Broadcast and reception
| Aggregate scores | |
|---|---|
| Source | Rating |
| Rotten Tomatoes (Tomatometer) | 71% [6] |
| Rotten Tomatoes (Average Score) | 6.33/10 [6] |
| Review scores | |
| Source | Rating |
| The A.V. Club | B [7] |
| Entertainment Weekly | B+ [8] |
| Metro |   [9] |
| Radio Times | [10] |
| The Independent | [11] |
| The Telegraph | [12] |
Television
"The Timeless Children" aired on 1 March 2020. [3] It is the second of a two-part story; the previous episode, "Ascension of the Cybermen", aired on 23 February. [3]
Ratings
"The Timeless Children" was watched by 3.78 million viewers overnight, making it the seventh most watched programme for the day in the United Kingdom. [13] The episode had an Audience Appreciation Index score of 82. [14] The episode received an official total of 4.69 million viewers across all UK channels and was the 30th most-watched programme of the week. [14] It was the lowest-rated episode of the show since its revival in 2005 after "The Eaters of Light" in 2017. [15]
Critical reception
The episode received a 71% approval, and an average rating of 6.33/10, on the review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes, based on 14 reviews from critics. The consensus on the website reads, "Its relentless plotting and exposition teeter on overwhelming, but a bold daringness to reinvent Whovian lore coupled with Jodie Whittaker's dynamic performance make 'The Timeless Children' a successful season finale." [6]
The Guardian gave the episode four out of five stars, praising Whittaker's "visceral" performance and deeming that the "finale takes audacious flights, rewriting Doctor Who lore to extravagant degrees, creating an alternative backstory for the creation of Gallifrey and a completely new backstory for the Doctor." [16] In a review for The Daily Telegraph , Michael Hogan praised the expanded roles of Graham, Ryan and Yaz, but felt the revelation was as confusing for the Doctor as it was for audiences, writing it was "the sort of "timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly" narrative tricksiness" that former showrunner Steven Moffat had been criticised for. [17]
Conversely, Patrick Mulkern of Radio Times said, while he could accept there being more incarnations before the First Doctor, he felt their origin story did "not make for involving television". He expressed various criticisms of the episode, calling it overall an "awful, boring mess", and concluded that the show "deserves –and indeed needs –a lengthy rest". [18] Caroline Siede of The A.V. Club similarly criticised several aspects of the episode, including the portrayal of Whittaker's Doctor as "a passive character". She also commented negatively on the "exposition-heavy pep talk" from the Fugitive Doctor, and said the episode's conclusion "doesn’t feel earned on either a character level or a plot one", criticizing the last-minute reveal that Ko Sharmus was part of the group that sent the Cyberium back in time and said the episode "undercuts the big heroic moment where the Doctor decides not to lower herself to the Master’s level of violence by having her happily accept that same amount of carnage so long as Ko Sharmus is the one pulling the trigger. Doctor Who has never been super consistent about the Doctor’s willingness to resort to violence, but the morality whiplash here is pretty unforgivable." She cited a lack of proper character development for Yaz. She felt it left "the biggest questions unanswered". [19] Devan Coggan of Entertainment Weekly thought it "a bold reveal" that the Doctor had lived numerous lives before the First Doctor, and praised Whittaker and Dhawan's performances, but criticised the reveal that the Doctor had previously been a woman as undermining Whittaker’s significance as the first female incarnation and thought that the Cybermen decked out in Timelord capes and regalia was "rather silly", and felt "a few other characters and plot points get lost in all the big revelations." [20]
Andrew Cartmel, a former Doctor Who script editor during the 1980s, was quoted as believing the episode "depletes the mystery" of Doctor Who stating "there’s a lot of detail in specifics, which is the last thing you want. Number one: it depletes the mystery, and number two: that was the chief failing of the Moffat era". Cartmel had previously planned to tease a backstory for the Doctor during his time on the show, dubbed the Cartmel Masterplan. [21] Steven Moffat defended the reveal of the Doctor's origins, and felt that the Second Doctor episode The Power of the Daleks implied the character had regenerated more than once before. [22] [23] The revelation that the Doctor had lived previous lives were negatively received by many fans and critics. [24] According to Screen Rant's Craig Elvy, many called the storyline "an insult to William Hartnell's First Doctor". [25] It proved divisive among Doctor Who fans, [22] [26] [27] so much so that the BBC put out a press statement in response to the complaints it received, stating “we understand that some people will feel attached to a particular idea they have of the Doctor, or that they enjoy certain aspects of the programme more than others. Opinions are strong and this is indicative of the imaginative hold that Doctor Who has – that so many people engage with it on so many different levels. We wholeheartedly support the creative freedom of the writers and we feel that creating an origin story is a staple of science fiction writing. What was written does not alter the flow of stories from William Hartnell’s brilliant Doctor onwards”. [28]
