If anybody's talking out their backside...the new announcement does NOT provide any support at all for the idea Canon is splitting video from their DSLRs. You are reading something into the announcement that is not there - there is no reason to suspect that they are making a departure from their recent trend of adding video (which is basically "free value" for Canon to market the cameras with) to an otherwise conventional DSLR. You are basically stating that Canon is likely to make an about-face on DSLR video despite just having announced a sweeping concentration of multiple camera lines in the 1D X...and yes, it shoots video, too.
I was also surprised by your rabid reaction to bornshooter's really uncontroversial statement that the 5D Mark II put Canon on the map with amateur filmmakers. This is a simple fact. Before the 5D Mark II, Canon had no professional cinema video options of note - they had TV zoom lenses, but no system, and the TV zoom lenses are not adequate for choreographed productions (i.e. no easy and accurate focus pulling - and they certainly aren't handholdable). They offered no option for shooting HD video on any of their DSLRs (and neither did anybody else). Even today the 5D Mark II, first DSLR with HD video, remains the first choice of many (if not most) DSLR video users. I don't see why bornshooter needed to be beaten down for pointing out what is true and obvious.
Oh wait! You must be pushing an agenda which holds that video on DSLRs is useless and adds cost you don't want to spend. Great, but your pleas are drowned out by the sound of cash raining into Canon's vault with their new hybridization program. If anything, I would make the counter-argument that the more people who are invested in the EOS system, the better our chances of seeing the traditional system survive the onslaught of mirrorless cameras and get new features that would be useful for stills shooting (like fast Live View AF, hopefully, eventually). I also don't think that video controls burden DSLRs in any meaningful way - if anything, Canon (and the other video DSLR manufacturers) has taken steps to make sure it does not fall afoul of regulations that would make it more expensive to purchase (i.e. the EU video tax).
You're right - this camera may not be the 5D Mark III. There are some good reasons to think it will not be a 5D III (more on that in a moment). Canon certainly will wish pro video shooters would buy the 1D X instead. However, this camera is clearly not going to be the 1D X, or else they would have announced this feature with the 1D X announcement (ignoring the problems this would cause for keeping the lid on this new video system launch). Canon has been working on 4K video in a near-DSLR size for a while now - if you recall, they showed a "complete" 4K system in New York a while back. This new DSLR with 24Hz / 4K video may only appear at the time when the successor of the 1D X is announced, so perhaps it could only appear in the successor for a 1D X. (CR Guy talks about this briefly on the homepage.) It could also appear in a "real replacement" for the 1Ds (although this falls afoul of the rule not to read into things what isn't there - Canon has denied that the 1Ds series will be continued, so they would have to hedge their bet on the 1D X and backtrack from this position - I also don't see how a high resolution, 1D-series build-quality camera would make 4K video easier to achieve unless they add even more powerful CPUs to the mix - and the 1D X already is using a pair of a more powerful variant of DIGIC V, so...)
I think that Canon has taken the position that video performance should not impair the shooting abilities of the camera. It would be easier just to make a 4K sensor and add some big, power-hungry CPUs and large hard drive interfaces (not to mention fans and batteries) to a DSLR and say "this is what you get if you want 4K video!" That, however, would be passing up an opportunity to make every DSLR from their brand a more compelling purchase than the next manufacturer's. Canon could have done that with the 1D X, which would have been the closest match we're likely to see outside a new low-end camera (like the T3) for a match between usable pixel count and 4K resolution - newer cameras will almost certainly have higher pixel counts.
Instead, Canon has taken the view that you can get there by intelligently sampling the sensor to get high-resolution video with newer CPUs and without needing a special size of sensor or crippling the camera for stills. This makes perfect sense if your view of a video DSLR is of a camera that can easily be set up and is perfectly usable as a stills camera, so it becomes a purchasing bulletpoint for people who would not go out of their way to buy a video system but who would use video on their DSLR occasionally (or who want to get close to cinematic quality without the cost of a true cinema system). Even if Canon had ignored this and had gone for the best stills-only camera without any video functions (which wouldn't gain very much, since shooters today still expect Live View), other manufacturers would have, and this would set Canon R&D back by the simple fact that there would be fewer sales coming to the EOS line than to other manufacturers who would move to fill the gap. There never really was any chance Canon was going to let the "DSLR video revolution" come to a quiet early death.