Whenever people see old systems still in production (say things that are over 30 years old) the assumption is that management refused to fund the replacement. But if you look at replacement projects so many of them are such dismal failures that's management's reluctance to engage in fixing stuff is understandable.
From the outside, decline always looks like a choice, because the exact form the decline takes was chosen. The issue is that all the choices are bad.
Sorry but thats just not true. Sure there are shit VFX films, but I guarantee that the "serious" movies that people hold up as "all in camera effects" have hundreds of shots with digital set extensions and all sorts of VFX magic.
If you look at TV, where there has been huge competition, the use of VFX has exploded, mainly as a cost saving, but also as a story enhancer. stuff that would have cost £20m ten years ago is being done for £500k. Thats huge innovation.
> remasters of 20 year old games because no-one knows how to do anything any more
They are remasters because the people putting the money up are conservative.
Innovation is happening, just not where you expect. Look at the indy games market.
Much as I don't like it, but a huge amount of innovation is happening in the world of youtube and tiktok. New editing styles, almost a complete new genre of moving picture has emerged.
Where there is competition, there is innovation.