The "body of fandom," bloated with pizza, nachos, and entitlement, is far, far smaller than the echo-chamber shouters would have it, and Discovery is recovering nicely from its poor creative choices of Season One. It's an ongoing idiocy to paint diverse casting with a single brush and the high-sounding prevarications from the right still boil down to "cast white male leads or we will bawl our heads off and do everything in our power to torpedo you commercially."  

The writing on Discovery may not be particularly smart, but it is not a shade off of Berman, the characters are perfectly relatable, and the level of respect for what came before is about the same as the post-Henson Muppets. What's triggering the losers is the skin color and genitalia, the same charge they level at the casting directors employing people who, gasp, don't all look like Seth McFarlane and Adrienne Palicki. "You will not replace us! You will not replace us!"

Remember casting directors, the roly-poly chime ball "body of fandom" dictates the only brown allowable in lead roles be the color of their shirts.

Of course they are going to shoot down that kind of rumor... especially if it's their 'big bomb' surprise for the season.   SMG probably isn't authorized to spoil major plot turns, either.

Last season when Trek news sites were speculating about Javid Iqubal being a made up actor to hide the fact that Shazad Latif was playing two characters Latif also denied this in interviews.   I figure though, if you throw enough iterations of the plot points against the wall you are probably going to guess right at some point.   Same deal with a Michael/Spock hookup because that seems like the most logical "OMG, I can't believe they did THAT" type of attention-getting event modern TV writers seem to love.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if this M/S rumor turns out to be wrong but I won't be at all shocked if it does bear out.

Another case of The Next Big Thing being forced onto the fandom by making her integral to the story of a legacy character we actually do love. And, like a transplant gone bad, the body of the fandom is rejecting it.

------------------------------

(EDITED to add: I misread Greg's comment. I took the last line I quoted to be about the show itself, but realize now he was specifically talking about the Michael/Spock element of Discovery. I'll leave the rest of my post as is, but wanted to acknowledge my mistake.)

Greg, I know you very badly want this to be true, but I think your opinions are clouding your observations. It is undeniably true that many Star Trek fans, and many TOS fans like yourself simply do not like Discovery, as is your right. But to claim that "the body of the fandom is rejecting it" is not necessarily borne out of reality.

CBS has reported that the debut of Season 2 led to an even higher number of new subscribers than the show's first season did, and it has thus far been met with heaping amounts of praise from both fans and critics alike....the writing, the direction of Jonathan Frakes in the second episode, the casting and performance of Anson Mount as Captain Pike.The fact that the series is already getting its own spinoff with Michelle Yeoh surely shows that CBS is thrilled with its reception, yes?

I don't begrudge anyone for not liking it---the first season had its rough spots for me as well, and not everything worked. But I've been a Star Trek fan for over 35 years now, grew up with and loved the original series and its movies, and I love Discovery and its characters. It's the first Star Trek series I've loved since DS9, and I eagerly await each new episode.

I'd echo other comments made here that I'd rather Spock was left out of it and that the success of Anson Mount as Pike has been a pleasant surprise. I appreciate that they haven't tried to make the role to the MAX in any direction; just a good, capable, likeable character.

Saroo continues to endear himself to me, as does Stamets. They have slowly built up a half-decent cast of characters. And I look forward to the next episode. And the reveal of Jean Grey as the season's big bad. 

Well, that was interesting.  

If last week felt like TOS, then this weeks Klingon intrigue and Sec. 31 shenanigans were very reminiscent of TNG and DS9.   

Notes:

*In just under 30 minutes we transition from the incongruent Klingon portrayal of the first season into something that actually has some visual and spiritual coherence with the rest of STAR TREK -- yet it doesn't retcon that first season away.  Well done.  This is what the first season should have been.

*I'm happy to report that Klingon blood has now turned back into a shade of Pepto-Bismol pink.   

*A nameless orphaned child who has no right of parentage is sent to Boreth to be raised as a monk... how subtle!  (Hint: this is the same monastary where Worf witnessed 'Kahless' return from the dead).  

*Oh yeah and then there's the (subtle) Story Of The Promise from TNG "Rightful Heir":   

*(edit) Not to mention the criminal Klingon known only as 'The Albino' who tussled with the family houses of some of the TOS Klingons.   In particular, The Albino's parents were murdered by Kor's family.   (DS9 "Blood Oath")

*I wonder what Dr. Boyce would have to say to Pike about violating the confindentiality of Spock's medical records  (Then again, Boyce doesn't seem like one to always follow the books either).  Michael has no problems rifling through Spock's quarters in on the Enterprise in the last episode but now balks at decrypting his medical records?

*I'm not so sure I can reconcile Spock being a murderer, even if it happened when he wasn't of sound mind or posessed by some other entity.   Wouldn't something like that follow you around for the rest of your Starfleet career?  In the very least the fact that Spock might be capable of such violence would mean that he was not in any way suited for a command position -- he's still tehcnically guilty of manslaughter.   This show likes to give free passes to this sort of 'not-my-fault-because-it-wasn't-me' behavior -- witness Ash/Voq murdering a Starfleet officer yet he's not in a Federation mental facility but allowed to free and live on a non-Federation world.   (edit: It's probably going to be handwaved later as Section 31 trying to frame Spock)

*Spock's existential crisis sounds like a retread of the spiritual brick wall he hit when he failed to complete the Kolinahr and sought out V*ger in TMP.

*Can we stop the slow-burn buildup now and just have Spock appear and say something?   The longer they draw this out the more I'm dreading that Ethan Peck isn't going pull this off.

*Again in the vein of ENTs Vulcans-really-are-assholes concept we now have Logical Extremist groups who would resort to murdering a child.   The philosophy of IDIC seems to be ringing hollow on Vulcan these days.  Kind of makes the Romulans look like peaceful saints, doesn't it?

*So what did Michael do to Spock that was so horrible? (yep, it's pointing to either kissyface or kinky mindmelds -- yuck)

*Michael was actually well-written in this episode.  She's much more watchable and SMG seems to be acting a little less wooden -- I think the better direction and editing are helping this a lot.   The scene where  Michael talks Tilly through her 'issue' was pretty much perfect.  

*The continuation of Tilly's thread in this episode feels a lot less annoying than last week.   Still, man... she should be in sickbay under guard.

*Err... was that... Prime Universe Lorca with a shaved head on the Section 31 ship?   edit:  It's not, apparently it's a character named Leland.

This is patently untrue.  The first season of TNG was a rehash of TOS episodes. They then went on to bring back characters from TOS into their universe in an obvious bid to win over old fans like myself.  ENTERPRISE literally bent over backwards in an attempt to pay homage to/strip-mine the original depending on your particular bent. Every. Single. Series. Has evoked the concepts of TOS from TNG to DISCOVERY. Every. One. The only two series not to do that in such an obvious way were DS9 and Voyager and that's because they happened outside the Federation in small and large ways: one an outpost at the edge of space and the other in a different galaxy trying to get home.  

Your hatred for this content is obvious, Greg.  That you continue to follow threads about something you so obviously despise and yet haven't seen boarders on the pathological.  

This says more about you than anything else.  To a fan (and I'm not talking disgusting masochistic Reddit threads) I don't know a Doctor Who fan who doesn't like the new female lead.  We've tussled on SW before, so I'll leave it be except your insistence on Rey being a Mary Sue (your go-to in these discussions) or added at the insistence of the SJW. Ridiculous.   And then the audacity to lump all of that into a film you haven't seen with a female lead who has been the character for decades in the comics? Carol Danvers has been Captain Marvel for longer than you've been alive.  She started as Ms. Marvel in 1977! Seriously. What fan boards are you following?  Wow.

Two Star Wars films made over $3 billion dollars and the current Doctor Who is a smashing success.  I only wish I could create something that is so "rejected" by "the body of the fandom". 

Anyway, it did surprise me in at least a couple of ways. I'm glad that Spock still hasn't re-appeared, Pike continued to work well and the Tilly parasite actually made me squirm quite nicely. Nothing brilliant in this episode, but it worked well enough. 

------------------------------------------------------------ -----------

Matt, you make a bunch of sense nearly all the time, but I'm confused by what you wrote here.

Carol Danvers has been Ms Marvel for a long time. But being Ms Marvel is not the same as being Captain Marvel. She's been Captain Marvel since 2012 and Greg, youngster that he is, predates that I am sure.

I think it's only sensible and proper, though, that if someone is to be commenting regularly in this thread that they watch the show. Greg, you are an intelligent and articulate person, but you really do need to watch to the show to comment meaningfully!

That Marvel finally woke up & realised that a Female Captain Marvel should be Carol Danvers in 2012 reflects more on Marvel missing a trick back in the ‘80’s than anything else.

& Rey is not the issue with the new Star Wars films. For me, it was the portrayal of Luke in TLJ (together with the longest car chase in film history and the concept that freeing animals is better than freeing slaves). Rey I’m fine with & I really don’t get the whole Mary Sue thing. & I also liked the new Doctor, but then I didn’t really like Capaldi’s Doctor. So, you know, maybe I don’t fit the demographic mentality that has a problem with these things.

It’s a bit like belonging to a church with a female Pastor (my wife). You would not believe the things some male Pastors think are acceptable to say to her, purely because she is a female.

Why are some men so threatened by females in certain roles? Why do women in certain roles diminish some men so much?

Edit - I've debated with myself about asking this last question, but you know what? Sod it

How weak are you as a man, that you feel personally threatened by women in roles historically occupied by men? Why does a woman, over there, doing something that prevents you achieving not one jot, personally offend and threaten your sense of self?

This whole Mary Sue crap is a created concept by men that want to keep women down. That you cannot see that the action genre has been dominated by Joe Pete's (for want of a better term) is incredulous.

And if you are offended personally by any of these questions, then yes, you are the 'you' in those questions and need to rethink your view of women.

Whoever said current politics makes STAR TREK better should be dragged out back and shot... :-)

Also, hey, remember in reality when an argument lost merited an acknowledgement from the losing party and didn't simply result in hand-waving and the obnoxious discharge of further, unsupportable charges from the loser? Huh.

Those were the women he was saying to be quiet.

In any event, many of the conversations I have had with church ministers that are against women in leadership get quite interesting when the dichotomy of those same ministers allowing women to teach the Junior Church classes.

But, my example was not really about the church, it was an illustration of how there are many men in power that are threatened by women & feel perfectly ok in treating them like crap to their face. & I feel the whole Mary Sue thing is an extension of that