After an auspicious start, J. J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek movie series soon found fan opinion and box office takings in decline, how and why did the franchise's fortunes shift so dramatically? Star Trek movies have always been a fickle beast in terms of success; there's even a famous pattern that suggests the odd-numbered films are always terrible. Certainly, there have been ups and downs over the years, both in terms of critical reaction and profitability, but Trek has a knack of striking back from adversity with renewed vigor, as demonstrated by the gulf between Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath Of Khan.

Another stirring renaissance occurred when J. J. Abrams took the reins for 2009's Star Trek movie reboot. After Nemesis flopped in 2002, The Next Generation's time on the big screen came to a natural conclusion, but Patrick Stewart's stepping back from the franchise highlighted a distinct lack of potential replacements, with the contemporary TV incarnation (Star Trek: Enterprise) not proving popular enough for a cinematic outing. Finally, at the turn of the decade, Abrams was charged with recasting the original Enterprise cast fronted by the charismatic James T. Kirk for a reset of the franchise.

Related: Star Trek Movie & TV Timeline: Original Series, Kelvin & Discovery

At the beginning of 2020, however, that once-promising new dawn for Star Trek is about as responsive as a red-shirt 30 minutes after beaming down to an alien planet. Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond failed to capitalize on the first film's success, leaving the future of the franchise uncertain After years in limbo and several false starts, a new Star Trek film is in development under Noah Hawley, but it remains unclear whether this project is the fourth entry in Abrams' rebooted series or something else entirely. But how did Star Trek on the big screen find itself in this predicament?

Why 2009's Star Trek Reboot Movie Was Such A Success

Spock and Kirk in Star Trek 2009

To understand what went wrong for Star Trek movies over the past decade, it's important to understand why Abrams' 2009 effort worked so well. Perhaps the strongest aspect of the film was how Abrams managed to simultaneously craft a reboot and a continuation of the established 43-year story. Admittedly, the time travel mechanic isn't without its faults and wasn't to everyone's taste, but it succeeded in giving Star Trek the freedom to move outside of its own narrative boundaries, while still anchoring the new cast to a world fans were already familiar with. The presence of Leonard Nimoy gave the fresher faces legitimacy and acted as a key selling point for the more casual mainstream audience.

Another key ingredient was Abrams' cast itself, and the chemistry that was instantly forged between the modern Enterprise crew. In Pine, Quinto, Urban, Saldana, Pegg, Cho and Yelchin, Abrams had a group that naturally endeared itself to audiences by feeling fresh, but simultaneously paying homage to their original characters. There was an unavoidable novelty in seeing the Enterprise, the characters and the Star Trek universe given a shiny new coat of paint, but when that awe faded, there was plenty of substance for the audience to enjoy too. The classic characters were developed with the kind of emotional layers modern movie audiences expect from the off, but still respected what came before.

Fans and critics were quick to praise Abrams' new Star Trek, and the gig arguably landed him a job on the other side of the science-fiction divide. The 2009 reboot gave a whole new generation the perfect entry point to a storied, often "uncool" franchise, and even the old guard were mostly satisfied. Financially, 2009's Star Trek performed strongly domestically and worldwide, outdoing previous franchise releases. Everyone was happy, and things couldn't possibly go wrong...

Related: How Gene Roddenberry Lost Control Of Star Trek

Star Trek Into Darkness Shouldn't Have Been A Wrath Of Khan Cover

Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan and Zachary Quinto as Spock in Star Trek Into Darkness

Things started to go wrong as soon as a story concept for Star Trek Into Darkness was settled upon. As discussed above, the beauty of 2009's Star Trek is that it connects the new cast to the established fictional universe but then sets the Enterprise free, unrestricted from past canon thanks to the creation of a whole new timeline. Chris Pine and co. could go on all sorts of adventures and not have to worry about sticking to the story structure of the original series. Having worked to create this freedom, the Star Trek sequel ended up being a partial remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

There was certainly a novelty in seeing an updated version of Khan, even with the misguided casting of Benedict Cumberbatch, but Star Trek Into Darkness' reliance on key story beats from its 1982 counterpart didn't allow the fledgling franchise to stand on its own feet. Established fans were left with a sense that they were watching one giant Easter egg, while newbies were wondering what the fuss was all about when Benedict Cumberbatch started dramatically shouting his character's name. An entertaining 2 hours Star Trek Into Darkness may well be on first watch, and reviews upon release were also mostly positive, but retrospective opinion on the sequel has soured hugely in the years since. This may be because the Khan novelty wears off with repeat viewings, and the weaknesses of the story (Kirk's miraculous survival, Spock and Uhura's odd breakup, the Alice Eve scene) come to the fore more readily.

Star Trek Into Darkness earned more money than its predecessor worldwide but still fell somewhat below expectations. The stunted box office wasn't helped by the entire marketing campaign resting solely on Cumberbatch's villain and pretending that he wasn't playing Khan when everyone could plainly tell that he was playing Khan. The J. J. Abrams 'Mystery Box' trope struck hard for the Star Trek sequel.

Star Trek Beyond Had No Hook

Sofia Boutella

Despite the negative reevaluation endured by Star Trek Into Darkness, the film's box office performance more than warranted a third outing for the Enterprise, but the threequel's fortunes were mirrored. Taking on board the criticisms aimed at its predecessor, Star Trek Beyond brought a simplified story to the table; a straightforward, fun, adventure romp from a renowned action director that felt more like an extended, modernized episode of the original series than the high-concept expansive mysteries of Abrams. As a result, Star Trek Beyond was more streamlined and less reliant on the past than Star Trek Into Darkness (although still not regarded as highly as 2009's effort) but, on this occasion, it was the box office that suffered.

Related: How Star Trek Fans Reacted To Spock's Death (Badly)

Although this poor performance can be partly attributed to the failings of Star Trek Into Darkness, marketing a Star Trek movie as a run-of-the-mill sci-fi action adventure was never going to be a strong enough hook to bring in casual fans, and also served to deter some more passionate followers who prefer Trek at its more cerebral. Star Trek Beyond, regardless of quality, struggled to get patrons into theaters. Star Trek 2009 had the novelty of the reboot, Star Trek Into Darkness had Khan (a hook, for better or worse) but nothing in Star Trek Beyond's marketing felt must-see. Unfortunately, this failure all but killed off the franchise, as Paramount desperately tried to force a Chris Hemsworth return, lost their Captain Kirk, received a random pitch from Quentin Tarantino, and then lost their appointed director, S. J. Clarkson. With so much chaos and no guarantee of profit, the whole thing was put into suspended animation. Exactly what Star Trek will look like upon its reanimation remains to be seen.

More: Star Trek 4 Has Some Big Hurdles To Overcome