The 777 wing has several structural departures relative to the 787 wing (not the least of which is a wing fold mechanism) and even more aerodynamic departures. It even uses a different airfoil section than 787 and has a different twist.
You probably want to state "the 777
X wing has several structral departues", but it also has a lot of departures from the "classic" 777 wing. It has a different sweep, different area, different span. The trailing edge / high lift system is 787 style, completely different from the "classic" 777, pylon attachment is different as well, further outboard and with two diagonal braces instead of one.
The 77X wing is much more 787 than 777.
you will find many technologies/architectures that had never been used before on a commercial aircraft ... with only two conventional hydraulic circuits
You mean like the 737 since the 60s? Aircraft like 747 and L1011 had 4, the next generation had 3, now we have 2. That is no revolution, that´s the way you can go with more reliable systems these days.
I agree that there has been a lot of evolution compared to A330/340, but nothing like the A320 (which by the way has a very conservative, conventional structure), nothing groundbreaking.
Which also is true for the 777X, and does not necessarily mean that it must fail for this reason. A lot of very successful aircraft have just been evolutions or just state of the art design. A lot of revolutionary aircraft failed.
And if you consider "Pax Ex", I am certain that most passengers would agree that the A380 has indeed revolutionised long-haul air travel.
Compared to what the 747 once meant? I don´t think so. Except for the noise level, there is nothing special on the A380.