Based on what you've written and what I've seen online I'm pretty sure this will be a great camera & system (I really want some of those lenses, especially the 70-200!!!) but it really seems more like an evolution on multiple fronts of existing capabilities already out there. That can make for a much more useful tool, but it just doesn't seem to get to that revolutionary level of the 5D mkII which personally was one of those big moments for gear:
I was in art school when that camera came out and we had some pretty nice dedicated video cameras at the time but they were completely blown away by the 5D mkII. Before that IIRC the nice camcorders under 3k which could shoot 1080P were 3CCD Camcorders that had super zoom lenses so while the Canon EOS lenses themselves weren't revolutionary for photography having access to them on a 35mm sized sensor for video was. Anything remotely close to that kinda control of the depth of field just wasn't possible without spending huge amounts of money. It's hard to understate what it meant in terms of the huge improvement of quality of what you could create on your own and those ~4 years they owned that market.
And man shooting ultra wide is a whole different can of worms, in my work I need to do it usually angled up and sometimes with my subjects off to the side which means all sorts of distortion that I need to deal with in post or try. I basically jumped in head first I think 2-3ish years ago now? And I've had to learn a few new skills both in shooting and post plus change up my gear a bit.
But as someone who shoots with a Tokina 16-28 F2.8 from what I'm seeing in that video for most people that work with this sort of lens like the Canon looks to be again evolutionary VS revolutionary. The biggest thing to me would be the ability to use filters and for some the conversation can stop there because they need that and this gives it to them. Otherwise the slightly wider zoom range and 100g lighter weight are both benefits as is the IS (but other models out now have that, though not as good as the Canon's). I have no complaints with my current IQ or AF but improvements are always welcome especially if you have a 45MP sensor (I use 24's). But other than a situation which required a filter which isn't often for me this wouldn't get me the shot VS the older ones especially since I usually have to deal with motion, it just might improve it a little bit over what's out there now VS whole new shooting possibilities. The same goes for 8 stops of IS, that'll open up what you can do but as you go out further on that front and need completely still subjects it makes it great for those specific use cases but those niches are getting more and more specific.
This general theme continues with the 24-70 F2.0 though it does offer a bit more compared to current lenses with its' range/aperture. But the jump from F2.8 to F2 isn't anything like the jump for affordable video back in 2008. It's giving you more in a single lens but between the Sigma 24-35, 24-70 F2.8's and the various primes which fall into this range so most shots are possible, what you're getting is a more versatile lens with the Canon but nothing totally new like in 2008. Now that versatility can make it a 1 lens solution for some videographers which I don't want to minimize as it can be a game changer for them but it is a different kinda leap.
Since I shoot wide to ultra wide in very very low light I have my own very niche needs in cameras so I totally get seeing X as a game changer for your work, the way I'm viewing it is more how is this changing things on a larger scale?
I also did a bit of digging and Netflix's first shows came out ~5 years after the 5D mkII so that's not the fairest benchmark for the camera, but back when it came out you had House as the big splash for Canon's marketing (and if you watch the later seasons they REALLY used that shallow depth of field) along with movies like Elysium, Thor, and even more recent ones like Mad Max Fury Road used the mkII.
I think the big thing is we're just at a point now where amazing gear is available from pretty much any manufacturer, and what was once absolutely revolutionary is now standard. So now the big thing is to get that extra bit of performance out of a specific niche. It's just getting harder and harder to make that splash and other manufacturers are usually there to compete with them much faster which is all great for us consumers. It was just what a year ago where the Canon mirrorless bodies were missing some big things VS Nikon/Sony and with this camera they look to be catching up and 1 uping them on video, and I'm sure they'll have their response in a few months, and on and on it goes and we keep winning with better gear to use.