Jakku = Tatooine

True, we have not seen any of these creatures, but you may be missing the point.

How much of Tatooine have we seen? Do you really think that the animals shown in one part of Tatooine are the same exact animals you will see across the entire planet? That is my point. Now, it is true that a one biome planet like Tatooine presumably has a different enivironmental dynamic than a planet like earth, but if you even look at a single environment on Earth, are there regional variations of species or can you find them throughout the environment?

If the Jakku shown in TFA is merly a different part of Tatooine, it would be a good reason to not see any of those species.

 

Unlike Earth, Tatoonie does not have oceans dividing the land masses, and based on the planetary overview it does not have similar diversity of regions, so if you're wanting to make a science based conclusion, you would actually expect to find similar large animals no matter where you went on the planet - at least in areas with temperatures capable of sustaining human life.

Of course, Tatooine is fictional so those probabilities don't apply. On the side of fiction, we have a filmmaking team that has been reusing recognizable Star Wars imagery whenever possible, so if it was Tatooine, I would have every reason to expect Jawas and Banthas to be prominently featured. Yet none have been seen even in the leaked set photos.

 

Well this is the trailer for Return of the Jedi.

You've got the Sarlacc, but that was a new creature. None of the Episode IV creatures appear in the trailer. Not to talk that if you want to create some debate between fans, it's quite easy not to show any of these creatures in two TFA trailers.

Leaked photos are another thing, and honestly is one of the most solid counter-arguments. Nonetheless, there are a lot of other things that still make me thing Jakku is Tatooine

Well that's because you think Jakku is not Tatooine but I've seen jawas in Jakku, close to the crashed Star Destroyer in Battlefront. Ah, wait, that was Tatooine! But that's the point for me

 

Ya that makes total sense, Tatooine is in Battlefront when you buy it, and Jakku will be released after as DLC, but they're really the same place!

 

This whole thing seems to stem from that crashing Star Destroyer in the background of the Tatooine scene from the Battlefront Trailer - a scene which was not taken from the game but rather built using the in-game engine - from the same trailer that depicts Vader fighting on the surface of Endor, proving its dedication to movie accuracy.

It assumes that EA, having been instructed to hold back releasing the Jakku level to avoid spoiling the movie, decided to go ahead and show the level in the trailer - because again, it was not in-game footage, it was video created to be a trailer for celebration. Which would mean that EA, in their first public demonstration since signing their contract with Lucasfilms, decided to screw them over.

It also assumes that EA was lying when they said that the scene was from Tatooine, not Jakku.

And note that the scene also shows a Sand Crawler right there next to the crashing Star Destroyer, and so (if you believe this video game trailer is movie gospel) that means that there are Jawas in the same region. So now you have explain why there were no Jawas on set.

Yet somehow all of this seems more probable to a select few of you than EA including a cool looking graphic element they had already created, because they wanted the trailer to look good.

 

I do think that scene is included in the trailer only to generate confussion and make fans talk about it (they got it!)
We are actually walking in circles with the whole discussion. I prefer to wait and see what the story of Jakku is (reason why I am not into the debate that much these days). I will check from time to time to see if you guys have come up with something new, cause as far as I am concerned I have a lack of new ideas for the moment.

Enjoy the weekend ya'll

 

Since a lot of people (including myself) are referring to the Battlefront scene to defend their points, I just wanted to bring up a few details...

The part of the Star Destroyer indicated in red is much more simplified in the Battlefront trailer than it is in TFA trailer.
There are many possible reasons for this:
1. 3d models must be overly simplified for games - however, this is the latest generation of gaming. They can do some amazing stuff these days. TFA Star Destroyer appears to have more "stuff" going on in this area - There is almost a cylindrical looking object on it and additional panels/detail.
2. It's possible that these are two totally different ships because Jakku and Tatooine may simply different planets. It is clear though that they both appear to be Imperial II-Class Star Destroyers. - but perhaps TFA ship is an updated version.

The green box indicates a part of the ship that is damaged in the TFA trailer but is not damaged in the Battlefront trailer.. again, a few reasons:
1. This could be over analyzing, but you would think that if they intentionally released these two scenes for a specific reason, and wanted to hint at the fact they are the same ship, then they would have gone through great lengths to make sure that the ships are absolutely identical.
2. On the other hand, the ship obviously isn't finished crashing yet and it could have exploded/been damaged in this spot after this scene in the Battlefront trailer.






________________________________________________________________

Another interesting point to bring up is that the Jawa sandcrawler appears to have the exact same paint blemishes that the one from ANH had. It was reported that the Battlefront team actually took photos of many of the models from the movies to use for textures for the vehicles - but there's no denying it, the paint chips/cracks/fades are almost spot on - I encourage everyone to look up these photos for themselves and compare.





I'm sure that the developers of the game aren't going to go through the trouble of making every sandcrawler unique with individual textures - even if there were sandcrawlers on a different planet. But the most logical explanation to me is that the game developers went in saying "Okay, we need textures for a sandcrawler that's going to be on Tatooine, so let's take photos of the original model from ANH". This goes to prove that the scene in Battlefront is most likely Tatooine and not a different planet.

I originally started off thinking that Tatooine was Jakku renamed - but as I've said before I'm starting to lean in the other direction. In fact, if they are different planets and if the scene in the Battlefront trailer is canon, then there was essentially a "Battle of Tatooine" - regardless of what TFA planet is... which is awesome!

 

Exactly. To be sure, no matter how we look at it it's a little lazy on their part to create an environment that is extremely similar and have it be a different place, but that seems to be the case with all the environments we've seen.

We're definitely spoiled with new and inventive locations in each film, and that's really one of the things that were really great about the prequels, all of the environments were fresh, new and had very distinctive features.

Personally, I hope that continues to be a feature with the new films, although it's understandable that they're going for a more familiar visual look, I feel grounding it too much into our real world environments is a major step back.

But with Abrams directing it doesn't surprise me, the least interesting thing about his take on Star Trek was the environments, and many of us felt that his decision to set both films so much on Earth was part of his fundamental lack of familiarity and appreciation for the series.

To be perfectly honest, the visuals we've seen in the trailer so far are lacking. Yes there's something about seeing a giant Star Destroyer crashed into Jakku's sand dunes but it feels so familiar and doesn't seem so otherwordly.

Hopefully the designers will have more free reign to go wild and create something unique and new for the other films.

 

The difference in the damage/look of the Star Destroyer can simply be explained by 30 years of sitting on the surface of an inhospitible world...not really an ideal spot for a Star Destroyer. So its slowly falling apart. Look as good in 30 years you will not.

 

Don't get technical with me!

I just thought of another possibility. Jakku sounds like it could be a Hutt name. Maybe Jakku the Hutt is Jabba's successor and has renamed the planet or a region of the planet for himself. eh? eh?

 

guys Naboo is Endor open your eyes

 

Haha. Well, yes, I am grasping...

BUT the flip side of that argument is "Why don't we just create another city-covered planet and call it something else. It'll look just like Coruscant, but it's not...that won't be confusing to the viewers"
And another thing about re-naming, which I'm sure has been discussed here already, is that cities and countries get renamed all the time. "Palpantinople" of course is a reference to Constantinople...which was Byzantium and is now Istanbul...not that far fetched in my mind, especially giving the obvious Roman Empire influence on the GFFA Empire.

That said, I definately see both sides of the argument as valid. It's just more fun over here on the Jakooine side.

 

Can't argue with the Galaxy being huge. And if I had to guess I would think that Tatooine-like planets are probably the norm, as far as habitable planets go.
But as far as people not getting confused...I don't know. I'll be confussed if they use a Tatooine clone and don't have a better reason than to distance it from previous movies...But I'm easily confussed. If it's not Tatooine, I'm sure the'll have a good reason. I guess only time will tell.

Unrelated. Remember when Luke says. "I grew up here, you know" and then Han's like, "You're gonna die here"...What if they're saving Tatooine for Luke's death to make Han's prediction true??? That would be cool, right?