Neil de Grasse Tyson is still on my 'to watch' list, but you may be interested in Brian Cox's 'Wonders of the Solar System / Universe' series. From what I've heard, Brian Cox is something of the British equivalent of Tyson. 'Wonders-' is a beautifully shot series that is both educational and remains impressive over a decade on (2010-2011).
The only thing that might be disappointing if you're already into astrophysics is that it's rather dumbed-down compared to his books, which are more earnest, closer perhaps in style to Feynman's Lectures.
I really like Brian Cox, but I do really wish he'd aim his content a bit higher and pack a bit more information into it. I hesitate to use "dumbed down" though (maybe I would if I didn't like him so much), more like it's just a bit too laid back and slow like it's aimed at people not really paying attention.
I feel like Brian Cox over-corrected as his career has progressed further and further into the "science edutainer" career. His early books were fascinating glimpses into String Theory and M-Theory and often got criticized for being too dense.
To be fair, a similar criticism is often levied at Niel deGrasse Tyson as well that his modern persona is too laid back and slow and aimed at people not really paying attention, but some of his early astrophysics stuff was dense and cool and you still get those glimpses when he is advocating for astrophysics content.
(Relatedly, it's a part of why I respect Bill Nye's late career attempts at aging his attempted shows up and advocating for things like climate science in them, even if those messages and content density sometimes sadly falls to bad or mixed reviews. It is impressive to see him trying.)
I think the divulgator role is necessary though. I like Neil's laid back & slow persona. He communicates for effect, glossing over details which would overwhelm casual audiences. He is emotional, grave or funny as needed. He simplifies where it's needed for a 40 minute episode of a show aimed at general audiences (like myself!).
I feel the role of science communicators/eduitaners such as these is to spark an interest in the topic. You can later go for details elsewhere, or even pursue a career in science.
Yeah, I agree there is a great utility to it, and it can be of great benefit. I also still think that it feels a useful criticism to keep mentioning as well because there's that always balance to strike in the huge wide spectrum between "mainstream and fluffy and almost void of content" and "deep and interesting but hard to follow and more clearly for a niche audience.
It's a bit of a hysteresis, right, of constantly trying to fight for that "perfect" (nonexistent?) fit of strong content to largest audience. Like with most science itself, you experiment with some content, use the reviews and criticism you get back to compensate for the next content. When I accuse Brian Cox or NdGT "over-compensating" a little to the broad it's not that I don't think they are doing the right thing, it's that I hope their next hysteresis swing might go a bit denser again and maybe criticism like mine will be useful if either of them read HN.
Similarly, I respect Bill Nye's attempts so much because it seems (from the outside, from mixed reviews I've read, from other people talking about the shows) to be, if not "failing" then certainly not as successful as they could be. As science reminds us, failed experiments are useful too, and I don't necessarily want people to believe in the boring null hypothesis that "People don't want harder science discussions" and I don't want for people like Bill Nye to give up on trying to broach the hard topics (like Climate Change and more science that should be mainstream but is fighting disinformation and/or disinterest). (Not that I think Bill himself would give up, but that it might discourage people trying to follow in Bill's footsteps.) I would love to see more of these "edutainers" trying to do the hard stuff more of the time, get a wilder balance/mix. I want to see more stuff in general in the spectrum as a whole. I don't think "celebrity" is necessarily zero sum and that these "edutainers" are competing among each other for the same audiences, but there does seem to be some scarcity factors for "celebrity scientist" at play to account for.
The only thing that might be disappointing if you're already into astrophysics is that it's rather dumbed-down compared to his books, which are more earnest, closer perhaps in style to Feynman's Lectures.