(Shrug) It seemed to work pretty well. The important part, both morally and practically, is how you treat your former adversary after defeating them.
Why should we give a bad review based on insufficient evidence?
When I hear how far into evil will somebody go, I think of an individuals choices to do evil for a perceived the greater good.
Kind of related, but not quite the same.
> “What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!
> Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.
> I do not feel any pity for Gollum. He deserves death.
> Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.”
And it was that small individual mercy that ultimately saved the world.
> You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power.
If these writers are using Tolkien's name without respecting his beliefs, even Tolkien might have given the show a bad review.
Of course that's just speculation, but only a rare storyteller can tell an epic tale that isn't ultimately resolved by superior force. If this show can remain faithful to Tolkien's vision, I'll be very impressed.