I have been told by finance guys that one of the largest costs involved with the operation of modern airframes is engine maintenance (which can exceed the hull value over its life). The frequency and expense of this correlates very well with thrust/EGT margins on takeoff, so unsurprisingly there is pressure from above to get the job done with the minimum thrust required to meet the regulations.
The performance people have had to get quite creative: we now have AT derates, fixed derates, improved climb, CofG adjustments, packs off, etc. sometimes all used at the same time.
I have noticed over the last few years the end of the runway becoming slightly more prominent on occasions as some of these measures have taken effect but as we are still meeting or exceeding the same requirements as before, it’s more a perception issue than one of safety.
Going back to the video in question, without the FDR and a whole load of other data, I couldn’t definitively say that something was *grossly* wrong with it. A marginally late rotate call followed by a slightly slower rotation rate would produce the effects noticed on the recording, with the correct thrust setting. If they’d carried on at treetop height for the next couple of miles, then yes but that didn’t happen.