I wish I could be as optimistic as you, Seth, but let's face it: the chances aren't good.
Sci-fi/fantasy/superhero franchises traditionally turn to crap by the third movie or so, then die a horrible death one or two movies after that. As for the Bond comparison, I'm not sure that inspires me; I happen to think the Bond movies stink and always have.
You guys are forgetting 2 villians I think could work really well on film 2 of my favs - Scorpion and The Vulture (I always preferred the old man version)
I thought the plan was for 6 films. Kirsten did say shes out after 3 but $$$ talks. With Sam and Tobey on for 4, I wouldnt be suprised to see Kirsten stay.If she doesnt they can always go on with out her.
I actually preferred when she wasnt around in the comics.
It's not impossible to consider. Initially, the Salkinds had envisioned somewhere between 7-10 "Superman" films with Christopher Reeve in the role. Of course, we all know fully well what happened there.
Then, of course, there's the "Zatoichi" (sp?) series from Japan, with at least 27 films in that series (not counting the TV series or the recent remake).
But realistically, as for a planned series of films, the sequel should be as good as the first one in order to sustain the life of the series. If there's more "Spider-Man" films in the works, I'll be happy with them, as long as the quality is maintained from the original and the new sequel. If not, it could easily go by the wayside big time - can we all say "Batman and Robin"?
Batman and Superman suffered because the directors changed. If Raimi sticks onto this for the long run, who knows what could happen. Back-to-back shooting is the best bet, IMHO. If they do LOTR-like filming and kill three birds with one stone, they could have Dunst on for 3, 4, and 5. Or, they could go onto unprecented ground and shoot all 7 at once.