I’m hyped for this TBH.
IMO Dune is a 3 part story, where the first book is parts 1 and 2 and Messiah is part 3. Look at the book lengths and you’ll see what I mean, book 2 is obviously much shorter than the rest and a I kind of epilogue to the first book.
There are the other sequels, yes, with their own conversation about whether they’re worth reading. But in so many ways book 2 really finishes the story and idea of book 1 that I like to think of it as just part 3.
So that they’re doing a trilogy in the same way is awesome IMO!
Honestly it seems like an arbitrary line, considering that Herbert’s story continues for a few more books after that. The first two books could also be considered a good standalone (duology?), since they cover the span of Paul’s story.
Really, the only wrong answer is the first book alone. I think most people read only the first book and get the wrong idea.
And my opinion is probably an artifact of the fact that, when I first read the Dune books, there were only 3. Being a) young and b) a fan of sf and fantasy literature, I sort of assumed that the trilogy was the natural literary format for wide ranging stories. That thought process did make Children a bit confusing, of course.
Ultimately I agree that Paul’s story is the real thing they’re telling. I was just looking for clarification on the “trilogy” idea because of my own history with the series.