Originally Posted by janeway72
All they had to do to make it more believable was put the words "five years later" onscreen.
See, I know where you're coming from with that.
But, from my perspective there are a couple of points that push me in the opposite direction of that approach.
1 - It breaks the flow of the film and disjoints it from the film that has preceded it. If we cut to five years later then my feeling is that the audience is going to be asking why he's getting the promotion. We've just seen him in action but now we have a huge time cut and nothing to tell us what he's done in that time. For the 'flow' of the film it's better not to have another time jump.
2 - How do we know that there hasn't been a time cut between the scene prior and his getting given command?
IMO, from watching the film there is scope for a time cut of possibly quite some time from the Enterprise breaking free of the Black Hole and the final sequence on Earth. The writers are potentially leaving this vague deliberately to allow themselves future room for manouvre. Now, I know that some (particularly detractors) take it to be only days but it actually can't be. The Enterprise, which was damaged in several areas, has to have been fully repaired first for one thing. That takes time, certainly more than mere days.
It's a matter of interpretation. And things have been kept open just enough to allow more than one at this point.