There's a semi-open (or is it fully open source? I forget, honestly) project called CeLtx that's cloud/browser-based and does a subscription SaaS. That's pretty up to date in terms of both functionality, networking and UX but I'm not that crazy about subscription models, it's like $1-200 a year which is fair, BUT you have to remember that a films are often made in the middle of nowhere and a cloud-based product is no good if you don't have reliable internet access. You're going to have to print out shooting schedules and call sheets on paper anyway because people want to be able to stick them in their pocket, scribble notes on them etc. If you can only access it on a device them you have to keep your phone or something charged all the time, ensure it doesn't break, and you'll get yelled at if your phone goes off in the middle of a take or interferes with the sound department's radio microphones. Time is money so a lot of productions ban cellphone use on the film set itself.
These in turn tie in (to some degree) with script editing tools like Final Draft (the market leader, though not my preference) for automatically breaking down a script. However, there's a limit to how much you can automate that sort of thing because there are so many things that wouldn't have to be spelled out in a script but which rely on a human reader's ability to make inferences - for example if you have a scene set in a restaurant then you have to plan for people in the background having their own meals and drinks (real bottles, fake beer and wine because you don't want them getting drunk), waiters need the appropriate outfits and accessories and so on. Of course you could automate such things for very common settings but then you'd spend just as much time correcting the computer's wrong guesses.
Incidentally that's always a dead giveaway of inexperienced filmmakers - the main characters always playing off each other in isolation, because the script doesn't say anything in particular about people in the background so nobody bothers to hire any. You need a lot of background people to make most locations seem real unless the story specifically calls for people to be isolated at that time. My hobby when I watch a boring TV show is to count the number of people doing background work - you never see them clearly but as soon as they're not then you start wondering 'why is this police station/ office/ street completely deserted?' If it's thinly populated and nobody seems to be doing anything in particular, that means the people sitting around in the background are members of the film crew.
I guess you could also use this software for other purposes, but it's heavily geared to film production needs, eg we use standard budgeting codes and suchlike.
It's not inexperience in that case. It could be the particular kind of experience the filmmakers have. It seems pretty heavy on former Buffy people, and that show was masterful in its use of a low budget. I do wonder if that experience kind of over-molded them all. Even Whedon is just now coming to terms with what he can do with an actual budget. Anyway, just musing.
Remember that they've been making films in Hollywood for over a century (the first short to be made there was in 1910 and the first feature in 1914) and it's a very incestuous industry, so you have a smallish number of people floating back and forth between multiple film productions and sharing their techniques with each other, and the fundamentals of film production haven't really changed all that much.
One upside of this is that you can very quickly tell whether someone knows what they're doing or not - scripts are formatted in a certain very particular way, there's a lot of set jargon and so on. As far as software goes, there's plenty of room for innovation (which I'd be happy to discuss) but you have to be 100% backward compatible with existing practices. Nobody wants to waste time learning something that fall short and result in them getting yelled at, fired, and talked about negatively, so people are pretty conservative.
Of course, Hollywood isn't the only industry like that. Most are, in my observation. One of the biggest challenges in B2B software is overcoming the incumbent, no matter how bad they are.
To be fair, I haven't seen a competitor to MM that blew me away, and MM has improved jussssssst enough to keep people from running away. The ipad version of Scheduling is certainly a step in the right direction.
It's an interesting situation, where it looks like there's space for a competitor, but there really isn't.