Hey, it's all good. In fact, there is nothing wrong with having a slight apathetic view towards fiction. Not every one needs every little detail to be explained in order for them to enjoy it. I get that. In fact, I used to enjoy certain movies when I was younger. However, some of these flicks are no longer are as enjoyable to me anymore because I have knowledge of how things really work in the world now. Granted, no TV series or movie is going to be perfect. But in my extensive Trek experience: I believe there is a huge difference between the mistakes made in the other Trek series in comparison to the blatant and in your face canon breakers made on Enterprise. ...Now, of course someone who loves "Star Trek: Enterprise" is going to ignore or explain those mistakes on the show. I get it. If that works for them. I have no problem with that. All I am saying is that if they do decide to turn on their brain to explain Enterprise someday: that viewpoint is going to be fanon because the series really never properly explained it's existence within the Trekverse like JJ Abram's film or the other previous Trek series did
Well sir, I like you and I've had fun watching you analyze Enterprise, reading your posts is interesting and enjoyable. BUT, lately you've been throwing around comments about turning on and off the brain, or some such business, in relation to the E'prise (that's my new urban dictionary word for the show; feel free to use it at social gatherings). To me it sounds a bit elitist to say that because Enterprise didn't service your brain by telling you exactly how it fits into this Trek universe and didn't diagram all it’s motivations is a mark against the enjoyment of the show. Your use of the term “apathetic” I find a bit insulting and a little narrow minded… and pisses me off a bit, I don’t mind telling you.
Let me say this: I think Enterprise wanted to be on its own and not be saddled with other Star Treks, especially at first. It may not have had the same level of pseudo-scientific tech speak that prior shows relied on but I think that was the point. Archer and the crew were on their own, alone in space, they were the Lewis and Clark's of Star Trek. No huge Federation infrastructure or friendly planets, outposts, space stations, and fleet of sister ships jetting about to give support. Everything they encountered for the most part was for the first time. By design the show was showing us early Trek history when they were just fumbling around space the best the could in basically a big tin can without all the conveniences/contrivances of 23rd or 24th century Trek, by comparison they were roughing it. That's what set it apart, and that's what I respected about it, it opened up some very new ideas about exploring space when you’re out there all alone, Voyager at least had the newest 24th century technology and experience when they were lost in a new frontier. Enterprise shows us a simpler time in contrast. Less tech, less knowledge about what they were getting into, it was the like the first moon landing... and I'm sure all that can be debated, and might well have been, so stay with me…
BUT, when you say that it was somehow dumbed down, or less challenging, or that any fan who enjoys it on a different way than you is somehow less advanced, I have to say "Hold up there fella"... In Trek, it's the stories that are meant to challenge your brain not always the tech or its connections to all of Trek. The futuristic aspects are meant to be a plot device to tell the story. In TNG and so on, yes it was fun to see the crew come up with fancy science to win the day, but as should be pointed out, most of the science was theoretical at best... some of it was just made up shit, but that's okay, cuz it's a sci-fi adventure show, and at the end of the day it's meant to be entertainment with some interesting outlooks on our society and culture, where it's been and where it's going, where it is now. And in many ways those other Treks were too bogged down in the science, losing some of the essence of original Trek.
At its roots Star Trek is a sci-fi western and I think Enterprise tried to regain that frontier feel of being alone in the wilderness of space, trying not to get eaten by a moon bear and make peace with the natives the best they could while expanding their knowledge of the world/universe around them. And for once, to be a small fish in a huge pond full of bigger fish, using their wits and limited resources to survive on a mission to explore and gain further knowledge and understanding. But it’s concept is still quite high-minded. More so than other episodic shows about bedhopping and back stabbing (although, I love that stuff too, no one is too smart to enjoy some silly fun) Perhaps, early on, Enterprise tried too hard in some cases, and not enough in others, failing a bit and stumbling some. But it did try to show us a different Trek without all the lifelines of advanced tech and weapons, because it was about the people. Enterprise was a work in progress as were all Trek shows. The Xindi arc is the best example of Enterprise dealing with a threat bigger than themselves and trying to figure out how to solve the issue with pure bravery and hopefully peaceful understanding and diplomacy, which of course didn’t always work. They were so over their heads, and had to make hard choices to not just survive but save the world without a Galaxy Class starship and a space experienced ultra commander like Picard to resolve the Xindi conflict. It's those limitations that create a writing challenge. Trek has always been about humanity and how we get along and work together to survive and how we handle huge adversities even among ourselves. Trek is about moving beyond what holds us back and moving forward, and living better for it. And never let it be forgotten that Trek is concept laced with adventure, not purely science and technology. The very relationship of Kirk and Spock illustrates the dichotomy of Trek and is the blueprint for the concept itself…
The foundation of Star Trek is a simple concept with the option to over think it, but never to lose sight of it’s true meaning or message… but no matter, as long as you remain respectful, all opinions are loved. But it should have nothing to do with the intellect of one type of fan interest over the other, we are all different and diverse (learned that from Star Trek I did). To be a fan, in fact, is to be somewhat obsessed or fanatical (as its word has its ancestry) but all minds can respect what Trek is, and none should be diminished out of a simple differences of interpretation… In fact, I may wonder about someone who needs every little thing explained to them... but I'm just saying.
Personally, I don't think Enterprise should be considered only as a pre TOS show, even in our real world life our culture was vastly different 100 years ago, even 50 years ago. Enterprise was the "Little House on the Prairie" of Star Trek, it was not a dumber show and no less poignant, it may in fact have been a bit smarter about itself than TNG, DS9, and VOY... it was a different show; it was its own show.
And to speak of art, as with all art: Enjoy it or not on any terms you wish, but no one has the definitive view, all art exists as personal interpretation... without that: art dies.
Your interpretation of my comment is that my view is "apathetic"?
You appear to continue assuming that a positive opinion of Enterprise requires an absence of all intelligent thought on the part of the viewer. That is simply not true. 
