I saw the original post on Reddit for this awhile back. It seems the video author didn't link to the original for some reason, so:
https://www.reddit.com/comments/3qvj6w(I didn't actually watch the video, so apologies if their take is different!).
Anyway, see Elf; it's a cool
thought, and unlike many fan theories isn't actually inconsistent with what we see, but it's still a long ways away from a "decent chance." The problem is that even taking Episode 1 in isolation, on its own merits, before the fan backlash to Jar-Jar ocurred... Jar-Jar
already fits this Lucasian archetype. He's the comic relief, kid-friendly outsider whom everyone underestimates but somehow turns out to be a helpful good guy. Now, the *execution* is awful for Jar-Jar, much worse than C-3P0, but there's no need to layer further plot twists upon this. There is one argument that could be used...
Unfortunately that would have taken George Lucas to have some balls as a storyteller which has never really been the case.
as Zenny notes it assigns Lucas a sort of storytelling chutzpah that we've seen no evidence of otherwise.
Now this I won't let stand. Lucas has gigantic brass balls, for good & ill. Some of the problems in the prequels were surely due to nobody being able to say 'no' to Lucas anymore, probably! And don't confuse "Lucas is completely ripping off The Hero's Journey and all his favorite films" with lack of courage, Lucas showed some real art to pastiche'ing it up right. And similarly, Lucas showed some real courage in some of his stranger plot arc decisions in the prequels... just they didn't actually pan out to quality. (Let's make the Sith about getting in touch with your feelings!)
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cover_story/2015/12/star_wars_is_a_pastiche_how_george_lucas_combined_flash_gordon_westerns.html is a long but decent article, if you're curious.
Going back to the above, there
are two famous examples from the original Star Wars of plot twists that spanned movies and retroactively messed with the understanding of the previous film(s)... a certain revelation about what really happened to Luke's father, and the nature of the friendly relationship between Luke & Leia. Two twists that the original Star Wars was very clearly made without any reference to or knowledge of. It's worth remembering how shocking this apparently was Back In The Day - the default assumption after SW1 would have been "hey, male lead & female lead are obviously a couple." And while the plot twist about Luke's father might be old as dirt - the Greeks were certainly a fan - but damn if Lucas did not pull that twist out
perfectly for maximum melodrama, again in a very shocking fashion thanks to the 1 movie + 3 year delay on it. Star Wars has a bit of the same problem as Lord of the Rings: it was copied so much later that it's hard to see how daring it was at the time (despite working with all re-used components!).
Anyway, is it possible that Jar-Jar was supposed to be a plot bomb that could explode in unexpected ways, like the real history of Anakin Skywalker & Darth Vader? Maybe. But making Jar-Jar a
villain? I just don't think that'd fit the intentions. Jar-Jar was supposed to be the kid-friendly character. Why pin such a dramatic note on him? I just listened to the director's commentary on both Star Wars & Empire Strikes Back recently, and it included comments like cutting a scene that showed Han's torture in more detail & had him screaming because they wanted to still have the movie somewhat tolerable to kids - the implication would be just as dark for the adults. The equivalent from the original trilogy was C-3P0 being revealed to be some kind of murderous killbot. That would be more "dumb" than "operatic". You get a one-time shocking twist, but that's it. Far more likely that Jar-Jar was intended for more zany, underestimated comic relief, and hell, maybe he even would become some kind of secret Jedi. That's my take, anyway.
