Let's just hope for the best. A B-minus would do. They opened Pandora's Box when introducing or hinting to introduce TOS characters, which to many are sacrosanct. I understand the desire for ratings and why such titillation could spike them. A dangerous tightrope they walk, all the more complicated by the ST reboot franchise, alternate timelines etc. When does this series resume?

I just hope they're not from the universe of "Star Trek: The Original Series (1966-1969)", because then they'd probably change a lot of the "canon", so as to fit with the new and changed elements they've introduced in this show.

If it's J.J. Abrams' universe (Kelvin timeline), then it'd be the first tv series of those movies with the "changed" characters.

Note:

Lieutenant Commander Michael Burnham ("Star Trek: Discovery") is Spock's (adopted) sister, so I expect Spock to make an appearance.

Will there be any sibling rivalry? Or will we learn that who Spock is and what he knows is thanks to or despite of her?

Did she teach him the Vulcan nerve pinch? Are there any unresolved issues? Will he forgive her?

What is Spock's relationship with his parents? A distant father and a mother who choses Michael as her favourite over Spock?

How is Spock going to overcome all the emotional turmoil? Will he need counseling, psychotherapy and in-patient treatment?

Does Spock have any dark secrets that will be revealed?

The Enterprise , at this stage , is still under the comand of Pike ( for another 6 years ) .

So the only real character of the original series will be Spock who I believe will not make an appearance ..he'll be away for some reason .

Co-creator Alex Kurtzman is on record that season 2 will not premiere until 2019, likely because they are aware of the sensitivities of the fandom and ST canon. They want to get it right. Lame excuse IMO. 2019? Here's an article that should answer many questions. Captain Pike is the most logical TOS character to work with bridging all "universes." enter link description here

Spock was serving with Pike 13 years before TOS began, that's when the episodes of The Cage (as shown in The Menagerie, Parts 1 and 2) took place. So the best evidence is that he's still with Pike through the whole Discovery series, even allowing for time jumps. (Although when they beam down to Starbase 11 at the start of "The Menagerie" and visit Pike, Spock says that he served with Pike for less than 12 years. No explanation was ever given for the difference.)

"But you are overlooking one crucial irrefutable fact: The writing, story and characterization on STD sucks. If it didn't people would be so hung up on the details."

There is no accounting for taste. You think the writing, story and characterization in DSC sucks, I disagree....profoundly!

I think what I saw in the first season is some of the best movie writing EVER seen on tv. Your use of the STD abbreviation suggests a clear bias ( no other series is referred to as STE or STNG or STDS9) However, if you want to take a clear unbiased look at the series I invite you to review the Episode " Magic to make the Sanest Man go mad" again. Using the well worn groundhog day structure, this episode is absolutely brilliant. It is original; touching; surprising informative about the crew, ship and themes of Star Trek; it is funny and tells an age old story and great to watch and re-watch.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with me, you probably have no idea what I am talking about, I just HOPE you MIGHT be curious to find out.

@Thespear said:

"But you are overlooking one crucial irrefutable fact: The writing, story and characterization on STD sucks. If it didn't people would be so hung up on the details."

There is no accounting for taste. You think the writing, story and characterization in DSC sucks, I disagree....profoundly!

I think what I saw in the first season is some of the best movie writing EVER seen on tv. Your use of the STD abbreviation suggests a clear bias ( no other series is referred to as STE or STNG or STDS9) However, if you want to take a clear unbiased look at the series I invite you to review the Episode " Magic to make the Sanest Man go mad" again. Using the well worn groundhog day structure, this episode is absolutely brilliant. It is original; touching; surprising informative about the crew, ship and themes of Star Trek; it is funny and tells an age old story and great to watch and re-watch.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with me, you probably have no idea what I am talking about, I just HOPE you MIGHT be curious to find out.

I didn't like that episode in particular - and for his previous appearance too - because I thought they weren't true to Harry Mudd.

Then again, in general, I'm not convinced that "movie writing" is ever really suitable for TV, and vice versa.

As regards the abbreviation, none of US named it "Star Trek: Discovery." The Original Series is widely known as ST:TOS. The Next Generation is referred to as ST:TNG. Deep Space Nine is ST:DS9 (or occasionally DSN). Voyager is STV or just Voyager. What would you have people refer to Star Trek: Discovery as? Just D?

In an old episode of The Simpsons, there's a bit where Homer and Marge are trying to think of a name for just-born or soon-to-be-born Bart. Marge comes up with a few options, which Homer dismisses by pointing out that changing the first letter a little turns it into an insult or something. Then Marge suggests "Bart." Homer says "Hmmm, let's see. Bart, Cart, Dart, Eart. Nope, no problems there!"

Understand?

Apparently the creators of ST:D didn't.

Shall we hence abbreviate in line with TOS,TAS,TNG,DS9,VOY,ENT call Discovery DIS ?Would make sense and gets rid off the negative sounding STD ? Everybody happy.Plus it seems the production of season 2 has come into some heavy weather with the firing of Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts ,and also I read that Kurzman was being replaced by James Duff and other changes in the shows management and the announcement of three or four new Star Trek series (one is to feature Patrick Stewart reprising his role as Picard ,and probably with some additional crew of the old TNG cast,another is going to be about Khan,and we still have the Nicholas Meyer "Anthology series")gives me the impression that it looks like DISC season 2 is in production Hell and CBS has destined it to die a silent death.Ad to that ,that the rights of both the TV shows and the movies are back to one company owning the entire IP of Trek ,and which at first was one of the main reasons DISC looked so different and felt almost unrelated to the franchise.

Some people took the "accidental" naming of ST:D as a kind of sign, or portent, and maybe it was correct after all.

Predict, prophecy, foretell...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3moY-LkNdcs

CBS heads should roll for taking so damn long for Season 2. I was in marketing at CBS at one time. The idea of CBS All Access was to expand their audience base to streaming internet with direct revenue coming from subscribers, in addition to ad revenue. There is simply no excuse for so much time to pass between seasons. They will undoubtedly lose a portion of audience that have moved on to other product. Star Trek as a franchise is being deluded and execs are taking for granted the automatic demo for the franchise. "Discovery" should have been their first priority as the tentpole for CBS All Access and they are screwing it up.

@SkyPowers said:

"Discovery" should have been their first priority as the tentpole for CBS All Access...

I think that was clearly their intent. But it didn't work out very well, even to start with. It doesn't sound like they ever got even a large fraction of the viewership/membership they were expecting. So then maybe someone started saying "That? Our tentpole? Naaaawww!" Just to cover their own ass.

Or Knixon... you could simply refer to the show as DSC which is what those who want to suggest an appearance of neutrality do: TOS, TNG, VOY, ENT, DS9and DSC. Somehow you insist on the prefix ST ONLY for DSC...hence STD.

Anyway, I noticed you failed to address the main thrust of my comments which is that contrary to the opinion you expressed, DSC is a series that has exemplary writing, characterization, visuals and superior story telling. I gave the example of 'MTMTSMGM' This leads me to believe you either have not seen that episode (perhaps have not seen ANY full episode) or you HAVE seen it and some of the others, but missed ALL of the things I pointed out.

I believe the latter is more likely. I would hate to think you would take to the internet to decry something you have little independent 1st hand knowledge of. Maybe the series DSC is just not for you. I recently re- watched some of "The Orville" It is a fine show, for what it does but what it does not do is offer ANY depth or artistic vision. I think TO is to DSC as a McDonald's happy meal is to a proper 5 course dinner. They both have their uses and proper context. When I want to hear cheap one liners and see idiotic, childish and comic behavior I watch TO. When I am in the mood to be entertained, surprised and enjoy something someone has put A LOT of THOUGHT into...I will dial up DSC.

It might just be that the creators of DSC are taking their time to get things right in season 2. I was not disappointed by the fresh perspective that gave us of Star Trek in season 1, I can wait for season 2 .

The ST prefix is typically omitted when in context where everyone already knows what it means. Here, for example. But as previous indicated, that would mean referring to Star Trek: Discovery as just D. Which doesn't make sense even here.

I go back to the idea that the "accidental" naming was more portent than fluke.

I have seen the episodes. Which is why I say that they didn't do right by the Mudd character. And I disagree about the writing etc, in general at least in terms of Star Trek. If they had been making a brand new show, I could have a different opinion there. But THEY decided to call it Star Trek. Regardless of how "deep" the writing may be - and whether or not I agree - it just doesn't fit with Star Trek as it's already known. And the visuals, while pretty, are also out of place for where/when the show is supposed to be set. Enterprise, for all its myriad other problems, did a much better job of presenting an earlier/less-advanced ship using more modern technology and effects. What's the point of claiming that Enterprise did something that Discovery didn't/couldn't, other than acknowledging yet another failure of Discovery?

The Orville definitely has more humor than even TOS did, but I suspect if you can't see/appreciate the deeper aspects of Orville, maybe YOU'RE the one who hasn't really been watching.

@Thespear said:

"But you are overlooking one crucial irrefutable fact: The writing, story and characterization on STD sucks. If it didn't people would be so hung up on the details."

There is no accounting for taste. You think the writing, story and characterization in DSC sucks, I disagree....profoundly!

I think what I saw in the first season is some of the best movie writing EVER seen on tv. Your use of the STD abbreviation suggests a clear bias ( no other series is referred to as STE or STNG or STDS9) However, if you want to take a clear unbiased look at the series I invite you to review the Episode " Magic to make the Sanest Man go mad" again. Using the well worn groundhog day structure, this episode is absolutely brilliant. It is original; touching; surprising informative about the crew, ship and themes of Star Trek; it is funny and tells an age old story and great to watch and re-watch.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with me, you probably have no idea what I am talking about, I just HOPE you MIGHT be curious to find out.

I fully admit I'm biased, as a fan of Star Trek. I've seen all the other movies and TV shows. You know how everyone agrees Star Trek 5 is the worst? That's because it's badly written. Discovery is Star Trek 5 with a better aesthetic. If you think this is "some of the best movie writing EVER" I have to ask have you seen The Expanse? Have you seen Altered Carbon? Have you seen Westworld? Have you seen 12 Monkeys?

Don't get me wrong, I did find the mirror universe episodes to be kind of fun, but overall it's a badly written show with an awful main character, and above all it's not Star Trek. It's Soy Trek.

And even ignoring what they did to Harry Mudd etc, who could forgive what they did to the Klingons?!?!?!