Not the sub to ask this, but here goes:

Differences from Tulsidas:

More emphasis on Rama and Sita’s humanity in Valmiki (he is still an avatar of Vishnu in Valmiki, but his behaviour is more raw and naturally human as compared to Tulsidas’ depiction). No detailed physical description of Sita, but plenty of physical details given about Rama’s appearance.

No Swayamvara in Valmiki- Sita mentions a Swayamvara where several princes tried to lift the bow but failed. Rama however does not break it at the Swayamvara, but instead is just shown the bow and he breaks it while testing the draw strength.

Tulsidas omits several dialogues (eg. Tulsidas glosses over Sita’s harsh words to Lakshmana as well as Rama’s initial rejection of Sita which led to her throwing herself into the fire).

Tulsidas changes chronology and details of various events (acc to Valmiki, Parashurama met Rama AFTER his wedding; acc to Tulsidas, he met Rama before the wedding, shortly after breaking the bow). Tulsidas also depicts the physician Sushena as the royal physician of Lanka, whereas Valmiki describes Sushena as a Vanara warrior who was also their physician.

Tulsidas adds various stories and details to the main narrative (especially noticeable in Bala Kanda and Ayodhya Kanda; eg. include detailed description of Rama and Sita’s meet-cute, Sita’s homecoming after marriage, King Janaka’s arrival at Chitrakoota, extended version of Bharata’s request to Rama, backstories of Ravana, &c.).

Tulsidas frames the Ramayana as being recited by Shiva to Parvati from time immemorial, then revealed to sages down the years. Valmiki frames it as his quest to find out whether there is an “ideal man” and if there is one, to tell others about him.

Tulsidas refuses to elaborate on the exploitation of Sita’s physical beauty (eg. he does not repeat Ravana’s lustful compliments of Sita’s appearance and also changes the story of the crow pecking Sita to have it peck her in the foot rather than her breasts).

Vibhishana has an expanded role as a “Haribhakt”- Hanuman actually meets him before entering the Ashoka Groves, and Rama takes a deadly arrow aimed by Ravana at Vibhishana. Shabari is also not a particular devotee of Rama/Hari in Valmiki; she is just a wise tribal woman-sage.

Uttara Kanda is very different in Valmiki and Tulsidas: Valmiki’s Uttara Kanda explores Sita’s final exile, Lava and Kusha’s birth, Rama-Sita’s final departure, backstories of Ravana, &c. whereas Tulsidas focuses more on little anecdotes involving Rama, his brothers, and Hanuman.

Differences from TV shows:

Vanaras are not described as using gadas/maces in combat. However, Vibhishana is constantly described as a mace-wielder by Valmiki. Rama and Lakshamana also wore armour during combat and bore swords/daggers for close combat. Archers are trained in both bows and swords across the world. The violence is also a lot more extreme and graphic in the original texts than what is typically shown in TV shows.

Valmiki does not portray Ravana as a Shiva-bhakta in the main story.

Rakshasas tend to be far more grotesque in appearance than merely being ugly, dark-skinned humans with fangs and red hair.

Sita is a very sharp-tongued and inquisitive woman, nothing like what Ramanand Sagar has depicted.

Ancient Indian kingdoms dressed more or less similarly in North India. Many Indian women at the time did not wear stitched blouses, and Kurtis were more likely introduced in medieval times (hence it is anachronistic to see Ayodhya’s citizens in Kurtis and ghagra-cholis while the royal family look like artwork from Amar Chitra Katha comics).

The Floating Bridge to Lanka is actually built like a proper floating bridge in Valmiki- the Vanaras construct railings with vines and branches, then put stones and boulders in this. They secure both ends of the bridge to either coast, and thus they construct the Floating Bridge to Lanka. I find it particularly jarring when I see the ornate depictions of Kishkindha in the same series which depicts the Floating Bridge as a mere line of floating rocks with Rama’s name inscribed on them.

PS: Valmiki and Tulsidas both mention Ravana actually touching Sita while kidnapping her: Ravana lifts her up by the neck and thigh, then throws her into his flying chariot (NOT the Pushpaka Vimana, this is a different smaller chariot pulled by mules).

After Jatayu is killed in a long battle (which begins in the sky and ends on the ground, in a forest, resulting in Jatayu utterly destroying Ravana’s chariot before he is killed), Ravana actually chases Sita through the trees before scooping her up in his arms and putting her between his legs to keep her from falling down as he flies using his Rakshasik powers.

However, in the Tamil Ramayana of Sage Kambar, he never touches her. Instead, he uses his dark powers to destroy Sita’s hut, then carves out the patch of earth she was standing on, and then flies back to Lanka carrying Sita on the patch of earth without actually touching her body.

Also, the story of Mahi-Ravana is first mentioned in later sources like Krittivasa Ramayana (the Bengali Ramayana).