Originally Posted by kevin
I've always wondered if he was one of the elements that Gene Roddenberry thought apocryphal about V, and I have a suspicion there will be no mention of him in this film.
Yep, according to an earlier edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Sybok was one piece of 'apocrypha' identified by Roddenberry.
The new movie doesn't need to declare that he doesn't exist
, it can just avoid mention of him. It's not like the film's gonna be a checklist for every little thing that is or isn't retained as canon in the new vision.
behind Sybok is an interesting - dare I say, fascinating? - one. It could
be used to good effect in a future story, if done right. I'm not saying it necessarily should be used, though.