I think people don't talk about it much anymore because there aren't really the kind of technical leaps that make 'updates' worth it.
Your first image, for example, is a pretty clear improvement. Perhaps there are some details about the game itself that someone could nitpick (such as that mesa in the lower-right that wasn't there in the Famicom version), but it's a pretty objective improvement.
Your second image is a bit more difficult, since it goes from a 2D overworld to a 3D one. The Famicom one looks better than the GBA version, but that's partially because all GBA ports are lighter than their SNES version to compensate for the shitty lighting of the original GBA. Even then, the GBA still has lower fidelity. The PSP has the "best" graphics in that it isn't a jaggy mess like the PS1 was, but it has the issue of the character sprites completely clashing with all the new assets, which is an issue the PS1 didn't have as much. The change of 2D to 3D is a much bigger change than simply updating the texture, and is arguably a bad decision.
Meanwhile, nowadays I can pirate a game that's over 10 years old and it looks pretty good. It might not be as crisp or overdetailed as games today, but if it has a good art style then it probably holds up.
This is the part where you start posting the Bamham remaster comparison shots to shit on modern remasters for somehow making older games even BLURRIER AND UGLIER than they were before. This same problem also applies to the most recent FF & DQ remakes.
I dunno. Graphics are gay anyway.