> > Gollum: Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. I'd go so far as to say flawless.
>
> Nope, sorry, wrong. The back-and-forth cuts between "Smeagol" and "Gollum" arguing with one another had half the theater laughing in what should have been a serious, tense moment.

I disagree. The folks in my theater were laughing at the earlier self-debate scene, too. So was I. It was funny. Not just due to the back-and-forth cuts, either: the humorous angle was played up in more subtle ways as well. But it was also serious: the deadly import of that scene was not lost at all. It's difficult to intermingle humor and seriousness without compromising one or the other, but this was a scene that accomplished both. It was funny, yes, but it also set the stage for Gollum's self-conflict and illustrated not only why Gollum was being cooperative with the hobbits in the first place but also how precariously close to the edge he was to turning on them. At the end, of course, he *does*. You said that you liked that latter scene, but you can thank the earlier one that the latter worked at all.

> > Theoden: His restoration rocked.
>
> Nope, sorry, wrong again.

This sounds like a personal preference and is consequently not very arguable. I agree that the relationship between Gandalf and Theoden was simplified, but had I been making the movie, I'd have made the same choices.

> > ...which seems to consist mostly of arguing about whether or not the cause is hopeless.
>
> I don't know whether that's the reason, but those debates felt somehow lacking to me as well.

They didn't have anything to debate *about*. One character insists angrily, "This is hopeless!" as if the person he is talking to can *do* something about it. One or the other of the two should have been trying to argue for a particular course of action. A line from Theoden, "What would you have me do?" was well-placed. Fortunately, Aragorn had an answer, which mostly saved that particular argument.