‘Hurting children is just unnecessarily frowned upon’: Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds pitch R-rated ‘Harry Potter’ remake

There’s nothing the combined powers of Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman can’t do.

They may even be able to save the MCU — even after years of disappointing and downright depressing releases — with their incoming collaboration on Deadpool & Wolverine. What’s more, they’ve got their sights set on another dazzling endeavor next — even we, J.K. Rowling detractors, may not be able to resist the allure of a Hugh Jackman-led Harry Potter revival.

The pair pitched their idea for a thoroughly unexpected and expressly violent take on the once-treasured series, and the appeal is undeniable. It all came about due to a simple, but hilariously accurate, premise, in which they were asked their opinions on the assertion that “Daniel Radcliffe could do Wolverine, but Hugh Jackman could not do Harry Potter.”

Both halves of the iconic pair are briefly stumped by the prompt, but Jackman quickly throws his lot into the “strongly agree” camp. He’s initially dead-set on a Hugh-less Harry Potter — noting that, while he’s certainly “good,” playing a “12-year-old school boy is going to be a struggle” — but starts to come around at Reynolds’ urging.

Initially labeling a roided-out Boy Who Lived as “disturbing,” Reynolds quickly gets on board with the idea. Sure, he may have an impressive chest of hair for a prepubescent protag, but there’s no denying the appeal of a “middle-aged, ultra-ripped angry fu**ing Harry Potter being told to get to his little wizarding class.”

What started as a dismissal quickly turned into a stellar pitch for the only Harry Potter remake this world needs. A shockingly violent, starkly aggressive peek into the darker corners of Harry’s mind? I couldn’t possibly be more in, and it seems Jackman is in the same boat.

He even has some ideas for how to ramp up the action nice and early on. Shifting the focus to those eye-catching Quidditch matches, Jackman notes that there’s no need to “go through five movies before we kill people off.” Instead, “five minutes, one game” into the action, a Jackman-led Harry Potter project could see “19 dead,” easily.

Even Ron isn’t safe in this gristly reimagined Harry Potter universe, and honestly, the concept slaps. It would certainly be far more interesting than another rehash of the same story — they did great the first time around, why do we need more? — and Hugh’s promise to “f**k some of those kids up” is simply too enticing to look past.

There are so many plot potentials. Who needs wands when a hairy, 6-foot-something Australian can simply beat the darkness straight out of some Death Eaters? Somehow I can’t help but imagine that Draco would have been a bit more hesitant to get in Harry’s way if he had rippling muscles and a wry, violent smile staring him down.

Some starkly unpopular casting choices have been made in the past — and even in the original Harry Potter movies (Gary Oldman? Really?) — but this would no doubt not be among them. A Reddit breakdown of atrocious casting decisions lists cinema sins like Topher Grace in Spider-Man 3 and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, but no casting decision could ever be worse than the insane decision to tap Russell Crowe for Les Mis. Someone deserved to get fired over that one.

But no one — not a soul — would lose their job over the strange but brilliant decision to cast my heart’s one and only Wolverine in a Harry Potter movie. Would it be insane to see a 55-year-old man play a prepubescent wizard? Sure. Would it also be the greatest cinematic risk ever taken? Also yes. So count me right on in, boys — Hairy Potter is an absolute go.