pixar animated?.......no worries on aging

No.

if they do it...it'd be a very long time. It sure as hell wouldn't be a reboot. It'd be remaking the series of books into film. I can see them just rereleasing them in the future...again after a long time.

I'm not a fan of these films (except Azkaban...Cuaron is great), they're good films..just not my bag.

They'll do it as a Broadway musical and eventually make the musical into a movie.

Pretty much this. As long as Rowling is alive I don't think it will happen.

That's the big difference. Heck, there's no comic series or anything because Rowling has reportedly refused. Superhero properties, like others have said, have a long history of work-for-hire creators reinventing and tweaking the characters (see the DC universe right now) and they are largely controlled by the corporations (though there is an ongoing dispute about Superboy). Musicals are done by different casts all the time, so I guess it's more natural for there to be different movies based on them. Then you have the "remakes" that really, really change the IP and just keep the same or similar name (this happens a lot with old TV shows becoming movies... isn't there a 21 Jumpstreet movie coming out?), and that's just a way to cash in on an old IP.

Stuff like HP or LOTR is a pretty close adaptation of the books they're based on as well.

The only way a reboot happens is if J.K. Rowling agrees to it. She has creative control as part of her contract.

Based on what I've heard about her I don't expect to see a reboot in her lifetime. She's very happy with the movies as they are, and they will continue to sell well for years to come.

Having said all that I still haven't seen any of the HP movies, although I did buy the first three on blu ray for my daughter. I'll watch them sooner or later...

I'd rather see a mini-series that actually shows the stuff that happens in the books, not 25% of the books.

How can they possibly make a Harry Potter reboot, when they're practically making sequels to original Harry Potter franchise approximately every year?

Because it's over now. These are studios so obsessed with "franchises" that even if a comic book franchise in the making disappoints, they'll try again in a few years (Hulk, Green Lantern).

I don't see any need for a "reboot" for 20 years or more. And while I would like to see Pixar take on a licensed property some time, this ain't it. It's at least a 10-year commitment to do them all, and I certainly don't want to see Pixar doing that instead of a variety of movies.

As I was reading the books, I felt that this would be a good way to tell the story. But it would have to be a series -- way too much to cram into movies. For what it's worth, I was never really impressed with the books.

I don't know that it is a matter of the author's lifespan ... somebody asked why superhero movies keep getting "re-booted." It really has to do with the studio retaining rights to the characters. Superhero movies get rebooted so that studios do not lose the rights. I don't know if there is one, but if there is a clause, I could see WB coming up with something (spin-off, reboot) so they do not lose the rights to the characters in the Potter-verse.

WB owns DC, so they will never lose the rights to make anything in the DC universe. Batman got rebooted because there was nowhere else to go with the franchise after Batman & Robin. Superman is in the same boat. Spider-Man is a bit different being a Marvel property, but they aren't making a new film to maintain the rights as much as they are to make money. The original creative forces from the Spider-Man trilogy didn't want to continue, so Sony decided to start fresh.

The retaining rights thing is more what you saw in the early 90s with the horrible Captain America and Fantastic Four movies. Cheap flicks made simply to retain the rights, not big budget affairs.

As for Harry Potter, it's too soon to tell. We're talking about a property that didn't even exist 15 years ago. The books were big with the kids that grew up with them, but will they have standing and popularity with future generations? There won't be new books, so the franchise will have to stand as it is now.

I can't see the films being redone for decades, if ever.

I'd love to see them do a spin-off series. Maybe something like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern with a couple side characters and the original storyline happening in the background. Malfoy's two stooges (Crabbe & Goyle) would be perfect.

How popular was The Lord of the Rings in say 1998 or 1999 when negotiations for such a risky endeavor was most likely being discussed?

Honest to God, as a college freshman at that time, I had no idea what The Lord of the Rings was and had never heard of a Hobbit. The series was 50 years old by that time. It was still a younger audience that went to those films.

If made well and, more importantly, marketed well, it probably doesn't matter if the book series is still popular 20 or 30 years ago.

Except that Rowling has complete control over this property. She signs off on practically everything. She probably has more control over Harry Potter than any other author has over their work.

The big difference there is that a live-action LOTR film had never been made. There was a lot of anticipation for something that was thought to be unfilmable. Another HP series would be seen as a remake.

True.