Rebel Alliance is dominating on that particular Tatooine map, part of the visual representation of their success is a flaming Star Destroyer sinking into the surface of the planet. Each map will feature appropriate and different means of communicating the state of the battle for each side."
​

They're saying that a crashing SD is "appropriate" to the Tatooine map. Why? Maybe because Tatooine, in canon, will have a crashed SD. I'm inferring, of course.
Like most people, I usually see what I want to see.

But if there is, in fact, a Tatooine cover-up, this doesn't disproove anything. Maybe just adds more fule to the fire. Which is what that tricky JJ wants! Misdirection. We're over here talking about Tatooine, while JJ is keeping all the important stuff well hidden.

 

Sweet baby Jesus.

 

What has shook up your darkside emotions pal?

 

What's a diagonal up? I can't find this thing...