Sound engineer here, laughing hollowly.

'They' have done this to audio for decades now. This exact thing, with the exact same motivations and the same result. One particular 'they' to watch out for is noted remixer Steven Wilson (of the band Porcupine Tree) who has been remixing progressive rock albums to more or less do this exact thing to 'em, and has covered almost everything by now, with his work outright replacing any way to hear the source material. Often the artist likes the sound being 'freshened up', and so it goes: everything's more plastic, year by year, with a bit more gloss and more of the reality sanded off and replaced with 'production'. You are always to hear a micro-surface of every possible sound as heard half an inch from your eardrum, all simultaneously, for 'clarity'.

This is a choice, of course. (it's also dated as hell, in my opinion, tying things to 'dawn of AI' with a heavy chain)

I can't help but sympathize. If an audio experience first came out and sold a million copies on a doddery old format which made a given amp, or drum, sound this large and this sonorous and that far away… for instance, consider Cream's Disraeli Gears album, where the mics were set up quite far away from the drums and instruments because the band were that loud that it was considered necessary… well then the experience might have played back (to the original listeners) as if the sounds were in fact many feet away, and very loud, and in an acoustic space of a given size. Realism.

Remasters and remixes have consistently, intentionally stripped away any such framing, to insist that any sonic detail must be closer and heard clearly. Rather than the sense of space predominating, or the sonic weight and pressure of the original capture, the sense of the clarity of the space and the amount of apparent detail on any given element must become more attention-getting than whatever previously seemed most obvious about the sound.

Wilson's very prone to this within the context of what resembles the original mix. He tries to honor the original mix but simultaneously strip away anything that detracts from the detail, so tone of voice is replaced by 'ability to hear the air passing over the vocal cords' and so on. Color of cymbal sound, replaced by ability to get 20k content and up out of that cymbal, and balance it correctly for if the cymbal was right in front of you. It's a sound that nearly any untrained listener would accept as 'more correct' because more is apparent.

If the movie, if the album, makes use of light and shadow, makes use of textures that are more foggy or grainy or vibey, that's simply removed. Nope! You get the clear and grainless version of that Rothko painting. Now it's really a consistent shade of color, and the edges of the lines are all cleaned up! You're welcome!

Nothing to do about it except hoard original releases, maybe show them to people sometimes (hey, kid, want to hear/see something really different?) and remember that you can still create new things without choosing the modern aesthetic.

Remember that a creator is aware of the voice of their chosen medium. Tastes may change, but when for instance the young Rolling Stones make Let It Bleed, which in its original form is quite murky and vibey by modern standards, and they write on the album sleeve 'to be played as loudly as possible', it's because they mixed and balanced it to produce that result from that medium, not because they had failed to make it Undercover (their 1983 album). They weren't looking for 80s or post-80s sound when they made Let It Bleed. It was what they meant to make at the time, through the voice of that medium.

In movies, the French Connection was intentionally shot handheld in many cases, and the director pointedly did not tell the cameramen what the actors were going to do or where they were going to go. You could quite easily AI the action scenes in that movie to make the cameras follow the actors better, frame them more dramatically and/or clearly, and produce action scenes where the handheld motion was stripped out of the shots and then, for instance, replaced with the shaky-cam of the Bourne movies, on the grounds that this was what the director would have wanted if he had known the Bourne movies would exist.

And in so doing, you'd so completely sabotage the intent of the director that it would be darkly hilarious, and it's very likely that if you played it for Bourne audiences they'd go 'yes, I like this. It's like that other thing I like! Good job repairing the old footage to make it better'.

When they have a chance to get work remastering something, and then sell it to you again, then yes… they want you to forget what a film looks like (and an album sounds like).