I didn't catch up with the Wyler version until the AFI Top 100 list and its been awhile since I've seen it and when you get to be my age, and having seen so many movies that for every movie I see now I forget two so I really should revisit it
Supposedly the reason Wyler only did the first generation was because he thought the second-generation part was too bleak but the movie he made was plenty dark.
I appreciate having strong affection to a book and wanting to honor it by being as faithful as possible but I can think of so many examples of films that aren't faithful to their source material and are just brilliant - Cronenberg's THE FLY, Kubrick's THE SHINING, Spielberg's JURRASIC PARK, Robert Wise's THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, Scott's BLADE RUNNER, Verhoeven's STARSHIP TROOPERS, most of the really good James Bond movies are nothing like their books, etc. Lynch's DUNE was (reasonably) faithful to the book (which is a top five book for me) but I actually prefer the Villeneuve ones now even if they are much looser with the source material. And then there's the new wave movements in Europe and Asia that were heavily influenced by studio films from Hollywood but re-interpreted them into something new and exciting. And then the New Hollywood movement was influenced by those New Wave movements and turned everything on their heads in the best way possible in the US. It's always going to be worth it to try something different because if it works, now you have something new you love which doesn't take away the love you feel for the book in the first place. If it doesn't work, you still have the same love for the book, that won't change.
Maybe it will suck and maybe it will be good, but what I hope I am doing is encouraging you to let go of your expectations just because they can trap you sometimes. Thats human. Thats why it took an alien muppet to teach me to "unlearn what you've learned"