The famous Powers of ten movie from 1977 was directed by Charles and Ray Eames. There had been a sketch version from 1968. More about this movie can be read on Wikipedia
Just three months ago and viewed million of times is the version. It is not bad, but it contains questionable statements end of the scales, where speculations and unscientific ramblings about multiverses have been included. It ruins a bit the otherwise very well done animation.
The original "Powers of ten movie" still today has artistic beauty, clarity and is free from speculative pollution. The problem with ``multiverse ideas", which are not part of science is that by definition, the universe is what we can ever probe by experiments. It is a concept which by definition has been excluded from being relevant to science. (If there should be ever appear that our space- time manifold is disconnected, and this would leading to effects one can ever measure in experiments, then by definition, the disconnected manifold would be the universe). While this only appears as a minor pollution of language (the definition of the word universe is very clear), it is much more serious as some proponents of multi-verse ideas even start to question the gold standard of what science is. It includes the falsifiability requirement, which is still one of the main tools to distinguish science from pseudo science.

[P.S. If a parallel universe would collide with us in the future, then in space-time, the two parts are connected and by definition form the what we call the universe. It is perfectly possible that this could be the case but it is now irrelevant without any evidence. Democritus speculated about atoms, but that was not part of science, it was poetry. There was absolutely no experimental evidence at that time that atoms exist. Only with scientists like Lomonosov, Lavoisier, Rutherford or Millikan atoms became part of science. They were all quantitative scientists. Not that Demokritus was nobody, he was a great poet. Maybe we will also in future adore the later ideas of contemporary physicists Alan Guth or Stephen Hawking as poets rather than scientists. Other proponents of multiverse ideas like Max Tegmark or Michio Kaku have already made their mark as great poets, educators or writers (but not yet as scientists). An other example: the insight that the earth is spherical could have come much before Eratosthenes, but it would have been of little value scientifically (even if an author of that idea would have been right). It was only with experiments done by Ersatostenes, calculating using an ingenious idea that the radius of the earth could be computed and that the concept of a spherical world became a scientific hypothesis (before that it would have been a fairy tale). Eratostenes was an example of a "quantitative story tellers". Before that, a round world would have been speculation. Building speculations is no problem. A computer can today generate a billion scientific concepts in a second. Almost all of them would be nonsense but by luck, one of them could turn out to be right. It is still not valuable until one matches it with reality. Generating ideas without scientific experiments is cheap. Its like generating art by a computer, without context. The fact that ideas which are not backed up by numbers are cheap can be seen from the fact that every scientist can come up quickly with ideas. But not many can come up with ideas which are quantitative and match the experiments. What will come of course is a time when we have computers help us weed out bad theories and find good scientific ideas faster. Einstein gradually became a quantitative scientist. Before the experiments confirmed his theory, the scientific community was cautious and sceptical. And this was the correct attitude. The real value of the ideas showed, when Einstein calculated the motion of planets using his hypothetical theory. He was able to get numbers which could be tested, again and again. If the numbers would not have matched, his theory (as beautiful as it might be) would have to be tossed into the garbage bin of physics and remain mathematics (a beautiful part of pseudo Riemannian geometry, calculus of variations or the theory of partial differential equations). Quantitative science and qualitative poetry also applies in Economics. Wassily Leontief did nice contributions to economics but what really made him a great scientist was that his analysis was quantitative. He was computing things (also with the help of a computer like the Mark II, a machine which was a bit stronger than than the Mark I).]
Good science is driven by quantitative ideas. Qualitative ideas rather belong to poetry. They can be beautiful and fill popular magazines but it is not science yet.