Not even out of morbid curiosity.

I grew up with the books and movies; the two might as well be the same thing to me. I love them both, albeit for different reasons. But ultimately, as much as I do love the movies, they are entities that cannot and will not exist without the books beside them.

So, to answer your question, Potter can't have a life beyond the novels. Potter is the novels. The movies aren't their own thing. Or, to boil it down even more, Potter is Rowling. A film that isn't based on her material isn't worth making.

And even if Rowling wrote the screenplay herself, recasting most of the supporting cast would make a distracting film with a totally different feel. Could you imagine a different actor as Snape? Or Neville? (Well, maybe you could, but I couldn't). I feel like it would change the tone of the film somehow; it would make it feel cheaper, like a low-rent sequel made years later as a cash-grab. Even if the budget was almost as large as Deathly Hallows 2.

So, no. I would not see that movie.

no, absolutely not

Round 2
JK Rowling has confirmed having provided the story and worked closely with Steve Kloves on a ninth film about Harry Potter, post-Hogwarts, to be followed by a novelization. Alfonso Cuarón will direct, and the whole cast is on board, with a couple of minor exceptions. The story is one Rowling says occurred to her as a "natural extension" of the series before starting Deathly Hallows and involves Harry's tracking down the remaining minions of V across Europe which leads him back to uncover an astonishing secret at Hogwart's, and reputedly ends with him taking a position at the school. Budget is equal to that of Deathly Hallows 2.

You've been busy and the details have been kept quiet, but initial reviews are good. It's called Harry Potter and the Keys of Marinus or some such.

Are you in or out?

I think the problem here is, it's too soon. People have been awash in Potter books and movies for a decade or two. Give people, even hard core fans, an excuse to say "no more!" and I think they'd have a good chance of doing it. Now, ask the question in five years, when people have had time to suffer Potter withdrawal, or think to themselves, "I wonder what other stories could be told...", and maybe there will be a market.

This is just spitballing. I'll take that as an "interested". 

I don't think you can wait much. It'll take two to three years to get it on screen as it is. The adult cast will start retiring / "retiring" with great rapidity, and the young cast won't stay cute forever.

Which is why any sequels would probably be about their kids. It is, after all, a story about a school. You need school age characters. So, time isn't a factor as everyone can be replaced.

Yes, absolutely, to either option.

Frankly, I've always considered the movies a pale imitation of the books.  So pale, in fact, that they are usually less than enjoyable experiences, because as I'm watching them I'm seeing somewhat the same story I'm familiar with but with none of the magic of the books.

Now, if I'd seen the films without reading the books, I'd probably think they were okay.  Likewise, I'd be WAY more excited for a brand new Potter story independent of a book than I was for the movies (of which I haven't seen the last two).  Without needing to be shackled to a very long book, they could build a Potter story made SPECIFICALLY to be a film, and tell a good FILM story.  And since it wouldn't be a story told masterfully in a book and then adapted as best they could into a movie, it would be fresh, and we'd all be hearing the story for the first time.

Honestly, I'd be tremendously excited and would bet money the product would be better than the "book" films.

Your apparent pleasure in making everyone crave the impossible is perverse.

So in it should be illegal.

I'll take that as an "interested".

I strongly think that there will be more Harry Potter material, especially a movie. There's just so much of the wizarding world outside of Hogwarts to explore and SO MUCH MONEY on the table. Seriously, could YOU resist $1 BILLION for the sake of maintaining the artistic integrity of a some children's novels?

I do think the result would fall somewhere between round 1 and round 2. No way Rowling has been planning a secret epilog, but I don't think it would be half-assed either.

Think of the trailer: Hedwig flying ... leaves swirling ... the familiar music, but with a darker tone ... Ginny looking worried ... a scream ... McGonagall: "Something evil has come to Hogwarts" ... flashes of death eaters ... martial music ... Hermione trapped and screaming "Ron!" ... Ron peering boldly in a doorway with his wand lit. ... A first year with a Defence Against the Dark Arts book, addressing an adult: "Professor Potter?" ... Fade to black ... fade up on Harry to Hermione: "Our work isn't finished." ... a slamming door.

Oh hell to the yes.

Sure, but Marty McFly didn't attend Time High and buy his hoverboard in Futuristic Alley and keep his golden hours and silver minutes in Zemeckis Bank and play timeball and get bothered by a time elf and nearly get his soul sucked out by time dementors and sneak into the Ministry of Time....

Potter's world is just a whole lot richer, and very little of it has been explored.

Oh, and thanks a lot....

For anyone interested, I wrote a detailed outline/brief treatment that I think would work for a ninth Harry Potter movie.

Harry Potter and the Temblor Bell (PDF)

Note: I've broken it down the same way I broke down all the Potter movies for study (5 minute chunks); if my estimates are accurate, it clocks in at 145 minutes.