I see your point and I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I also think you're demonizing exposition a bit too much. Not because it's good, but I think you're hanging a bit too much on it. In terms of all bad dialogue being characterized by exposition, I would put it to you that dialogue can also be bad because the conflict being expressed is unnecessary or inauthentic.
Secondly, I don't think exposition is always insulting and I think you're taking it kind of personally. Sometimes a piece of information is important to the plot, but in terms of time it doesn't make sense to seed it subtly, or it doesn't warrant it. Maybe we actually have different standards for what counts as exposition. Because I consider anything that purely conveys information as exposition. So one character telling another where they need to go? That's exposition. To use star wars as an example, Obi Wan in Episode 4 telling Luke about his father? That's exposition by my standards. The scene around it is conveying more through nuance and is doing more than that. A whole SCENE that only exists for exposition and isn't doing anything else is a failure on the part of the writers because they couldn't find a way to inject it with more life and nuance.
In another example, I've been watching Star Trek: The Next Generation for the first time, and basically every episode has an exposition dump where they explain the weird sci fi anomaly of the week. I've been loving the show, but those pieces of exposition are absolutely necessary because there's simply no other way to get across the information that the audience absolutely needs to know.
It's funny you mention ST: TNG because I used to love that show when I was young - it wasn't until later watching it as an adult that i found myself fast forwarding through all the exposition. It was one of the shows that made me realize how much exposition diminishes the story. Understand, they did not have to use exposition, they did it to meet the run-time instead of telling a story properly. Honestly I find Strange New Worlds to be a much better written show with less exposition.
But you are right, it's one of two things I take personally in media. The other is laugh tracks. Laugh tracks are - if anything - much worse. They are telling you what to think. "We don't think you are smart enough to get these jokes so here is a laugh track to tell you".
Exposition can be occasionally excused in small doses - laugh tracks are unforgivable. It should be a jailable offense.
A few things though:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
To use star wars as an example, Obi Wan in Episode 4 telling Luke about his father? That's exposition by my standards.
Well, that's a tricky one - because Obi Wan straight up lies to Luke. Obi Wan is being an unreliable narrator of events. There is subtext involved in this exchange and even a certain degree of conflict. And him confessing the truth later also has a LOT of subtext that conveys his own disappointment in himself and Anakin. Especially in the second dialogue there is an attack/defend pattern to the dialogue. Reading the subtext - Luke - "You lied to me" - Obi Wan: "Yeah, I really didn't want to have to explain how much I fucked up"
Remember, exposition is purely factual with no subtext.
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
So one character telling another where they need to go?
Never needs to happen, because it's irrelevant to the audience. Have it happen off-camera and let the dialogue be about character development.
"Ok so how the fuck do I get there?"
"Oh, what, this your first visit to the depressing swamps of ass-smelling fungus? Not a typical summer destination for house fancy-pants? Let me point out some of the more scenic vistas for you!"
