What this show really is First, I wanted to address other people's ratings: I've learned on IMDb that anything that has ratings of either 10 or 1, with basically no area between, is almost always really good, with only the nonobjective people, hungry for attention, rushing to give it a 1 because they know better. If you claim to be so well-informed about the subject, of academic background, a scientist or a scholar - then how can you be so primitive to give 1 out of 10 to something based on 1 or 2 or 3 things you don't like about it? No matter how good your arguments are, how about being useful to others and as fair as possible while writing a review that should help people decide whether to watch it or not - and then giving it a 3, or 5, or 6? It's an option, you know.
Most of the people rating it badly don't accept this *show* for what it is. And it is not scientific-grade material, made for scrutinized review of the scientific community, nor an all- encompassing summary of the academic knowledge about the universe, including all intricate details.
What it is, is an amazing, awe-inspiring, life-changing and even tear-provoking experience for the mass audience - young kids whom this will inspire to learn, question and discover, and push boundaries; grown-ups who will be introduced to a world they never knew before and make them show it to their kids and think about their ability to answer questions about the world and universe, and support the kids in learning. As well as the elderly, who will be able to get a view on how far have we come, and hopefully recognize their, even remotely supporting, role in all of it and be happier or more fulfilled for it.
I don't care if it's better or worse than the original series - there are now 2 really great ones and that's all that matters - the amount of content of this type is so small, and making these subjects at least a bit more appealing by the show being new and visually attractive, is so valuable, given the noise and the lowliest garbage that consists the most of the consumed content nowadays.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the best possible host for the show. You can question his scientific achievements all you want, but he is the person who is giving science a much-needed face, in formats that matter today - social media especially. And deservedly so. He is liked and followed and considered cool by the younger population, and that enables the substance of science, scientific approach, curiosity and ever-expanding hunger for knowledge to permeate the wall of slur generated by the Kim Kardashians of this world and alike...He has presence, charm, wits and consistency - I loved his work as a host and am rather sure that he will not be a reason for a lot of (normal, mass audience) people to dislike the series, quite the contrary.
Some of the arguments against the series are understandable and respectable - but, in my view, there should primarily be support for this kind of engaging, life-enriching and truly cherish-worthy content, so that, hopefully, there can be more of it, and our children can be exposed to it as much as possible...Criticism can help make it be the best as it can be, but needs to be secondary - thus my resentment for people giving it 1 based on it "not going in enough details", "not mentioning the latest theory XYZ", "copying the original show", or whatever...
Even if I watched the original series and have yet to watch "Through the wormhole", I am so grateful for the opportunity to watch something like this in my life, and the way the show promotes hard work, curiosity, structured approach, but also kindness and awareness that each person can change the world if we help them to, brought tears to my eyes through the show. Can't wait to watch it again with my (now a baby) daughter in a few years...