In my mind McCoy had an extramarital affair with Nancy that contributed to the breakup of his marriage.
If this were post-2009 Star Trek, or even DS9 on and onwards, I would see your point. But for TOS I think the story telling was such that main characters were viewed as too heroic to have broken such vows, or really any vows of any kind. It is not unrealistic that real life heroic characters have major flaws in other areas, but I don't see McCoy being with Nancy Crater while married to someone else, or even Nancy Crater being with McCoy while he was married, as something TOS would have ever done.
Could the same not be said, to a greater or lesser extent, about any such ‘character of the week’ that appears in a multitude of Star Trek stories?
For TV episodes, a guest character coming to the forefront is common, in TOS did that less that other shows. For a TOS movie, letting a guest character come so far the forefront might be a problem for some. I did not really notice how much screen time and lines Sybok got actually, until I ear it here.
In my view, as portrayed, Sybok seems to act totally honest...to what Sybok believes he is doing. It is we, the audience who realize, as you point out, that some form of mind control is taking place. It seems Sybok is telling the truth from his perspective, that he is helping others who then join his quest, but it is obvious to someone outside the situation that they are falling for a kind of trick.
Kirk is the one who sees through it...and as filmed Spock does, too. Spock knew Sybok and found a place with the Enterprise, so he can get free from Sybok's "help," and Kirk was one of the last to be offered "service" from Sybok, and by then he, like the audience could tell it wasn't really "help." If not for the "I need my pain" speech, and the fact that in this movie Kirk is a bit grouchy, Kirk is actually largely lucky that Sybok did not try to "assist" Kirk sooner.
Maybe some folks need to see Sybok to get rid of their hatred of Shatner. LOL.
The idea that this script is created to make Kirk look strong, specifically through the process of making others look weak is factually incorrect.
Kirk is supposed to look strong through the idea that Sybok is so strong that Sybok influenced everyone around him in a semi-religious way, and only Kirk sees through it. That is the intention, even if it does not come through on screen.
I'm not making that up, nor am I saying that as my analysis of the movie: Shatner himself explains this in Star Trek: Movie Memories.
If you don't like the movie because
you think it tries to make Kirk look strong by making others look weak, then that is certainly valid movie criticism of the kind that this is a place to share. But to say that Shatner was motivated that way is just incorrect...unless you want to argue that he was intentionally putting half-truths in his book to hide it, and given the way he portrays his Star Trek V experience in the book that is--unlikely, because he admits plenty of mistakes.
The idea of the movie's threat to the Galaxy being a man who fancies himeslf a religious leader and who convinced most people he meets to join him, is not a great plan for a movie that the studio wanted to be "fun." Arguably the idea that Kirk (and Spock) are super strong because they resist him does not come accross well.
To insert a bit of analysis at this point, I think the reason that this movie can be misinterpreted as
intending to make others look weak, is that, for Kirk to look strong by Sybok being very strong, it requires the audience to believe that Sybok actually has that much power. I can accept that a relgious leader could affect people this much and, if ill-meaning, perhaps even well meaning but doing the wrong thing, could lead others astray. But even accepting that, I don't think the movie does a good job portraying that. I'm just glad that Kelley and Nimoy fought to make their character stick by Kirk. Shatner's idea of having them be broken apart by this man was not a good idea for a Star Trek movie, or episode, or novel, or comic book, or video game or...
