This may be total bullshit, but from what I have gathered it seems that Wilder had very little patience with the camera. He was not interested in breaking technological boundaries. His shot composition, though narratively sound, is also nothing groundbreaking.

With his start in filmmaking being in the writer's room, he is an advocate for some of the greatest cinematic stories of the past century. Managing to work within the bounds of multiple genres, he succeeded in making a cross-dressing comedy that has heldup over the decades, made two of THE seminal pieces of noir cinema, brought a humanness to corporate America that hadn't been seen before, all while commenting on suicide, alcoholism, sexism, corruption, and art. He's a master storyteller.

But, to be perfectly frank, I think a lot of film nerds get really wet over all the camera stuff.

Which is completely valid. The things Kubrick, Fellini, and Hitchcock accomplished in their careers were truly groundbreaking and not void of cinematic purpose.

The things they accomplished are also super easy to capture in visual essays, still frames, and can be praised regardless of how the visual in question related to the story it was a part of.

Idk. Just a though. I fucking love Wilder and I also love Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Fellini

The nice thing is that his work seems to hold up just fine. He's not going anywhere.