Certainly is...but resolution is also a marker for how a manufacturer’s camera technology keeps pace with the times...and with its competitors.The point is that FF 4K is not an impediment to creating great art, anymore than Ansel Adams' gear was to him. It is fair to say, "FF 4K is technically possible, gee it would be great if Canon offered this in their SLRs". But it is clearly NOT fair to say "These cameras suck because they don't have FF 4k/feature xyz". There is more to the quality of a video camera than how many pixels it can record, clearly - workflow, ergonomics, serviceability, etc. etc. could be many of the reasons why a camera with less capability in the area of resolution might be superior overall.
Kudos for all the docs being shot on Canon, but— documentaries of this sort are typically not resolution conscious. The usage of Canon cameras is indicative of the company making very reliable and easy to use products, not an indication that resolution doesn’t matter. If I shot longform docs, I wouldn’t reach for a RED, I’d reach for a Canon Cinema EOS. They’re reliable and easy to use. But the format begats using them, not on having the most advanced resolutions and formats.
So, suffice to say, this is also not a magic bullet to ward off customers complaining about the crippled video features— including resolution— of prosumer stills cameras.