It's been a problem w/ Hollywood movies since "home theater" came out. That is, a really boomy soundtrack adds to the emotional impact when you are in a closed room but in an open space where people come in and out (where there average TV is) it's totally inappropriate.
Systems like Atmos that decompose the sound track into components might help but they're likely to get used for the wrong reason -- in the last 10 years Hollywood gave up on making the vocals in movies legible, which has the positive effect that a lot of people are used to reading subtitles, which is why you can find subtitled anime [1], Italian crime dramas [2] and such in downmarket places like Tubi these days.
(Maybe it's why my acting coach who yelled at me to enunciate the same way my wife yells at horse riders to keep their heels down is here and not in LA)
[1] https://tubitv.com/series/2082/accel-world [2] https://tubitv.com/movies/571052/mafia-millionaires-subbed
Not just sound. Ever since HDR is a viable home theater option, new movies tend to get very dark featuring long runs of dark scenes with occasional blindingly bright scenes in between. If your TV screen is slightly subpar or the watching environment is even dimly lit, the movie quickly becomes very difficult to watch.
I know there have been multiple complaints that a theater in my area has the volume too loud. The staff reply is that it’s supposed to be loud. Gives the “you’re listening wrong !”vibes.
Makes you wonder: Who actually wants this (the loudness)? Theaters (and sound mixers) must think it's more profitable to blow people's eardrums out. Are customers really demanding this?
This is an more interesting economic question than it might seem. The customers are asking for it, but the real question is "who is the customer?"
The sound designers and mixers' customers are not the audience, it's the producers that hired them. They're also not creating just one mix, but up to one audio stream per every device and playback environment. The people that actually does that work is not always going to be the same as the ones doing the theatrical mix(es) or on the same timeline, and may be using a lot of automation to do it, or not doing it all.
That indirection and the way that incentives get twisted can lead to really good or really bad content, but the quality of it isn't really indicative of how successful it's going to be financially.
Good example of this is Wicked. Somehow, a musical in which you can barely hear the music, is clearing $700 million in the global box office and is going to be an awards darling. I have some suspicions about how the theatrical mix turned out so bad that has a lot to do with the economics of film production, but the gist is that whether something the audience thinks is "good" has nothing to do with what the producers paying the sound folks ask for.
There are the mixers and then there are the people who run the theater; the latter could set the sound to a comfortable and safe level.
I know enough about sound engineering to wire up the board for a concert but I hardly ever do it because I think most events have the sound levels 10-20db higher than I find comfortable, anybody I work with will push the levels up when I turn my back. I think they're all deaf.
In late middle age I know I'm finally slipping because I don't find hiss from tapes as offensive as I did in my youth.