From deadline.com:
„Paramount’s Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One at 3,911 theaters saw a third Saturday of $4.3M , +48% from Friday’s $2.9M for a third weekend of $10.65M , -45%, for a running total of $139.1M . In its first 19 days, the Tom Cruise pic is pacing 7% behind Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny , that pic’s current gross at end of weekend 5 at $167M. Realize Indy launched on a Friday and Mission on a Wednesday.“
I think the future of the franchise could be more uncertain than we think. No doubt there will be close attention as to how Part Two fares, which hopefully has a better release window. And even if the team go around again it’s not always straight away. Tom has the Space X project and probably other projects he’d be interested in getting off the ground, which adds years to him and everyone else. A lot can change in the story and dynamic by the time they’re ready for another Mission. There’s a scenario where Part Two could end up being the last hurrah.
Which, I think, would be fine as well.
I don´t expect all those part 2´s, 3´s, 4´s to really capture audiences anymore, they all reap diminishing returns lately. It might take studios a lot longer to realize this, but the more original projects work the better.
And really, how many impossible missions can Ethan Hunt make possible? How much more emotional can he be invested?
Nicely put. Setting a high bar for this week’s commentariat.
Bond has done it twenty-five times over.
But not the same Bond 
Your question was, How many can ‘Ethan Hunt’ make? Does it have to be the same Hunt?
I think so.
Ethan Hunt is associated with Cruise, just like Indiana Jones with Harrison Ford or Rocky with Sylvester Stallone. Recasting would be tricky.
So it would have to be another character. But which usp would that character have?
I believe the Mission movies only went on after part 3 because of Cruise doing his insane stunts for real. But even that seems to have run its course (at the box office).
Oh for the love of all things holy; as was recasting Connery in the 60’s tricky, but that seemed to survive ok.
One won’t know until one does it. But, in the fullness of time, Indy and Rocky will be recast.
There is precedence. So, to answer your question, ‘Ethan Hunt’ can make as many missions possible as he wants.
This is it for me. Bond is engrained into the public consciousness as a tradition and it has been established for six decades that new actors provide different interpretations of the same character. Bond #7 coming in after Craig was blown sky high has the potential to be the grandest example of that.
Other franchises like Mission and Bourne are tied down by continuity in ways Bond isn’t. Everything eventually reaches a conclusion, but Fleming’s creation gets to resurrect and thus always remain current. Mission really is a vehicle for Tom Cruise and I don’t think the series has the same appeal going forward without him. But while it lasts I’m having a good time.
Is Ethan Hunt as iconic as James Bond?
No. I doubt that most audiences even know the name, only „Tom Cruise in these Mission Impossible films“.
How do you recast that?
As for Indy and Rocky - yeah, they probably will recast them at some point. But will they be successful?
Nah.
Sir, that really wasn’t your initial point.
You just said it would be ‘tricky to recast Ethan Hunt’. Full stop. Not, whether it was likely, or whether the Hunt name was as iconic, or whether anything would be as successful.
With decades of recasting precedence, who knows if, as or when any of the above characters will be recast. But it simply is Not tricky to recast.
Fine with me.
I’d like the next movie to right a wrong and make the main character Jim Phelps, personally…
I can see it going the way of Ethan Hunt becoming an M like figure for a new character… like I believe they were planning for Brandt in Ghost Protocol. But therein lies the rub I fear… take away Cruise’s star power and fondness for risking his life in the name of insane stunts, and I wonder what that leaves Mission Impossible left with. I just can’t see the franchise surviving such a transition. Bond created an iconic character with iconic trademarks who battled iconic villains. Mission Impossible… didn’t., though the action is great That said, I hope they carry on a while longer, and that DR p2 is better than p1.
Exactly.
I would add as a corollary: the first Bond switch-out occurred in 1969 (only to be retconned two years later)–a time when the majority of the audience would have had experienced actor switch-outs, e.g., The Lone Ranger and Tarzan (to name two), both in their cinematic portrayals, and also in their portrayals in radio and on television.
It also is interesting that Cruise, last year applauded as the savior of the cinema with a nostalgic sequel, is not a big enough draw this year anymore with another sequel.
Once again it seems that audiences don´t go the movies anymore because of their favorite movie stars.
Sadly true.
People don’t go just for the big star names.
Take the example of people going to watch Barbie and Oppenheimer (Barbenheimer) just because it became a trend. I think most of them go just to take a selfie at the entrance without the slightest idea of who Oppenheimer was or what the Barbie movie is about.
I’m not saying M:I or Indy, for example, are better movies but the box office doesn’t really reflect they’re of worst quality in comparison with others.
Lots of factors come into play. The Fast and Furious saga being another great example. Not really the best original plots but it sells as “cool” and “trendy”.
My gf has tiktok and the amount of clips, posts, videos, snippets about Barbie and FF (at the time) is insane!
Besides a teaser, a trailer, physical marketing and critics, that is one battlefield successfull movies have to be on these days.
I would love it that whenever Tom Cruise retires or steps back to become the mission debriefer, whether in person or on voice recording, that the producers simply reboot the series with the “original” television characters–Jim Phelps, Rollin Hand, Cinnamon Carter, Barney Collier, and Willy Armitage.
At the same time, they can scale back on the over the top stunts because no one but Cruise has the ability (due to his producer power) or likely willingness to personally do them. However, they can still maintain the quality scripts and plots of the Cruise films by placing the “new” team on “impossible” missions and/or situations and have them creatively get out of them a la the CIA break-in scene in the first film or the Vatican break-in in the third film just to name a couple from the “lesser” action-oriented films.
As long as the producers put the team in solid suspenseful situations that are “impossible” to get into and/or out of, the series will continue to be a success. It may be easier said than done, but it is NOT impossible. 
At some point much earlier in this thread I proposed a very similar concept, at least in regards to Cruise’s role. Not only being debriefer but an overseer of the missions and even occasionally getting into the field personally at key points, but not as the mission lead. Your idea of reintroducing the original team is really interesting though, even if it would force them to retcon the events of the first film in the series,