Jonathan Frakes Reveals Details On Second Episode Of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 2

Veteran Star Trek actor and director Jonathan Frakes was at El Paso Comic Con in Texas this weekend, and started talking about his upcoming directorial work on the second season of Star Trek: Discovery.

Last year at a convention, Frakes let the fact that Discovery was going to the Mirror Universe slip. Last month at another convention Frakes revealed he was returning “soon” to direct for Discovery season two. And today he’s teasing us again. TrekFM‘s Justin Oser was at El Paso Comic Con and has tweeted some of interesting tidbits that Frakes shared this afternoon.

Jonathan Frakes to direct two episodes in Discovery season 2

Speaking directly to Justin, and later during a panel, Jonathan Frakes revealed he will be directing not just one, but two upcoming episodes. He will be directing the second and the tenth episodes of Discovery’s second season. Frakes previously directed Discovery’s tenth episode (“Despite Yourself”), which kicked off the second chapter of the first season and started the Mirror Universe arc. Prior to Discovery Frakes directed fourteen episodes from three Star Trek series (The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager) as well as two Trek films (Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection).

Season 2, Episode 2 details [SPOILERS]

During the panel, Frakes also revealed some interesting tidbits about the second episode.

According to Frakes, Captain Christopher Pike (Anson Mount) sticks around for at least one more episode after the season premiere, which will pick up from the season one cliffhanger featuring Pike’s USS Enterprise. Episode one of the second season is set to go into production shortly, and will be directed by Discovery co-creator and executive producer Alex Kurtzman.

Anson Mount plays Captain Christopher Pike in Season 2 of Star Trek: Discovery

Frakes also told the crowd at El Paso Comic Con that the second episode in Discovery’s second season will include flashbacks of a young Spock and a young Michael Burnham. We have seen flashbacks of a young Michael Burnham (played by Arista Arnhim) before, in the first two episodes of Discovery (“The Vulcan Hello” and “Battle at the Binary Stars”).

An injured young Burnham is rescued by Sarek

While Discovery’s producers have said they are unlikely to recast Spock, it appears this reluctance is specific to the adult Spock, who serves on board the USS Enterprise under Captain Pike. We have seen a young Spock before, most recently in the 2009 Star Trek film, played by Jacob Kogan.

Young Spock in 2009’s Star Trek


Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on the Space Channel and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“We have seen a young Spock before, in the 2009 Star Trek film, played by Jacob Kogan.”

Also ST III and V.

And extensively in the Animated Series episode “Yesteryear”.

Good news. Discovery’s Mirror episodes were a colossal waste of time, but Frakes’ sharply-directed assignment was the exception.

The Mirrorverse arc was my favorite part the season

The Mirror Universe was also my favorite thing about the season. In fact, I was hoping that Discovery would remain in the MU, and the remainder of the series would be the renegade Discovery fighting for Federation principles in the MU while being constantly on the run from hostile Empire forces. Now, THAT would be a series I’d return for. But alas, it was not to be, so i’m not particularly excited for the new season beyond getting a peek inside the revamped Enterprise.

I wanted that too, at first. But then I realized that the current showrunners would inevitably twist all the concepts I hold dear – like wanting to preserve your country for your own kids; or wanting to live among people who share the same culture as you; or being able to defend yourself without having to worry about the well-being of the attacker – into some sort of “mirror” abomination. And let’s be honest here: do we really need an entire TV series dedicated to the idea that conservatives eat Kelpien? ;)

I’ve seen them eat much worse than that.

@Boze – Those concepts you hold so dear have been twisted by the Republicans and Trump and his ilk. In the real-world, those concepts have been twisted into a “mirror abomination” by the American right wing.

Also, there was no indication that “conservatives eat Kelpien” at all, unless you assume “evil person = conservative.” That’s your own baggage, not something the show said.

Your kind of nationalistic, bigoted, and violent concepts have NEVER matched up to Trek’s liberal idealism. Get over it.

“wanting to live among people who share the same culture as you”

Whereas I am glad that the showrunners took a firm, clear, and unequiovcal stance against such bigoted views, instead of turning the show into something wishy-washy designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator lest someone get offended and tune out.

If you don’t like it, stop watching, and don’t let the door hit your on the way out. Oh, and hand over your TOS IDIC medal while you’re at it.

Interesting. “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”… unless your combination disagrees with mine in which case you must be excommunicated. No wonder why most well meaning left wing movements end in totalitarianism.

The truth is, yes some cultures and nations and people are superior to others in some regards, and inferior in others. One shouldn’t be ostracized for seeing the results (not intentions) of diversity and/or globalism then coming away with an isolationist mindset. If the people of western Europe, for example, could see the results of opening their doors to their third world I highly doubt they would’ve proceeded as they did. Do you find as much fault with the Muslims essentially creating enclaves of their own in European nations, just as European immigrants did in America a century ago? Of course, they weren’t committing crime and violence at the same levels nor sucking the social welfare programs dry (mainly because they didn’t exist yet). It’s simple human nature to want to be around those like you. Considering the Intrepid, it would seem to be the Vulcan nature too. Perhaps YOU should watch more TOS.

It does seem very baffling to claim to be a fan of a very progressive show when you clearly hate what tbhas always stood for.

“If the people of western Europe, for example, could see the results of opening their doors to their third world I highly doubt they would’ve proceeded as they did.”

Indeed, how right you are. India, South Africa, and a bevy of other countries would have been better off without the British Empire.

“Do you find as much fault with the Muslims essentially creating enclaves of their own in European nations?”

For those that are doing that, yes. For the vast majority of Muslims who are not (such as many of my colleagues at top-tier investmment banks in the City of London who win for us multimillion dollar deals), no.

I remember watching “Balance of Terror” for the first time as a kid and the impact it had me when Kirk scolds Styles by saying, “There’s no room for bigotry on my bridge.”

Take a second and read back what you posted. What you hold dear is an isolationist, xenophobic society. After five decades of episodes which tackled such themes as bigotry, xenophobia and isolationism I’m not entirely sure you ‘get’ Star Trek.


I don’t think you understand the idea behind Star Trek.

I prefer Kelpiens to eat conservatives. :)

Then who would foot the bill for the liberals? Idea for new t-shirt: “Better Ferengi than Borg”

Most liberals I know work, thank you.

Be careful, you’ve just triggered all of the Freaks & Felons that make up the base of the Nu Left.

Ummm the far right has a habit of getting jailed for mass shootings and you say that a handful of counter protestors are freaks and felons?

“or wanting to live among people who share the same culture as you”

Uh then why in God’s name are you watching Star Trek????? Have you seen the show, the entire point of it is to expand beyond your culture and learn to accept and live with different people.

Star Trek is about different cultures sharing the same values. Thats the point. If you only want to live around people who come from where you come from you’re watching the wrong show entirely.

Except it’s not. Their mission is to explore, discover and establish relations with like minded and similarly evolved civilizations. It’s not, and was never, cultural assimilation. You’re thinking of The Borg, the galactic socialists. Yes, yes I know. The Ferengi are the galactic capitalists and that carries it’s own set of problems. Loss of individualism in favor of collectivism not being one.

Again, we’re talking about human nature. There’s a reason every major city has a Chinatown, a Hispanic area, a black area, etc. A century ago it was an Italian area, Irish area, etc. I never said I was in agreement with the previous poster’s views but to be sanctimonious and dismiss them out of hand is completely ignorant of reality. To bring it back to the world of Star Trek, I once again point out the all-Vulcan crew of the Intrepid. I don’t think the homogeneous nature of that ship necessarily means that those Vulcans were xenophobic nor did Spock’s decision to serve with a racially diverse group make him naive. Trek is big enough for everyone. The Jason Isaacs mindset of “screw you if you don’t agree with my views, I’m going to use my character as a platform to bash your views and if you don’t like it don’t watch.” That’s childish nonsense and the kind of thing that kills franchises. There’s absolutely no reason we can’t have two series simultaneously, each with it’s own voice/slant/core audience/etc. Perhaps Pike with a more testosterone driven rugged individualism type of direction and a lead more in the Kirk/Sisco mold. Star Trek should never be myopic or one dimensional. We can both throw example after example that proves Trek is America-in-Space or that it’s an informercial for socialist utopia. It’s both and neither. That’s what made it great.

Oh, BTW, Wonder Woman and Black Panther have yet again proven something. If the material is good, people don’t care so much about who’s playing what. But so far, Disco is closer to Ghostbusters territory.

Yeah it is. It’s called the Federation man. The entire point of Trek is that humans have lived to put aside petty differences and live together, ie all cultures not just their own. And some Vulcans are still racist but humans have gone beyond that.

That’s also why Earth is united under one government in it.

You’re seriously watching the wrong show if you don’t get this by now.

I think you’ve missed the point so I’ll try to keep this shorter. The Vulcan crew wasn’t racist at all. Actually they were logical. We all group together by race, language, religion, WHATEVER. Your over/misuse of the term waters it down to the point of being meaningless. If you believe Trek (and reality) should have equality, I’m right there with you. However, it seems like the modern left is more intent on tearing down the other side instead of striving for a meritocracy. There’s room for everyone who’s got the talent and drive. Those of us white dudes that lose didn’t deserve to be there in the first place. I think a Pike spin-off in the Discovery universe is the perfect opportunity to both showcase a strong female in Number One but still appeal to the aesthetic and thematic tastes of “old school” Trek fans. Michael Jordan once said that the reason he didn’t get involved in politics is because “Republicans buy sneakers too.” CBS-AA is hanging it’s hat on getting as much money as possible out of the hardcore Trek fans because it doesn’t appeal to the mass audience enough to be consistently profitable. Republicans like Star Trek too.

They have shown the Vulcans over and over again looking down on humans, from making fun of Spock for being half human to literally a separatist group who tried to kill Sarek because of his close relationship with them. How is that a ‘misuse’ of the term? No not ALL of them are like that (Sarek being one of the more obvious exceptions) but the point I’m making is they are more isolated and therefore more suspicious of humans as they been for centuries and don’t live like humans live in the 23rd century who has become more open and believe in a diverse culture, hence WHY aliens are apart of Starfleet even though its an Earth organization.

Its not that way on Vulcan for a reason. I mean Burnham was the first human to even go to their schools. I’m guessing the 24th century is different but we don’t know about Vulcans as much like we do in the 22nd and 23rd.

THATS what Star Trek is. All your other rant about liberals have nothing to do with the basis of the show. It has always believed in the fact human beings will come together as one and then accept other alien cultures with it. I mean TOS made that pretty clear.

Where did I ever mention the word Republicans or white dudes? That’s your hang up, not mine. I’m talking to the guy who thinks showing a multicultural community of ANY kind is somehow a slight against them. He could be white, he could be black, Asian or Latino, the point would still stand. And let me repeat, if you believe that you are watching the WRONG show, period.

They openly hated humans from day one maybe you didn’t watch very closely.

You do realize that the show was controversial for a racially mixed crew right?

I would like to add that Fromm what I could tell a running theme of TNG was that humans are superior to all other beings. Some may be stronger or have more evolved abilities, but humans can use logic, and care and be tolerant when all those other races don’t. Humans in TNG have represented the best of sentient species across the galaxy. Even in their acceptance of other cultures it comes across as arrogant. (Look at your backwards and unenlihtened laws, but we will show off our superiority as we will accept that you have a silly society).

If you want to stop being portrayed as bigots maybe stop acting like anyone different from you is a cancer.

And that is another thing they did wrong with the MU entries. The writers were essentially saying that the MU mirrors current conservative doctrine. Which in spite of the moronic speech evil Lorca made to connect the two is undeniably false.

And for the record I’m not even conservative!

Galt, do you need a hug? I’m here for you man.

I thought the Mirror Universe arc was terrific, and far more engaging than the Klingon arc.

Agreed. I loved the show when it was in the Mirror Universe. It was just OK to downright tedious when it dealt with the Klingons.

For me, the trip to the MU is what sent the show to the bottom of the sea. Everything that happened there was just dumb and it brought what little momentum it had to a grinding halt.

Discovery, before you can play in other people’s sandboxes, you need to earn your keep, which you haven’t done yet. Make your own stories please, and make them good.

And if they did the latter, they’d be accused of “This Isn’t Star Trek” – which they already get thrown at them.

They can’t win.

That is not correct. They most certainly could have won had they developed a coherent narrative that made sense. I’m still trying to figure out why the Klingons retreated from attacking Earth. Why was Vox created? To what end? What did L’rell gain from it? What intelligence was she able to procure? How did this transition help the Klingon cause? What were L’rell’s motivations? What were Voq’s motivations? There are so many haphazard plot points; too many to name. Burnham had no character arc, and yet the writers keep talking about her as though she does. The only theme I can take away from the show so far is that, if you want a second chance at life, hope that a craven, murderous mirror universe guy comes to your rescue. Is that the takeaway?

What this has shown so far is that Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts are hacks. Now, I hope I’m wrong, but it would have been nice to get a logical story before delving into Trek lore. It doesn’t really set anyone’s mind at ease at this point.

“I’m still trying to figure out why the Klingons retreated from attacking Earth.”
Because L’Rell had Qu’nos by the balls. The problem with that episode is they cheat time in a terrible manner.

“What were L’rell’s motivations?”
Numerous times it’s made clear, a unified empire and an honorable one.

“What were Voq’s motivations?”
Same as L’Rell’s + Revenge

“Why was [Voq] created? To what end?”
His direct arc is a bit weird, initially it seems he is there to destroy the Federation from the inside and get his revenge on Michael. However we also know that Ash did throw a wrench in their plans, which is why the prayer that L’Rell tries to trigger Voq with doesn’t work correctly, Ash has changed the conditions.

“Burnham had no character arc, and yet the writers keep talking about her as though she does.”
Wait wait wait, we go literally from her tossing out federation ideals to protect her crew, her ‘family’ to her coming to terms with her stunted emotions through interactions with the crew, to her finally saying that upholding the principles of the federation is more important than the federation itself surviving. We have her saying that if we don’t live as we say we do, live by the values we say we have, then what’s the point if we survive? It’s a her coming to terms with the ideas that the ends do not justify the means. Yeah, not exactly the deepest arc and message for Star Trek, but she definitely has an arc.

Mystica, Burnhams arc was completely unearned. We saw zero growth from her nor did we see how she was able to win over the crew that was initially not even willing to be within 3 meters of her. Then a couple of episodes later she was buddying up with everyone. This is one example of what was wrong with the writing and the plotting.

I agree to an extent. Because the whole jumping off point was that Michael caused the war with the Klingons, which she absolutely did not do.

Its like they changed their mind as far as what appeared on screen without altering the dialogue. Someone chickened out somewhere.

And since it was flawed from the beginning, her arc is not nearly as effective.

River, that is a very coherent critique of the first season. I 2nd every word you said about the shows flaws.

He has a valid point. There was a lot of revisited territory which is one of the pitfalls of doing a prequel. Had season 1 been part of an overall arc over several generations the idea of a prequel would have had much larger implications.

Each Star Trek has had a clear concept, even if it evolved. I’m still not entirely sure what Discovery’s now is since the original concept was abandoned.

I bet we see young Spock being a big meanie to little Michael.


Re: big meanie

Well, it certainly makes no logical sense that a bullied in his childhood Spock would. But if STAR TREK truly is currently operating under the infinite Spocks universe theory that some suppose, I guess anything’s possible?

” infinite Spocks universe theory” you say? Since when was this a thing?

Since the Walter Koenig-penned TAS episode ‘The Infinite Vulcan’? :P

I dunno. Everything related to TAS is a bit sketchy.

Michael is older than Spock, isn’t she?

I have no idea.

I’m still wondering why in hell someone thought it was a good idea to give Spock a step-sister. For all it’s claims of ‘boldly going,’ DISC is doing a pretty good job ‘borrowing’ and in fact altering, the established norms in Trek some of us have been watching for decades.

It was a great idea. Sorry you don’t feel that way.

A way to get TOS fanboys watching. Its not remotely necessary to have, especially as they made it clear we’ll never even see an adult Spock. That said maybe what comes out of the new episodes will be interesting.

But yes too much silly fan service. I’m so happy they never made anyone on TNG, DS9 or Voyager a descendant of someone from TOS which they could’ve easily done, especially on TNG. It just feels really lazy to me.

I agree. The Burnham Spock connection felt lazy. That said, Lathe was the best episode of the first season. So I guess it gave us that. But yes, as the season began it felt more like fan service than anything else. It’s like them bringing in Pikes Enterprise. Feels like fan service and writers being amazingly lazy. Like they know the show is not working and needs to connect to TOS more to keep eyes on it. At least, that is the impression.

Agreed Lethe was good but I still feel the connection thing was unnecessary. I think Sarek being her mentor works and could still have him vital to the show without wondering why Spock never mentioned a sister who was also in Starfleet.

In fact that entire episode I kept wondering why didn’t she contact Spock about it.

Well that’s the thing Tiger. The episode was so good I never thought about her contacting Spock about it. I was too caught up in the story. I start thinking about the plot holes when the episode is sub par. And probably upon repeated viewings. However, I have not given any STD episode repeated viewings. Nor do I plan to. They just haven’t been good enough for that.

See for me, I did though. Because I’m thinking if SHE would try and use a source of telepathy to reach Sarek but afraid of it may not work, wouldn’t it make sense his actual son who is also a Vulcan had a better chance of doing it?

Of course I get Spock was never going to be in the episode but a line of dialogue that they at least considered it before dropping the idea would’ve worked.

I love when people who post daily on a Star Trek discussion forum throw around the word “fanboy” as an insult. Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

Now…you can ask Fuller why he came up with all the goofy ideas he did. It seems illogical to assume it was an attempt to market to fans of TOS since Michael is an original character with only a very loose connection to Spock. It doesnt hold water.

I’m a huge DS9 fanboy. Its not an insult, just an observation. ;)

Exciting! Franks last episode of Discovery was one of its strongest.

Side note, I’d still love to see CBS do a Star Trek made for TV movie or mini series with Franks directing.

Agreed. Let’s hope there is a “Discovery” telefilm interquel between seasons two and three.

Makes sense to me. I think that this is a tapestry made whole by all means.

Best of luck, Mr. Frakes, and all others.

May the wind be at your backs.

So, the first Season 2 episode will have Burnham, Sarek (probably), Pike and young Spock…
Will this be a “your relatives tell your boss embarrassing stories about your childhood” situation for Spock…?
(Amanda did that already in “Journey to Babel”, so there is even a precedence here!)

Can’t wait to see little Michael and little Spock! Exciting. Really amped for this next season!

Fascinating. Now that we would see a young, teenage Spock in season two of “Discovery,” my pick: “Walk the Prank’s” Bryce Gheisar. What is your pick on who would play a young, teenage Spock?

Perhaps Tig Notaro can pull double duty and play young Spock as well as nameless engineer.

Wow…Jacob Kogan is 23 years old now! Time goes by in a fast, fast pace…

“While Discovery’s producers have said they are unlikely to recast Spock, it appears this reluctance is specific to the adult Spock…” AND they haven’t said anything about being reluctant to showing an adult Spock. Put two and two together… Quinto cameo casting coup, anyone?

They have said they don’t want to show an adult Spock and even referenced Quinto.

And I guess this will need to be said over and over, they will never cast Quinto because they don’t want to confuse the audience over the alternative universe aspect of the KT films and both products are run by two different companies. So he would be recast just like they did Sarek, Amanda and Pike.