I read the main trilogy many years back; why would a faithful adaptation be a problem?

In the book, Paul's nine-year-old son fuses baby sandworm larvae to his skin and becomes a worm-god-human-face weirdo.

I mean, I've seen Apocalypse Now, but I suspect the movie of that would be... unique.

That's in book four (God Emperor). Yeah I can't really imagine that being a good film. Messiah, on the other hand, despite being hard to read does have lots of action.

Isn't it Dune Messiah? The book is terrible and I've never managed to make it through a second time. Children and especially God Emperor I enjoyed quite a lot, though.

Yes it is.. I'm glad that it seems that he's cherry-picking the good bids from a few books to give us a potentially good movie.

You're not implying that the two firsts were strict adaptations in any way or shape, are you?

No I dont, and you're quite correct. I'm one of those weirdos who thinks The Lord of the Rings movies were better because they left out some things from the books, so I'm happy with both.

Oddly enough, I sort of appreicated the David Lynch movie more after the recent movies because not what I'm older, I sort of undersgand how hard it would be to make a movie anyways.

What's sad is that you can't help but wonder what Lynch could have achieved with the same runtime/monetary budget as Villeneuve...

(I like the first LotR movie and disliked the others btw; lost that "picturesque" quality and got too many battle scenes)

I found leaving out Alia way worse than leaving out Bombadil. Alia is one of the best things about the Lynch film, but for some reason precocial infant characters are a no no in Hollywood these days. I assume she will skip straight to being a teen played by an adult in part 3.

(As I wrote this I realised I could just look it up, she'll be played by 30 year old.)

Internal monologue is also a no no currently, which meant no banquet scene, which is one of the best parts of the book.